[guillermovilas]

I see that the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 macro has very good critics.
Is it really that sharp? , i need a very sharp lens for portrait photography.

Maybe a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 ?

I need to know now because i need it for the end of the week ,anyone has other ideas ?

[SuperJared]

I've heard the Pentax 16-45mm recommended for its sharpness repeatedly.

[kbrabble]

The 17-70 is a great lens, and worked quite well for me for candids, and portraits. I would recommend something faster at the 50 to 70mm (although the f/4.5 is not bad by any means) range if you really want to do portraits. At least f/2.8, I rarley find myself going any lower for portrature. Any of the Pentax primes in that range are a good choice, you will just not have the flexability of the zoom (just for the record, I no longer have any zooms less than 70mm, and prefer it that way).

You may find 30mm a little short for portrature, you have to be very close to your subject at that focal length. I generally use 40 to 105mm for portraits, with 70mm being my favorite. I would recommend either the DA 70mm or FA77mm. From pictures I have seen, the 70mm Sigma Macro is also an excellent choice and might be worth looking into, and the FA 50mm or DA 40mm would always be an excellent choice.

[bdavis]

First, I know nothing about the lens you mention. Sorry.


However, why on earth would you want a very sharp lens for portraits? Photographing robots with perfectly manufactured 'flesh'? I ask because I'm a real person with zits and blemishes, and even scars (!), and I shudder at the thought of someone seriously photographing me with a brutally sharp lens. Get a soft focus or go home.

[slip]

Pentax SMC M 50mm 1.4

[slip]

Sigma 17-70... not my favourate shot, but just to show sharpness



here is a bit softer but nicer shot with the sigma 17-70


good luck with your choices

randy

[matix]

Pentax SMC M 50mm 1.4

Randy, that shot is fantastic IMHO. I would be proud to hang my name on it, and the lens I think was only a small part thereof.

This shot I took of a niece a while ago, was shot with a Sigma 18-200 DC 3.5-6.7 and has been cropped 50% only. Shot at F8, 1/250th and 113mm. This lens is not renowned for quality, yet I can find nothing wrong with this shot that was not caused by the photgrapher.

I have taken some great shots with this lens, and some lousy ones.. same applies to all the lenses I now own for the K10D

I think all of the shots on this thread are great....

Phil

Attached Images

 

[Bud]

I haven't done too much portait work with it, but it's a very nice lens and the f/2.8 holds up well in less than perfect lighting conditions.

Here's a couple I found...

Using 540 bounce flash




Not the prettiest lady I've ever met, but this shows some nice detail...

[guillermovilas]

I haven't done too much portait work with it, but it's a very nice lens and the f/2.8 holds up well in less than perfect lighting conditions.

Here's a couple I found...

Using 540 bounce flash




Not the prettiest lady I've ever met, but this shows some nice detail...

You are right , this looks like a very good lens and plenty sharp too.
Looks very interesting for portrait photography , doesn`t it have a macro facility ?

I just looked on PBase to see some other examples and look at this guys shots :

ÄÉ»ö Photo Gallery by Kevin Hsia at pbase.com

The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is very good too ,too bad that it isn`t available in Pentax mount.

[aabram]

Sigma 17-70 is a razor, at least mine has been. When I bought it and took first few shots and looked at them I had a feeling that my camera had suddenly developed internal sharpening engine. I don't shoot people much so I don't have any portraits at hand, but I can wholeheartedly recommend it as a general walkaround, it's excellent for that purpose.

However, it's macro is not real macro, its 1:2,3, not true 1:1. It is sufficient for closeups though, since it can focus within just a few cm from the lens.

[slip]

I haven't had a chance to get outside for some close ups (waiting for spring) but here is an example of a close up

[Christian]

I've been thinking of the Sigma 18-50 2.8 macro. Not much has been said about that lens. How does it compare? It's EX so in theory should be better quality no? 2.8 at the 50 end would be good for me for gig photography... although I could swap over to a 50 1.4 but that's not as convenient as having the fixed aperture of the 18 -50 .

Oh but lastly.. I guess the extra 1mm at the wide end is good... I'm tempted to get the 16-45 for this reason but I think that's quite big compared to the 18-50!? How does the 17-70 compare size wise?

SRS are doing some good kit deals at the moment... and I was K10D... hmmm

[Buddha Jones]

Christian, I have been thinking the same thing, what about the Sigma 18-50 2.8? I havent seen much said about it except that I cant find one to buy anywhere. If anyone has one that would be nice to hear about.

[guillermovilas]

I haven't had a chance to get outside for some close ups (waiting for spring) but here is an example of a close up

So this has been made with the Sigma 17-70m ?

[slip]

So this has been made with the Sigma 17-70m ?

ya, that is witht the sigma 17-70... the only thing that stops from getting closer is the shadow from the lens.

randy