[pepperberry farm]

If it were me, I'd be going to flicker and typing in the name of each lens in the search engine. The cheap and dirty way to see what any given lens can do.

that's a large part of the research I do when looking at lenses - I don't want what words you use to describe it, show me shots taken with it....

---

Last edited by pepperberry farm; 05-31-2019 at 01:45 PM.

[zapp]

Just wondering why you are going into Pentax when you are happy with your 58/1.4? What lens, what camera, what feature is pulling you towards Pentax?
Simple answer is, if you go into Pentax, there is only a limited choice of portrait lenses. D-FA 50/1.4 is full frame and if you zoom with your feet, it has the same angle of vierw as the 58. The 55 is not really a FF lens, but will do the job. I found AF less precise than with the new D-FA (but on different cameras). FA77/1.8 has great looks, but completely different set of controls and af conpared to D-FA 50 or any moden NIkon lens.

[pres589]

This sounds like a job for... the F 50 1.7!

[normhead]

Look at the weight of the Nikon 58 (905 grams). His Pentax choices for something similar will be the DFA* 50 or the new DFA* 85 1.4. He also said something about weddings. The K-1 is designed as a field camera. It has limitations that make it less than ideal for weddings. One of our forum wedding photographers has already stopped using his K-1s for weddings and gone to a Sony A9. I've used mine for a wedding and it was fine, but a long way from ideal as a wedding camera. Winder and I both noted about a 40% keeper rate. I always shot a 3 shot burst and one was always good... I had something to show for every set, but Winder reported a keeper rate at closer to 90% when he switched to an A9.

As a wedding camera, the K-1 is a great field camera.

[pres589]

I don't think the light weight and slim dimensions of the F 50 1.7 should be held against it.

I don't know exactly why but I cannot take this thread seriously. I mean, I don't want to take anything too seriously, but this all seems like a joke of sorts. OP could do one of two things; rent a K-1 and DA*55 and see what it's like to shoot with, or scour Flickr and other such resources to see if it's even worth bothering to do that other thing I suggested. The DA*55 seems like a great lens (I've never used one) but it isn't *that* sharp wide open and it seems like sometimes OoF highlights come out rather busy (like the FA 43). This isn't such an issue with Pentax 50 1.7's which is why I've mentioned that option.

[normhead]

I don't think the light weight and slim dimensions of the F 50 1.7 should be held against it.

I don't know exactly why but I cannot take this thread seriously. I mean, I don't want to take anything too seriously, but this all seems like a joke of sorts. OP could do one of two things; rent a K-1 and DA*55 and see what it's like to shoot with, or scour Flickr and other such resources to see if it's even worth bothering to do that other thing I suggested. The DA*55 seems like a great lens (I've never used one) but it isn't *that* sharp wide open and it seems like sometimes OoF highlights come out rather busy (like the FA 43). This isn't such an issue with Pentax 50 1.7's which is why I've mentioned that option.

I only have a DA*55 because I dropped my 50 1.7. It rolled off the kitchen table. It still works for manual focus.

The last wedding I did with the K-1 it was used on 90% of the images, along with the Sigma 70 marco.

[pres589]

I really really like my M 50 1.7. The F 50 1.7 I have is a styling nightmare (like most all of the lenses is the F series) and has an awful manual focus ring. But it still delivers the goods as a lens. I wish they had done an F or FA version of the M 85 f2 (although I'm probably in the minority on that).

[stevebrot]

FA77/1.8 has great looks, but completely different set of controls and af conpared to D-FA 50 or any moden NIkon lens.

Oh no! Are you saying that I have been doing it wrong using the same controls and AF as with lenses actually made for my camera?


Steve

[repaap]

Look at the weight of the Nikon 58 (905 grams). His Pentax choices for something similar will be the DFA* 50 or the new DFA* 85 1.4. He also said something about weddings. The K-1 is designed as a field camera. It has limitations that make it less than ideal for weddings. One of our forum wedding photographers has already stopped using his K-1s for weddings and gone to a Sony A9. I've used mine for a wedding and it was fine, but a long way from ideal as a wedding camera. Winder and I both noted about a 40% keeper rate. I always shot a 3 shot burst and one was always good... I had something to show for every set, but Winder reported a keeper rate at closer to 90% when he switched to an A9.

As a wedding camera, the K-1 is a great field camera.

K-1 is not made for bursts, it is for well timed well trained couple shots at time camera. Add well planned use of flash or flashes and, yes you could do even weddings. I know what you mean, but it is horses for courses(or something like that). Lot of things is just knowing what you want ’n what is your style. If that is not enough, try harder

[normhead]

K-1 is not made for bursts, it is for well timed well trained couple shots at time camera. Add well planned use of flash or flashes and, yes you could do even weddings. I know what you mean, but it is horses for courses(or something like that). Lot of things is just knowing what you want ’n what is your style. If that is not enough, try harder

The thing is, you can get it done with a K-1. I've shot exactly this one wedding in the last 25 years, there's no need for me to own a "wedding" camera. It would never pay for itself.

I don't know how many weddings I'd have to shoot to invest in specialized wedding gear, but I know I'll never achieve it. My K-1 easily handled some near impossible shooting conditions with ease.

[pres589]

Does it get better if we were talking about the K-3 II or KP inre: weddings?

[normhead]

Does it get better if we were talking about the K-3 II or KP inre: weddings?

The K-P should be about the same as my K-1 the K-3 not so much.

I wouldn't push the ISO to 1600 for this shot on a K-3. (My preferred up limit for the K-3 is 640 ISO). But that's my preference I'm sure others might go higher, and with good NR software get good results.

[fehknt]

Is AF a must for your shooting style? The older Takumar 55/1.8 or the Helios 58/2 may suit your rendering desire better from what I've seen on the Nikon 58/1.4. Can share a couple photos if you're curious but I'm guessing most wedding shooters would insist on AF

[Sperdynamite]

Re: why am I looking to get back into Pentax.

I used to have a K-5 and I really liked it. At that time Pentax was doing the Fuji thing saying they would never make a FF body. Thus I went back to Nikon. Nikon treated me well for a while, it's really the ideal wedding system, and I'm not fully leaving the system since I own an F6 which I will never sell.

I do a TON of DSLR scanning. A lot a lot. I've long been wanting a K-1 to get around bayer type sensors for scanning.

I also just loved Pentax limited lenses. I've really wanted to get a Pentax film body and the trio of limited lenses for a while to do my fine art reportage work. The K-1 I'll use for scanning and the weddings I still shoot, along with a D810 and a medium format digital rig I have. Once I get the K-1 I'll sell the Nikon macros I have. I'll likely hold on to my Nikon AFD lenses, and invest in the Pentax 100/2.8 Macro for scanning. Then I'll get the 31 and 77mm lenses. Eventually I'll get the 43, but to start the 55 sounds more useful to me as a wedding/portrait all-rounder.

I no longer have my old 58mm Nikon. It does not focus well on an F6, and the expense of the lens keeps me from having it around just for the dozen or so weddings I shoot a year.

I own a lab called Northeast Photographic. I scan film with two Fuji SP3000s, along with a camera copy rig for E6 film, large format, and certain fine art applications. A stitched, pixel shifted scan is likely to rival Imacon level scanners for quality.

[dcpropilot]

Although I have the DFA*50, when I had the 55 its rendering and colors were outstanding. I'm even thinking of adding it again to my collection.