[BruceBanner]

Grab a 50mm macro and step back. Or an FA 35mm f/2. The edge to edge sharpness and geometry of those lenses would exceed the Ultrawide solutions. Also if the 24-70 seems pricey - stay away from the DA* 11-18 - I suspect it will be similarly pricey. It will also be bulkier than the existing 12-24 f4 as it is an f/2.8 constant aperture zoom.

I have a 56/1.6 Macro that is the lensbaby velvet 56, It actually has very good edge sharpness when stopped down, F8 and F16 and the swirl effect is practically gone. In addition to that I have the HD DA 35/2.8 Macro, it works reasonably well on FF so I am hesitant to replace it with a similar Focal Length. I considered the FA31/1.9, but even stopped down to f5.6-8 I am unsure if the edge sharpness is up to par, or if people look too weird and distorted...

Good to know the DA* 11-18 is likely to be heavy and bulky. How good is the 12-24? Perhaps that's a better trade in for the Sigma 10-20?

I believe for the job at hand you're probably all set.



That's one of the best surprises in all my testing in 2018. I love this lens. Its review is upcoming and it's quite positive. Sadly it's expensive but in my opinion it's worth it. It's as close to a Limited as anyone not Pentax ever produced, I think.



I'm not familiar with the Sigma, I'm guessing it probably has disrottion. The 24 should be fine, I think.



I don'T want to do your shopping for you. You seem to like those two lenses. To replace them with something more useful, the first question would be what do you usually do with those lenses (and do you want to keep doing it)?, and the second would be what can't you do that you'd want to do?

I would like to hear more about the Laowa 12. Do you think it might be suitable for group portrait work, or just too wide and distorted (even though it has fine edge sharpness)?

Rectilinear wide angle lenses distort the edges. The wider they are, the more they distort. You can't escape that. Even the Sigma 35 Art and FA31, both of which are very well corrected and not particularly wide, are not forgiving of human subjects in the corners.

If you want a distortion free group portrait, use a normal lens (or longer) and step back - a long way in the case of the classic massed school portrait.

Obviously, for the sample shot in post #1, that was not really an option unless there was a pier nearby, so you're just going to have to wear the distortion or bunch the group towards the centre.

Of the lenses you own, the DA35 macro on the KP is probably your best bet. If you really need to shoot with something very wide, the DFA15-30 is sharper corner to corner than your Sigma, and the versatility of the zoom range makes the price and size worthwhile for me. Mine is considerably better at 24mm than my DFA24-70. In some ways it's even better than my FA*24.

You're getting some great results already, and I presume you're also getting regular paid work now. Surely you can justify investing in a primo lens to up your game, at least in the near future.

I am really not keen on a 24-70, not when I am happy with FA77 and HD DA 35 Macro, I feel I'd really be doubling up on focal lengths and I just adore primes too much to see them go...
The 15-30 has caught my eye a number of times, as well as it's price tag! No... not that rich yet for that one, but it's size is also a massive turn off.

I have the advantage that I do have a KP and a K-1, I don't mind seeking out a DA/Crop lens for this task if FF just seems too expensive/difficult.

I'm glad you brought up the FA 24*, I've been eyeing that up as well as the FA28, the one thing I don't like about the A24/2.8 I have is lack of AF, so those lenses have attracted my attention also. I'm just not aware of how well it manages edge sharpness or distortion. However a recent thread about the A24/2.8 and the Orange markings suggest I can just throw it into F8 and stand a couple meters back and be fine, no need to worry about focus really for a group shot etc.

I'm also glad you brought up the FA31 and Art 35, they are future purchase contenders, but not if they distort at the edges overly...

I know you're no fan of the HD DA 35 Macro sitting on the K-1 vs the KP, but do you think that might be a wiser decision in this instance? I think I've linked you examples whereby a crop of 16:10, some PP removal of vignetting and I'm getting around 28-30mp for the shot that looks fine. Or even use Crop mode on the K-1, use the guidelines of the crop mode and have everyone in that crop zone, then at least I get 16mp of goodness with sharpness throughout (as I'm really not touching the edges at all!). My concern with it on the KP and similar framing is I end up with less mp (if aiming for similar edge spacing), or if I try and get everyone in at 24mp (a tight crop) some will be less sharp on the edge or distorted?

Not really much paid work, some family shoots here or there, nothing that allows me to give up the day job. But that's ok with me right now, I still feel I'm riding the last leg of the learning curve, I look forward to 2019 when I actually actively seek work (as up till now it's been work of mouth).

I wouldn't use an ultrawide, Bruce, just do what the pros do - a quite normal lens, well stopped down - and move back. Even then, there will be a little fall off in IQ towards the edges, so move a little further back to give yourself a nice safety margin, and crop. Two umbrellas to either side of your tripod will give you the even lighting across the frame the parents are after.

Thanks for the advice clackers. Can you elaborate on the two umbrellas trick? I've not heard of that before.

I would also mention the Pentax 24-70 for versatility if you are using full frame. I have a 16-85 that I use with lights if required on my aps-c camera bodies, but if using full frame the 24-70 might give an edge having the F 2.8 advantage, though if more depth was required with groups you may not necessarily use the F 2.8. Still, if you are using full frame, the 24-70 is a versatile and effective tool, and would handle groups plus individual shots in a splendid manner. My Pentax 16-85 handles a lot of situations also. I keep flashes handy if I am getting images of people when using it.

16-85 I have not considered, thanks.

[swanlefitte]

Yes Spinal Tap

[C_Jones]

The 16-85 does an excellent job. It is one of the reasonably recent Pentax WR lenses and is F 3.5 - F 5.6. I have done portraits with it of single and group subjects without flash in good light conditions and the results are great. With flash or flashes it performs brilliantly also. I also use it for landscape shooting. It is currently listed new on the market for approximately $496.95 (B and H and Amazon).

[BruceBanner]

The 16-85 does an excellent job. It is one of the reasonably recent Pentax WR lenses and is F 3.5 - F 5.6. I have done portraits with it of single and group subjects without flash in good light conditions and the results are great. With flash or flashes it performs brilliantly also. I also use it for landscape shooting. It is currently listed new on the market for approximately $496.95 (B and H and Amazon).

I am currently out of a WR lens... so this is an attractive option. However it's a DA right? KP is not WR, K-1 is, so I should probably go for a 28-105 in that case...

[clackers]

Thanks for the advice clackers. Can you elaborate on the two umbrellas trick? I've not heard of that before.

Because it's not a sitting on Santa's lap session, one flash and overhead umbrella won't cut it, two will be needed for such a large group as a class.

[BruceBanner]

Because it's not a sitting on Santa's lap session, one flash and overhead umbrella won't cut it, two will be needed for such a large group as a class.

Yeah, so you mean two flashes with umbrellas each side lol, not just umbrellas on their own (which is what I was thinking you were alluding to, some kind of 'even distribution' of natural shaded light or something (think 'large hood' to the left and right of camera)

[C_Jones]

I am currently out of a WR lens... so this is an attractive option. However it's a DA right? KP is not WR, K-1 is, so I should probably go for a 28-105 in that case...

Yes, it is DA. I use it on my K-3 II. It also has a DC (direct current) AF motor, which is highly reliable and well built. which the 28-105 also has. The 16-85 is an HD (high definition lens coating) lens. I would see it as the more suited for group lens than the 28-105 due to having the 16 wide end, and the 85 end provides nice shots also.

I would agree with clackers that if appropriate lighting is not already available, 2 lights (or more depending on group size) for lighting a group would be helpful. Modifiers to disperse the light such as umbrellas or softboxes are valuable in that type situation also. Simple umbrellas can do very well.

---

Last edited by C_Jones; 11-14-2018 at 06:25 PM.

[clackers]

Yeah, so you mean two flashes with umbrellas each side lol, not just umbrellas on their own (which is what I was thinking you were alluding to, some kind of 'even distribution' of natural shaded light or something (think 'large hood' to the left and right of camera)

(Laughs). I think when somebody specifies a setup with a beauty dish or a gridded softbox, they don't mean there's nothing inside them!

BTW, for an individual portrait on a sunny day, a standard white translucent shoot through umbrella can be pressed into service as a scrim.

[Sandy Hancock]

KP is not WR

Says who?
I'm taking mine to Antarctica in a week or so....

[C_Jones]

It is WR. Spec listed at URL listed below.

PENTAX KP

[Docrwm]

It is WR. Spec listed at URL listed below.

PENTAX KP

But I just read on the interweb that it's not!

[C_Jones]

The Ricoh site defines it as being so in the product description. As in the URL I listed. "Compact, Weatherproof, DSLR" in subtitle and "weather-resistant design" in description statement.

[BruceBanner]

Says who?
I'm taking mine to Antarctica in a week or so....

Remembering to swing by here and collect me on the way?

It is WR. Spec listed at URL listed below.

PENTAX KP

The Ricoh site defines it as being so in the product description. As in the URL I listed. "Compact, Weatherproof, DSLR" in subtitle and "weather-resistant design" in description statement.

Ok... big woops. Just goes to show how little I have really faced the rain in these parts. Funny thing is, my black K-1 screams WR, the Silver KP just doesn't. It looks full of 'gaps' and places water could creep in :/

Nice tho! That puts the DA WR lenses back in as a contender!

[C_Jones]

That is right. I think you might be surprised at how nice the images are that the Pentax 16-85 takes. I love mine. I have that on the K-3 II, and on my K-1 II I have a Pentax 70-200, both of which I also love.

Good luck with your decision. Like I said, the 16 end is really good to have if you come across a group situation, and also for landscape..

[BruceBanner]

Ok... I've been watching various Wide Angle and Ultra Wide angle reviews of lenses all morning and this is the conclusion I'm coming to.

Wide Angle is just not good for a group, or rather it's not good for a group shot where you are not leaving enough space from the people on the edges of the group shot to the edge of the actual shot. If they are close to the edge they will look weird and distorted, even if they are sharp as is some cases with certain WA lenses.

Fish Eye is out, because after looking at half a dozen hemi corrected shots I still think it looks a bit bizarre, not the kinda look you really want for a school class shot (unless someone can convince me otherwise).

For me, I like a decent gap around a group photo (if space restriction is not an issue). The shot on the boat above I was indeed unable to back up further, but another meter of backing up and I would have had a better frames shot as well as less distortion to the outer edge chaps.
Thankfully I should have plenty of room to back up in for the school photos as they always seem to be held outside.

So then... if aiming to have a group class shot that easily has a persons width between the outer edges of the people in the shot to the edge of the frame, still wanting fantastic uniformed sharpness across the frame, something that won't distort etc... what's a good prime lens?

I say prime as it just cuts down size and bulk, as all my other lenses are primes also.

So... is going to 20mm too far? 24? 31? 35? At what point does distortion kick in near the edges? Hmm....


Perhaps time to grab a green DA 21?