[Idanz0r]

hello,

I have my kit lens with my K200D, and I'm looking for a good portrait performer. I think it should have at least f2.8. I have something about 300$.

I need recommendation from you experts.

Thank you in advance.

[Ash]

No expert here.
But I'm sure many would agree that if you don't already have the FA 50 f/1.4 then that lens is the most logical buy for you. It's really either that or the FA 50 f/1.7 which you'd be hard pressed to find much difference in terms of performance.

[Idanz0r]

for me, you are an expert. thank your replay ! i'll try to gather some information about that lens.


edit - i see a lot of good reviews and a great price.
but wouldn't it be better if it had a zoom?

[Ben_Edict]

The 50/1.4 (in fact many 50s) would make a good choice and is useable for other applications, when you need its speed, too. I personally prefer a longer focal length, even with the Pentax' crop factor, so I stick with my "classic" portrait lens, an FA 80/1.4. But this is really a matter of personal taste.

Ben

[Buddha Jones]

For the money, I recommend the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. Perfect focal length for portraits, super sharp and has a really nice bokeh to it also.

[Marc Sabatella]

wouldn't it be better if it had a zoom?

It would be be different, but not necessarily better. Zooms have the advantage of convenience for many situations, but portrait shooting is a case where you don't really need that - you have the luxury of being able to set up at just the right distance to get the shot you want without needing to zoom. Primes have the advantage of being cheaper and smaller to get the same level of image quality and maximum aperture. Although I think 50mm is too short for my tastes most of the time - in order to fill the frame with head and shoulders, I feel I am getting too close to the subject. I think something like the DA70 would be better, if a little more expensive than you'd like. So the Tamron 28-75/2.8 could make sense too. DA50-135 would be perfect, but way out of your price range.

[Idanz0r]

I cannot find the 80 / 1.4 @ bh , do you have a link Ben?

Buddha, thanks for the replay. the Tamron's price is 350$ while the pentax is 200$. I try to figure if the zoom worth the 150$. btw - does the tamron is better than the sigma 17-70 f/2.8 or the 28-70 f2/8?

Marc, thanks you too. the DA50-135 is too-much-expensive for me, and i know it is great.

I also think 50mm is too short. do you have the exact model of the 70mm?

thanks you all again.

---

Last edited by Idanz0r; 01-02-2009 at 02:58 PM.

[k100d]

he means 50mm 1.4

[Idanz0r]

oh i found the 1.4, thanks

[Buddha Jones]

I cannot find the 80 / 1.4 @ bh , do you have a link Ben?

Buddha, thanks for the replay. the Tamron's price is 350$ while the pentax is 200$. I try to figure if the zoom worth the 150$. btw - does the tamron is better than the sigma 17-70 f/2.8 or the 28-70 f2/8?

Marc, thanks you too. the DA50-135 is too-much-expensive for me, and i know it is great.

I also think 50mm is too short. do you have the exact model of the 70mm?

thanks you all again.

The 80 f/1.4, forget it unless you wanna drop $1300, and considering you think the DA*50-135mm is too expensive, then I would think so. The 50mm isn't too wide unless you are only doing head shots and no couples/familes, and to cover the whole gamut you would need the DA40LTD/FA43LTD, FA50 and DA70LTD/FA77LTD.

With that being said, the Tamron 28-75mm is the best bang for the buck. IMO it is better than both the Sigma lenses, but that is just my opinion.

[Idanz0r]

Buddha thanks, I think i must try a 50mm and check if it's fine for me. if so, it will save me 150$, otherwise i'll have to save bucks for another level lens like the tamron

[Marc Sabatella]

the Tamron's price is 350$ while the pentax is 200$. I try to figure if the zoom worth the 150$.

Note, though, that the zoom is limited to f/2.8, whereas the FA50 goes to f/1.4. That can make a big difference in portraits, in terms of being able to blur backgrounds or get effects where only part of a face is in focus. That's why I said aren't necessarily better.

I also think 50mm is too short. do you have the exact model of the 70mm?

DA70/2.4 Limited is the usual name it goes by. Usually sells for around $450. It's the only 70mm lens Penax has ever made, as far as I know, and it is widely available (some of the others mentioned were discontinued many years ago).

If you can deal with manual focus - also not really a problem for portraits - there are a few older lenses that would be worth considering (available from KEH.com or via Ebay), like the M85/2 or perhaps the M100/2.8. The 90, 100, and/or 105 macro lenses from Sigma, Tamron, and/or Tokina would also be worth considering.

[Michaelina2]

...REALLY artsy... go DA 14 (oops over budget, new)?

...somewhat artsy... go FA 35 (a tiny bit over budget, new)?

...a little artsy... go DA 40 Ltd (US200-250, new)?

...kinda artsy... go FA 43 Ltd (oops... over budget, new)?

...not so artsy... go FA 50 (within budget, new)?

...conventional... go DA 70 Ltd (oops... over budget, new)?

Pick your poison... cheers....

[Aaron1971]

I have the Vivitar 135/2.8. I am looking for maybe a shorter lens for candid portraits, etc. Would anybody recommend this lens....Pentax Macro 100mm f4 Lens w/ dental scale * K-mount, for $225? I guess I might actually have to look longer if I want the candid shots....started rambling here....sorry, LBA kicking in...

[Mike Cash]

If budget is a concern, don't forget that there are many fine lenses available used. I bought my Tamron 28-75 in like-new condition for about $230. (And that is between 2 and 4 times the price I usually pay for my used lenses).