[C_Jones]

I use my Pentax 16-85 occasionally for people shots. I also use it for landscape. It is on my K-3 II and it is excellent. I have used it with flash and with just natural light. I like that it has zoom range capability. I also have the Pentax 70-200 on my K-1 II. That combination is also excellent.

[Tonytee]

Well, I must say I am overwhelmed by the generous responses (with superb examples). Not atypical of the very talented and gifted shooters on this site. As I mentioned in my original post, I do

have a Sears (made by Samyang) 135mm, Macro capability lens. I do like this lens very much for the awesome results it generates for my close-up and Macro Floral captures. I did some more

snooping regarding the viability of using this lens for portraits and this is what I discovered. Please view the link. I thought I might try this out since I only paid $8.00 for it three years ago and if it

works out I will hopefully save a boatload of spinach. This link will reveal the exact type of portrait work I am pursuing. Thanks very much. Tony.


What is a 135mm lens best used for? - Google Search

---------- Post added 07-31-22 at 02:28 PM ----------

Any good 35 to 100 mm lens will give you the results you want. Take a look at this picture my father took in 1961 (over 60 years ago). The camera was a Practika IV and the lens was a simple 50mm (four glass) Tessar. I think folks put far too much weight on the equipment rather than the lighting and artistic eye.

What a beautiful photograph. She reminds of the American actress, Diana Scarwid. Do you happen to know the film used?

Many thnx,

Tony

[bschriver11]

The 85mm F/1.4 has been the go to portrait lens since forever, the DA* 55/F1.4 was designed to give the same view as the 85MM lens on a crop sensor camera if that helps.

[Tonytee]

I dunno... this is tricky... there are just too many options...

I think it's going to come down to what you expect to have in terms of lighting (and what aperture you can use as a result) and what you mean my "close up".

I have a Rokinon 85mm f1.4 lens that does very nice portraits, for example, but its minimum focus distance is too far for closely cropped portraits on full frame... though it may be fine on APS-C, but you will still need to step back quite a way.

On the other hand, I really like the 50mm f1.7 lenses on APS-C. Very good results very inexpensively.

Usually I'll use the original DA*16-50 for portraits where I don't know what I'll have for lighting or distance to subject. Nice and sharp, plenty fast, and it worked very well with my K10, so it should be fine on your K7. That and they can be had inexpensively used (and converted to screwdrive focus if needed). I've had very good luck with mine, and it excels on my KP.

-Eric

Many thanks there, Eric.

Tony

[Sandy Hancock]

I'm no portraitist, but I take lots of candid snaps of family and friends.

Focus, light, pose and timing are far more important than the lens on your camera. I'm going to assume by "close-up" you mean tightish head shots....

FA*85



DFA*70-200



FA77



DA70



Sometimes it works even when you miss focus A*135



And just for fun, the 06 Telephoto Zoom on the Q7

[UncleVanya]

As I mentioned in my original post, I do have a Sears (made by Samyang) 135mm, Macro capability lens. I do like this lens very much for the awesome results it generates for my close-up and Macro Floral captures.

Tony 135 is a bit longer than most people like for portraits on apsc. It’s similar to using a 200mm on a 35mm film camera. I personally have used a 400mm on apsc for candid “portraits”, and 200mm on apsc for actual portraits but 135 is typically about the longest I typically use for portraits with 100mm and shorter being more common due to working distances.

[arnold]

What a beautiful photograph. She reminds of the American actress, Diana Scarwid. Do you happen to know the film used?

Many thnx,

Tony

Thanks Tony. The film was Kodachrome 10, and the girl is my sister, over sixty years ago.

---------- Post added 01-08-22 at 12:40 ----------

Focus, light, pose and timing are far more important than the lens on your camera. I'm going to assume by "close-up" you mean tightish head shots....

Nice pictures. Yes, without good lighting there will be no excellent picture, regardless of how good the lens is. Some lenses are more forgiving of flare or out of focus areas, but they won't save a poorly framed, poised or lit subject.[COLOR="Silver"]

---

Last edited by arnold; 07-31-2022 at 07:42 PM.

[Tonytee]

Tony 135 is a bit longer than most people like for portraits on apsc. It’s similar to using a 200mm on a 35mm film camera. I personally have used a 400mm on apsc for candid “portraits”, and 200mm on apsc for actual portraits but 135 is typically about the longest I typically use for portraits with 100mm and shorter being more common due to working distances.

U.V., many thanks for your invaluable contribution. Here is a link explaining the six reasons to use a 135mm lens, along with some awesome images. Tony


6 Reasons You Need a 135mm f/2 Lens | PetaPixel

[UncleVanya]

U.V., many thanks for your invaluable contribution. Here is a link explaining the six reasons to use a 135mm lens, along with some awesome images. Tony


6 Reasons You Need a 135mm f/2 Lens | PetaPixel

Just keep in mind that no one in those sources that you posted has indicated the lens has been used by them on apsc sized sensors. The depth of field will not be as shallow and the working distance to your subject will be longer. Often when using the 50-135 I find I’m at the shorter end of that zoom when taking portraits in the field due to working distances. Don’t get me wrong; 135/2 is a fine lens for portraits, but it’s harder to use than a shorter traditional perspective like the DA 55/1.4 offers.

[wadge22]

I think you can probably get some pretty nice shots with your M 50 1.7, or at least start there and work on your technique. 50mm on crop is equivalent to 75mm on FF, which isn't far off from the 85mm that was classically one of the go-to portrait focal lengths, along with 135mm (which would be equivalent to a 90mm on your crop camera). You can use your 70-200 to get the 135mm equivalent focal length, again, at least to see what you prefer and work on technique: eventually something with a wider aperture and more pleasant bokeh might be desirable than the budget zoom, though.


Here's a list of possible good candidates once you determine what focal length you find most appealing, with links to the reviews for each. I'm only including those that you can probably find for under ~$600 used (some quite a bit less). There are plenty of other suitable lenses, but these are some real gems that you would be proud to own:

A 50mm f1.2 Note there's also a K version for cheaper, but that one will require green button metering (just like your M 50 1.7).

Takumar 50mm f1.4 Be sure to include finding an M42-K mount adapter for this one and the other Takumar, and these will also require green button metering.

DA* 55mm f1.4 Very nice lens designed for exactly what you're after. ̶S̶o̶m̶e̶ ̶p̶o̶s̶s̶i̶b̶i̶l̶i̶t̶y̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶S̶D̶M̶ ̶f̶a̶i̶l̶u̶r̶e̶,̶ ̶b̶u̶t̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶s̶c̶r̶e̶w̶d̶r̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶n̶v̶e̶r̶t̶e̶d̶ (EDIT: I was wrong about that, it cannot be converted). One of only two WR/AW lenses on my list, if that matters to you.

Takumar 55mm f1.8 M42 and green button required.

DA 70mm f2.4 Limited There are HD or SMC versions. These Limited lenses are considered by some to have "pixie dust."

FA 77mm f1.8 Limited There are HD or SMC versions. These Limited lenses are considered by some to have "pixie dust."

FA* 85mm f1.4 Seems like a really good value on used market since the DFA* 85 came out. There's an A* version as well that is different optically, but those remain more expensive.

D FA 100mm 2.8 Macro WR Probably a little sharp and "clinical" for some people's taste for portraits, but it is a great and versatile lens (would be a boon to your already impressive flower photography). Also available in older versions that are optically just as good, as well as another current, non-WR version.

Lastly Samyang/Rokinon 85mm f1.4 Had to include just this one third party lens, since it's known for great value, and it fits what you're after so well.

[Billking]

I agree with most comments. Wide angle lenses, however, will introduce perspective distortion when it comes to tight closeup shots. The range for 35mm or FF shooting in terms of recommended good perspective are between around 60-120mm or so, which with APS-C translates into the 40mm, 50mm- through the 77mm Ltd. Longer starts to flatten out the features for tight closeups (maybe better for those with long noses).

Although with APS-C, a good but moderate-costing 50mm lens becomes an effective poor man's 77mm Ltd for portraits, I nonetheless agree with hoc regarding the FA 77mm Ltd being outstanding for portraits, whether used with APS-C or FF. This is one special lens, and it is remarkably small and less intimidating for its FL and fast aperture, also providing wonderful bokeh for a beautiful background blur. The latest version having the HD coatings is the way to go for all-around best performance. This lens has many uses for outstanding results.

Yep

You don't want to go wider than 50mm, even on APSC, or you will get unflattering distortions on head and shoulder portraiture.

The FA 77mm Ltd is hard to go past for protraits on either APSC or FF.

[Sandy Hancock]

DA* 55mm f1.4 Very nice lens designed for exactly what you're after. Some possibility of SDM failure, but it can be screwdrive converted. One of only two WR/AW lenses on my list, if that matters to you.

Just for the record, the DA*55 has no screw drive mechanism, so it can not be converted. It's SDM or it's nothing.
That said, it is an excellent lens in every other regard, and pretty much the optimal focal length for APS-C portraiture.

[Sandy Hancock]

Here is a link explaining the six reasons to use a 135mm lens

6 Reasons You Need a 135mm f/2 Lens | PetaPixel

As Brad has already pointed out, this article is referring to use on full frame cameras. 135mm on crop is quite long.

The article also assumes a considerable level of skill. Getting great results from a fast, manual focus telephoto is not easy.

I strongly recommend you get a moderately fast AF lens with nice rendering. the DA*55/1.4, DA70/2.4 and FA77/1.8 will all get the job done admirably - all you have to do is balance features against budget. If you want a cheaper option, don't forget the humble "plastic fantastic" DA50/1.8

[wadge22]

Just for the record, the DA*55 has no screw drive mechanism, so it can not be converted. It's SDM or it's nothing.

Woops! Thanks for the correction. I was just going off memory... I should have double checked myself before posting.

[CristiC]

RE: Close-Up Portraiture

Now I notice there are comments and recommendations offered on this subject however, they are quite old and there have been Quantum Leap advancements in technology since as far back as 13 years. I am aware there are many third party offerings out there however, I am focused on Pentax exclusively for high IQ. I am currently using a Pentax k-7 and will consider an upgrade if I have to.

The thread title leads me to a subset of the portrait genre where the head is framed tight and there isn't much context or background around the subject. What tools are best suited for that kind of job? The simple answer may be: your Pentax K-7 camera and a Pentax HD FA 77mm F1.8 Limited lens. The more nuanced answer may have many more ingredients besides a camera and lens.

Hint #1: If this is about snapshots, about seizing a moment that may not happen again, then the best tools are always the ones you already have with you, at hand.

I would generally avoid close framed snapshots if the lens has less than 50mm, because of distortions - the apparent size and shape of facial features (bigger nose than in reality). 85mm or 135mm lenses may be better than 50mm, but that is with the framing done on full-frame cameras. The Pentax K-7 is not full-frame, you have to multiply 1.5 times the focal length of your lens to get an equivalent field-of-view, that is how tight it would look like, on full frame. A 90mm lens on K-7 would have the same field-of-view as a 135mm lens on the full-frame Pentax K-1.

Hint #2: if I had unlimited budget then I would use a full-frame camera for such portraits (a Pentax K-1) and I would buy a dedicated portrait lens, such as the HD Pentax-D FA* 85mm F1.4. Plus the HD FA 77mm F1.8 Limited. Plus the HD Pentax-D FA* 50mm F1.4 SDM AW. On a limited budget I would use a film-era Pentax ME Super and a "nifty-fifty" with 1.4 aperture. Or a Samyang 135mm f/2.

Hint #3 regarding large apertures: On a digital camera, with an APS-C size sensor (such as on Pentax K-7 or Pentax KP) I would still like wide apertures, f/2 more than f/2.8, knowing that the 1.5 crop factor is affecting depth-of-field (DOF) too, meaning that the Pentax K-7 is less suited for the job because it gives a deeper zone of sharpness, countering the effect of a large aperture. If you are looking for shallow depth-of-field then a full-frame camera is better suited than a crop-sensor camera. Then again, if all you want is f/8 for maximum DOF in a studio setting or a fleeting "catch-all" situation, then large aperture lenses don't matter at all and crop-sensor cameras are actually better than full-frame.

Hint #4 is addressing the advancements in technology: Not so much at Pentax but at other manufacturers. It's related to the autofocus (AF) system. You would want to use a feature that automatically keeps focus on the eyes of your subject, in a continuous and accurate manner, even with minute changes of position and distance between the camera and the subject. While good portraits are of course possible with manual focus lenses, it is so much easier if the camera takes care of the critical eye AF. A wrong setting makes the portrait unusable and the wider the aperture is, the harder it is to keep the eye in-focus. Pentax is not the best choice for that, nowadays. It takes considerable skill with the cameras we have (on PentaxForums).

Hint #5: during recent years advancements happened on the triggering and control of speedlights (flashes) and for the Pentax line of cameras I like the Godox system of radio triggers and remote, off-camera flashes. For close framed portraits that advancement means better (finer) control of the power level of several flashes at once. One flash used as a key light with a modifier, one used to fill up the shadow areas and another used as a hair-light or rim-light. Previously the investment may have been much larger but now it's accessible for everybody. The trigger unit sits on the camera and allows me to tweak the light on different parts of the image without needing to reach and touch any of the flash units which are positioned further away. Touching them would possibly affect the relative position between light and subject, breaking a fine-tuned effect. And it would take more time.

Hint #6: relates to "portraiture" as a form of art, where both the artist and the model have lots and lots of time to get one fine portrait.

As others have said before, "a good portrait is not made in the camera but on either side of it". The interaction between the subject and the photographer has to be right. The skill level of the photographer has to encompass many things:

1. knowledge of light and lighting (similar to how the famous painters asked their subjects to keep a position where light falls on the face in a certain way and the light has a certain type, quality, softness, color temperature - all of that was deliberately chosen)
2. ability to catch a decisive moment - a very fleeting moment in time - or at least take so many pictures as needed, to choose from, later;
3. technical understanding of how the digital camera works, what settings influence the image (many settings) and to what extent. Manual mode. Exposure triangle. Ambient exposure on top of artificial light exposure and so on;
4. usage of artificial light and modifiers for that light, studio gear. Multiple light sources. Key-light, fill, rim-light, background-light. Light-stands, strobes, reflectors, soft-boxes, color gels, translucent diffusers, etc. See the strobist website for the Lighting-101 course;
5. intent and ability to use the RAW image format (such as DNG) for extensive post-processing of digital images. Can be done at many different skill levels and in many different ways. There is a whole lot more to know (art & science & craft) than to use straight-out-of-camera JPGs. But many users are fine and very content with their JPGs.
6. choice of background that shall not be distracting from the subject;
7. choice of bokeh through positioning the subject further away from a background, choice of lens for the rendering and choice of a large aperture for shallow DOF - while keeping critical focus on the eyes;
8. choice of how the final portrait will be presented: on print or on a digital screen - and then: how big, what physical size the image shall have and at what distance will the audience enjoy it - size matters!
9. storytelling
10. many more aspects that make or break a good portrait - even a tightly framed one...