[jawats]

All,

I'm going to do some family (my family) portraits and family group shots. Everything I've read on here says that "portrait" length on my K-1 FF should be 85 - 135mm. Does this make sense? I've also seen the Tamron 70-200 2.8 recommended, but that's a wee bit more than I want to spend. I see quite a few lenses on here, Pentax and third-party, in the 85-135mm range that are below, say $400, and also well-liked for portrait. Examples are the various Pentax 100mm, the Tamron 90mm, and the various Tokina / Bokina / Elicar, etc. 100mm / 105mm.

I would tend to think 85-105mm if I'm looking for both portrait and groups, esp. if I have limited distance (where a 135mm could become iffy). Do I have the range about right? Any other thoughts?

Thanks!

[pschlute]

All,

I'm going to do some family (my family) portraits and family group shots. Everything I've read on here says that "portrait" length on my K-1 FF should be 85 - 135mm. Does this make sense? I've also seen the Tamron 70-200 2.8 recommended, but that's a wee bit more than I want to spend. I see quite a few lenses on here, Pentax and third-party, in the 85-135mm range that are below, say $400, and also well-liked for portrait. Examples are the various Pentax 100mm, the Tamron 90mm, and the various Tokina / Bokina / Elicar, etc. 100mm / 105mm.

I would tend to think 85-105mm if I'm looking for both portrait and groups, esp. if I have limited distance (where a 135mm could become iffy). Do I have the range about right? Any other thoughts?

Thanks!

There are portraits and there are portraits The 85mm FL is my favourite for face and head and shoulder/half body portraits. You are not too much in the subjects face, and you dont get the unflattering distortion (think large nose syndrome) that a much wider lens can give. Depending how much space you have to work with a 135mm FL is great too. For group portraits 85mm may be too narrow depending on available space, the 135mm will certainly be.

The other consideration is lighting. If you intend to use a single camera mounted flash (with a diffuser or bounced) you dont want to go too long with your FL or you can find that your flash is too far to properly light the subject.

But before you go and splash out cash for a "portrait" lens, what do you have in the way of lenses at the moment? Any lens can be used for portrait shots, although very wide and fish-eye are probably not the best choice. The key to a good portrait shot is lighting, either natural or artificial. The next most important thing is background, either studio style backdrop or well chosen outside scenery (avoid trees growing out of peoples heads). I would suggest that the lens itself would not feature too highly on my list of important considerations. I say that as someone who does use two of the best regarded FF portrait lenses, the FA* 85mm 1.4 and the FA 77mm 1.8 LTD.

Finally I would suggest experimentation with a head-sized stand in model like a cuddly toy first, so you can see what depth of field you need to achieve the result you want. Focus on the eyes, but make sure that everything in front (nose) and rest of the head is in focus too (use a narrow DOF if you wish for a more dramatic shot, but tread carefully or your image will just look unfocussed).

ps. I have very little experience of human portraits.....most of mine are the fluffier variety ......

[jawats]

There are portraits and there are portraits The 85mm FL is my favourite for face and head and shoulder/half body portraits. You are not too much in the subjects face, and you dont get the unflattering distortion (think large nose syndrome) that a much wider lens can give. Depending how much space you have to work with a 135mm FL is great too. For group portraits 85mm may be too narrow depending on available space, the 135mm will certainly be.

The other consideration is lighting. If you intend to use a single camera mounted flash (with a diffuser or bounced) you dont want to go too long with your FL or you can find that your flash is too far to properly light the subject.

But before you go and splash out cash for a "portrait" lens, what do you have in the way of lenses at the moment? Any lens can be used for portrait shots, although very wide and fish-eye are probably not the best choice. The key to a good portrait shot is lighting, either natural or artificial. The next most important thing is background, either studio style backdrop or well chosen outside scenery (avoid trees growing out of peoples heads). I would suggest that the lens itself would not feature too highly on my list of important considerations. I say that as someone who does use two of the best regarded FF portrait lenses, the FA* 85mm 1.4 and the FA 77mm 1.8 LTD.

Finally I would suggest experimentation with a head-sized stand in model like a cuddly toy first, so you can see what depth of field you need to achieve the result you want. Focus on the eyes, but make sure that everything in front (nose) and rest of the head is in focus too (use a narrow DOF if you wish for a more dramatic shot, but tread carefully or your image will just look unfocussed).

ps. I have very little experience of human portraits.....most of mine are the fluffier variety ......

Thanks for the excellent reply!

So, here's where I am, worthwhile lens-wise (I have a few questionable ones running about):

(1) Two 50mm lenses of decent make, namely a Pentax-A SMC 50mm 1.7 and a Sears 50mm 1.4

(2) Tamron Adaptall-2 60-300 SP

(3) Pentax-M SMC 28mm 3.5

None of them seem particularly suited to portrait, although I got a couple good ones out of the 50mm 1.7 when I used it for my kids one time.

Thanks again!

[pschlute]

OK

(1) The A 50mm 1.7 is going to be a perfect lens for a group shot. It will also produce excellent results as a single subject portrait lens but be careful of exaggerating the subjects features.

(3) The M 28mm 3.5 would produce a great "environmental" portrait of a group or person , but I consider it too short to do traditional portrait shots where the subjects head/shoulders fill most of the frame.

The M lens could be problematic if you wanted to use P-TTL flash as the camera cannot read what aperture it is set at. Manual flash is fine.

My advice is to use the A 50 1.7 and your Tamron set to 85mm. Do some practice and post on here for criticism.

[jawats]

The Tamron isn't that great of a quality in terms of its condition, unfortunately.

As for the 1.7, see here: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

That's one of the ones I took previously, and obviously in natural light.

OK

(1) The A 50mm 1.7 is going to be a perfect lens for a group shot. It will also produce excellent results as a single subject portrait lens but be careful of exaggerating the subjects features.

(3) The M 28mm 3.5 would produce a great "environmental" portrait of a group or person , but I consider it too short to do traditional portrait shots where the subjects head/shoulders fill most of the frame.

The M lens could be problematic if you wanted to use P-TTL flash as the camera cannot read what aperture it is set at. Manual flash is fine.

My advice is to use the A 50 1.7 and your Tamron set to 85mm. Do some practice and post on here for criticism.

[Apet-Sure]

The longer the focal length, the shallower the depth-of-field will be at a given aperture. For portraits, keeping the people in focus and the background out of focus is generally desirable. You can either move the people away from background objects or use a wide aperture or both. Certainly don't go shorter than 50mm on FF to avoid perspective distortion (big nose). Anything between 50mm and 135mm can be useful depending on the size of the group and the available space. I only ever owned one 'portrait' lens in my film (FF) days and it was a 135mm to use on single individuals. Many people will feel more at-ease if there is a 'comfortable' distance between them and the photographer, and it will affect their expressions.

I agree with experimenting with your Tamron 60-300mm to see if you like the results. It's wide enough for group shots at the wide end and suitable for individuals up to the middle of its range. Of course, you would get better flare and aberration control with a newer lens.

[pschlute]

The longer the focal length, the shallower the depth-of-field will be at a given aperture

I would qualify your statement by adding that when the subject fills the frame to the same degree, DOF is identical across all focal lengths at the same aperture. So if someone chooses to use a 135mm instead of a 85mm and stands further away from the subject, the DOF will be the same in both images.

[jawats]

I would qualify your statement by adding that when the subject fills the frame to the same degree, DOF is identical across all focal lengths at the same aperture. So if someone chooses to use a 135mm instead of a 85mm and stands further away from the subject, the DOF will be the same in both images.

I have been looking at new zoom lenses lately. Is that Tamron 70-200 2.8 as decent a portrait lens as it seems? It seems like it would be good all-around in terms of portraits and kids' sports and other purposes.

[clackers]

I have been looking at new zoom lenses lately. Is that Tamron 70-200 2.8 as decent a portrait lens as it seems? It seems like it would be good all-around in terms of portraits and kids' sports and other purposes.

Of course it is, see below!

Obviously the DFA* 70-200 is better.

[jawats]

Of course it is, see below!

Obviously the DFA* 70-200 is better.

Those are fantastic. Now, the DFA 70-200 is $650+, while the Tamron is $400+ - is the DFA worth the extra $200?

[Wheatfield]

All,

I'm going to do some family (my family) portraits and family group shots. Everything I've read on here says that "portrait" length on my K-1 FF should be 85 - 135mm. Does this make sense? I've also seen the Tamron 70-200 2.8 recommended, but that's a wee bit more than I want to spend. I see quite a few lenses on here, Pentax and third-party, in the 85-135mm range that are below, say $400, and also well-liked for portrait. Examples are the various Pentax 100mm, the Tamron 90mm, and the various Tokina / Bokina / Elicar, etc. 100mm / 105mm.

I would tend to think 85-105mm if I'm looking for both portrait and groups, esp. if I have limited distance (where a 135mm could become iffy). Do I have the range about right? Any other thoughts?

Thanks!

Depending on the size of the family groups you will probably appreciate something shorter, in the 50mm range for those. A 70-200 or so zoom is a nice portrait zoom for up to a fewish individuals.
Have you looked at the 77mm LTD. It is, I find, a tiny bit short for close portraiture, but it’s rendering is uniquely suited to portraiture.

[mikesbike]

Those are fantastic. Now, the DFA 70-200 is $650+, while the Tamron is $400+ - is the DFA worth the extra $200?

Well, with the DFA* 70-200mm f/2.8 you get a better build including WR, so in my view if you can get a perfect copy for $650 I would go with that, especially if doing some sports shooting and other uses are included. There is also a very good complementary 1.4x TC available to extend range as well.

---------- Post added 06-27-20 at 08:46 PM ----------

Depending on the size of the family groups you will probably appreciate something shorter, in the 50mm range for those. A 70-200 or so zoom is a nice portrait zoom for up to a fewish individuals.
Have you looked at the 77mm LTD. It is, I find, a tiny bit short for close portraiture, but it’s rendering is uniquely suited to portraiture.

This is a wonderful portrait lens, as well as for many other subjects. And its small size is very unobtrusive. So if you do not mind lens changing, a 28mm, then the 50mm f/1.7, along with the excellent FA 77mm f/1.8 LTD would comprise a very good trio without having to deal with the weight and size of the zoom lens. Getting both for the extra tele range when needed would be optimum, but now we're talking some money! However, having a K-1 with the lenses you now have begs for some lens upgrading!

[jawats]

Well, with the DFA* 70-200mm f/2.8 you get a better build including WR, so in my view if you can get a perfect copy for $650 I would go with that, especially if doing some sports shooting and other uses are included. There is also a very good complementary 1.4x TC available to extend range as well.

---------- Post added 06-27-20 at 08:46 PM ----------



This is a wonderful portrait lens, as well as for many other subjects. And its small size is very unobtrusive. So if you do not mind lens changing, a 28mm, then the 50mm f/1.7, along with the excellent FA 77mm f/1.8 LTD would comprise a very good trio without having to deal with the weight and size of the zoom lens.

However, if I wanted to do some sports photography (softball, etc), then the longer zoom (unless I add, say, a Sigma 100-300) would be necessary.

[UncleVanya]

Those are fantastic. Now, the DFA 70-200 is $650+, while the Tamron is $400+ - is the DFA worth the extra $200?

Check eBay completed items... The DFA is above $1000, and some Tamron's were below $300. If you find the DFA for not much more than $650+ buy it and be happy!

[clackers]

Those are fantastic. Now, the DFA 70-200 is $650+, while the Tamron is $400+ - is the DFA worth the extra $200?

Sure, eat nothing but peanut butter on bread for a month, if you have to, but do it!