[clackers]

I find the new 50 is beautiful for portraits at f1.6, 2.0, 2.5. It can be hard to hit the right spot with the standard AF, since the Pentax focus dot is big and blurry.

Be careful, Dofmaster, have you ever seen diagrams of a camera's AF module?

The camera doesn't focus on a spot, it focuses on a vertical or horizontal line.

That's your challenge as a photographer.

[dofmaster]

Be careful, Dofmaster, have you ever seen diagrams of a camera's AF module?

The camera doesn't focus on a spot, it focuses on a vertical or horizontal line.

That's your challenge as a photographer.

Sure, I think this video is a good explainer:

You Tube

You Tube

In my experience, the size of the AF spot (I say 'spot' because of the viewfinder display) is larger than what is indicated in the viewfinder, and sometimes my K1 will lock on to a high contrast background rather than the subject, especially if the subject is low contrast.

Given that the eye is often smaller than the AF 'spot' (let's assume it's a cross point), then that can be a problem.

If you have a large and well-defined catchlight in the eye (say shooting with natural or continuous lighting), then you have a better chance of locking on to that eye. Which is kind of neat because it suggests you should situate your subjects for pleasing catchlights.

[dofmaster]

Would love to see some shots, care to share?

Not quite there yet - my one studio shoot so far was the first in a new studio that I'm still setting up and getting a feel for.. Plus my lens may need AF adjustment by one point, I need to double check. I'm thinking that I will send my K1 in for the upgrade and the lens at the same time and ask them to calibrate it.

[pakinjapan]

Thank you @ dofmaster
It is an Interesting test. I read that the 3 sibling F, FA and DFA 50 macro are using the same lenses design. I have the FA version.
I try to see images in Photoshop, turning on/off layer many time without look at lenses data first, and I thought the f2.8 image I like from the first set were taken by the new DFA*50!!! I guess now I can say that I am a proud owner of the the FA50 macro.
The second set is a lot easier to tell. The out of focus area from the second set looks very familiar to my eyes. The 50 macro will produce that type of bokeh sometime. Just have to find a better angle to avoid nervous bokeh like that. DFA*50 seem to be the bokeh king. It can produce smooth creamy bokeh wherever whatever it is pointed at.

[RobA_Oz]

I read that the 3 sibling F, FA and DFA 50 macro are using the same lenses design. I have the FA version.

I have the FA version, too. As far as I can tell, the D FA version is a simple rebadging of it. Have a look at the Lens Reviews here. The D FA entry states that the three are optically identical.

[cyberjunkie]

The 50mm macro was my go to prime lens for portraits, and I've taken some beautiful portraits with it, so I guess it made sense to me.

I could also do a comparison gallery that shows how similar these lens also look for portraits! f2.8 on macro is very thin.

You can take portraits with ANY lens.
Some of the best portraits I've seen were made with lenses that would be considered a joke by today's standards. It is also true that some beautiful B&W portraits of elders I've seen were shot with very sharp optics (but in general I prefer some nice softness for portrait use).
What never changes are the laws of optics. A macro lens, focused at a given distance, has the same depth of field of any other lens of the same focal/speed, bar none. Even a specialized soft focus lens just adds halo, superimposed to the sharp image. The only thing that can change is the acceptable circle of confusion, that in analog times changed according to the format/enlargement. I'm not sure if in digital times we can consider it completely true...