Which Better lens for Portraiture?

alexeyga · 08-27-2009, 06:58 AM

For under 250$ the FA50/1.4 is a great choice... however... I'd go for the K135/2.5 (non bayonet)... but that's me...

little laker · 08-27-2009, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

unfortunately there seems to be an endless supply

someone once said the total intelligence of the world is a constant. The population is growing.

From what I've seen that gives mankind too much credit

MikePerham · 08-27-2009, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by attack11

the da* 50-135 is _awesome_ for kids. it's out of the price range of the lenses at the top, but it's really sweet for that type of work.

That would also be my first choice. If in a more confined space however, I would use the 16-50. I am going to get the 55 1.4 before Christmas and wold use that if my subject was reasonably static allowing me to frame by using my legs to zoom.

**Lowell Goudge** · 08-27-2009, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by alexeyga

... I'd go for the K135/2.5 (non bayonet)... but that's me...

can you explain this please, there is no such thing as a K135 F2.5 non bayonet.

All K lenses are bayonet.

Do you mean SMC Takumar or Super Takumar M42 lenses? or SMC Takumar 135 F2.5 bayonet mount?

If so, I think everyone will tell you of the 135F2.5 lenses the SMC Pentax 135F2.5 (K mount as this is how they are referred to by Pentax) is optically the best.

alexeyga · 08-27-2009, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

can you explain this please, there is no such thing as a K135 F2.5 non bayonet.

All K lenses are bayonet.

Do you mean SMC Takumar or Super Takumar M42 lenses? or SMC Takumar 135 F2.5 bayonet mount?

If so, I think everyone will tell you of the 135F2.5 lenses the SMC Pentax 135F2.5 (K mount as this is how they are referred to by Pentax) is optically the best.

I'm sure somebody is more knowledgeable than I am... but there was 2 versions of that lens in K-mount... the earlier one, which was just a remake of the original Super-Tak in the K-mount... and the later, cheaper one, which started the whole series of rather mediocre 135mm lenses... that cheaper one has nothing writen on the front ring and it's marked "bayonet" on the side... these go for about 80$ on a really good day, and for a good reason...

Here's a good thread on these...

Marc Sabatella · 08-27-2009, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Atindra

Thanks, I know longer lens would give pretty shallow DOF and could be used for Portraiture with amazing results.

It's not the shallower DOF that makes longer lenses better for portraits - it's the fact that you can fill the frame with a face, or head and shoulders, without needing to shoot from so close. Less then a few feet away tends not to be the most flattering perspective, as it can make noses and ears look more pronounced, for instance.

Quote:

Therefore I am looking for primes. 77mm ltd is great but price is bit higher for my budgetary allotments.

DA70 is a really obvious alternative here, as is the Sigma 70mm macro.

Quote:

But I am lurking for DA 40mm ltd

A great lens to be sure, but really short for portraits, except maybe for small groups, or perhaps couples. In fact, I don't know that it even focuses close enough to fill the frame with a face.

**Lowell Goudge** · 08-27-2009, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by alexeyga

I'm sure somebody is more knowledgeable than I am... but there was 2 versions of that lens in K-mount... the earlier one, which was just a remake of the original Super-Tak in the K-mount... and the later, cheaper one, which started the whole series of rather mediocre 135mm lenses... that cheaper one has nothing writen on the front ring and it's marked "bayonet" on the side... these go for about 80$ on a really good day, and for a good reason...

Here's a good thread on these...

there was a thread comparing the optical designs of the SMC takumar 135F2.5 (M42) and the SMC-Pentax 135F2.5 (K mount) the optical formulas are different, there was a k mount takumar as well, which is as you point out an inferior lens.

stevebrot · 08-27-2009, 01:27 PM

If we are allowed to throw in manual focus and M42 stuff, here is my 2-cent's worth:

Super/S-M-C/SMC Takumar 55/1.8
Pentax-K 55/1.8
Helios 44M 58/2

I have both the FA 77/1.8 Limited and Jupiter-9 85/2 and have found both lenses to be great for portraits, but a touch too long on APS-C if shooting indoors or where working space is limited. My 50mm lenses work pretty well, but the sweet spot is just a little longer, hence the 55s and 58.

I would particularly recommend the Helios. At the risk of further driving the price up, I would direct the reader to search for images on this site taken with this very inexpensive and underrated lens. Gus (igilligan) has made particularly good use of his copy and is the primary Helios evangelist around here.

Steve

BTW...both the FA 77 and J-9 simply ROCK for portraits on the 35mm film format...

**lawsonstone** · 08-27-2009, 02:00 PM

Another reason for longer FL for portrait is that below maybe 40mm, you get the "fat face and big nose" effect. A 50-85mm lens will make you stand back, which reduces distortion, and they have a subtle face-slimming effect as well. In addition, minor skin blemishes are "in your face" close up with say a 31mm, but standing back with a 70 they're not so bad it seems.

For portraits, I've enjoyed the DA 70mm f/2.4 Ltd, the DA*50-135 f/2.8.

ll_coffee_lP · 08-27-2009, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by Atindra

Showing-off was a joke. I hope you understand what people make of persons who are using Pentax gear where market is dominated by others. I use to have conversation with lot of Photographers here in India and most think that Pentax is cheap and substandard.

Atindra

Do you care what car your neighbour drives, or what toothpaste someone else uses? Not likely.

If someone wants to chat cameras I'm all ears. If someone wants to disrespect someone's choice in gear for whatever reason - I'm sorry, but I don't have the time for it.

I take pictures for personal enjoyment and to make money. If I see someone else who is enthusiastic about photography (at whatever level) - then they are a friend.

The pictures you take will speak volumes - your gear is just a means to get you where you want to go.

c[_]

08-27-2009, 01:27 PM	#23
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	If we are allowed to throw in manual focus and M42 stuff, here is my 2-cent's worth: Super/S-M-C/SMC Takumar 55/1.8 Pentax-K 55/1.8 Helios 44M 58/2 I have both the FA 77/1.8 Limited and Jupiter-9 85/2 and have found both lenses to be great for portraits, but a touch too long on APS-C if shooting indoors or where working space is limited. My 50mm lenses work pretty well, but the sweet spot is just a little longer, hence the 55s and 58. I would particularly recommend the Helios. At the risk of further driving the price up, I would direct the reader to search for images on this site taken with this very inexpensive and underrated lens. Gus (igilligan) has made particularly good use of his copy and is the primary Helios evangelist around here. Steve BTW...both the FA 77 and J-9 simply ROCK for portraits on the 35mm film format...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People Trying portraiture	muhozol	Post Your Photos!	5	05-19-2010 03:02 PM
Portraiture	manumon77	Monthly Photo Contests	0	02-28-2010 12:34 AM
People Portraiture, stine	devisor	Post Your Photos!	5	10-01-2009 04:56 AM
Some Portraiture	uwmechengr	Post Your Photos!	5	05-22-2009 03:07 PM
A project (Self Portraiture)	Kingsofronin	Post Your Photos!	0	08-09-2007 05:58 PM

08-27-2009, 06:58 AM	#16
alexeyga Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 838	For under 250$ the FA50/1.4 is a great choice... however... I'd go for the K135/2.5 (non bayonet)... but that's me...

08-27-2009, 08:37 AM	#17
little laker Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,697	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge unfortunately there seems to be an endless supply someone once said *the total intelligence of the world is a constant. The population is growing*. From what I've seen that gives mankind too much credit

08-27-2009, 08:57 AM	#18
MikePerham Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Prince George, BC Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 642	Originally posted by attack11 the da* 50-135 is _awesome_ for kids. it's out of the price range of the lenses at the top, but it's really sweet for that type of work. That would also be my first choice. If in a more confined space however, I would use the 16-50. I am going to get the 55 1.4 before Christmas and wold use that if my subject was reasonably static allowing me to frame by using my legs to zoom.

08-27-2009, 09:28 AM	#19
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Originally posted by alexeyga ... I'd go for the K135/2.5 (non bayonet)... but that's me... can you explain this please, there is no such thing as a K135 F2.5 non bayonet. All K lenses are bayonet. Do you mean SMC Takumar or Super Takumar M42 lenses? or SMC Takumar 135 F2.5 bayonet mount? If so, I think everyone will tell you of the 135F2.5 lenses the SMC Pentax 135F2.5 (K mount as this is how they are referred to by Pentax) is optically the best.

08-27-2009, 11:38 AM	#20
alexeyga Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 838	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge can you explain this please, there is no such thing as a K135 F2.5 non bayonet. All K lenses are bayonet. Do you mean SMC Takumar or Super Takumar M42 lenses? or SMC Takumar 135 F2.5 bayonet mount? If so, I think everyone will tell you of the 135F2.5 lenses the SMC Pentax 135F2.5 (K mount as this is how they are referred to by Pentax) is optically the best. I'm sure somebody is more knowledgeable than I am... but there was 2 versions of that lens in K-mount... the earlier one, which was just a remake of the original Super-Tak in the K-mount... and the later, cheaper one, which started the whole series of rather mediocre 135mm lenses... that cheaper one has nothing writen on the front ring and it's marked "bayonet" on the side... these go for about 80$ on a really good day, and for a good reason... Here's a good thread on these...

08-27-2009, 11:50 AM	#21
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Atindra Thanks, I know longer lens would give pretty shallow DOF and could be used for Portraiture with amazing results. It's not the shallower DOF that makes longer lenses better for portraits - it's the fact that you can fill the frame with a face, or head and shoulders, without needing to shoot from so close. Less then a few feet away tends not to be the most flattering perspective, as it can make noses and ears look more pronounced, for instance. Quote: Therefore I am looking for primes. 77mm ltd is great but price is bit higher for my budgetary allotments. DA70 is a really obvious alternative here, as is the Sigma 70mm macro. Quote: But I am lurking for DA 40mm ltd A great lens to be sure, but really short for portraits, except maybe for small groups, or perhaps couples. In fact, I don't know that it even focuses close enough to fill the frame with a face.

08-27-2009, 01:06 PM	#22
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Originally posted by alexeyga I'm sure somebody is more knowledgeable than I am... but there was 2 versions of that lens in K-mount... the earlier one, which was just a remake of the original Super-Tak in the K-mount... and the later, cheaper one, which started the whole series of rather mediocre 135mm lenses... that cheaper one has nothing writen on the front ring and it's marked "bayonet" on the side... these go for about 80$ on a really good day, and for a good reason... Here's a good thread on these... there was a thread comparing the optical designs of the SMC takumar 135F2.5 (M42) and the SMC-Pentax 135F2.5 (K mount) the optical formulas are different, there was a k mount takumar as well, which is as you point out an inferior lens.

08-27-2009, 02:00 PM	#24
lawsonstone Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Wilmore, KY Posts: 376	Another reason for longer FL for portrait is that below maybe 40mm, you get the "fat face and big nose" effect. A 50-85mm lens will make you stand back, which reduces distortion, and they have a subtle face-slimming effect as well. In addition, minor skin blemishes are "in your face" close up with say a 31mm, but standing back with a 70 they're not so bad it seems. For portraits, I've enjoyed the DA 70mm f/2.4 Ltd, the DA*50-135 f/2.8.

08-27-2009, 02:00 PM	#25
ll_coffee_lP Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,972	Originally posted by Atindra Showing-off was a joke. I hope you understand what people make of persons who are using Pentax gear where market is dominated by others. I use to have conversation with lot of Photographers here in India and most think that Pentax is cheap and substandard. Atindra Do you care what car your neighbour drives, or what toothpaste someone else uses? Not likely. If someone wants to chat cameras I'm all ears. If someone wants to disrespect someone's choice in gear for whatever reason - I'm sorry, but I don't have the time for it. I take pictures for personal enjoyment and to make money. If I see someone else who is enthusiastic about photography (at whatever level) - then they are a friend. The pictures you take will speak volumes - your gear is just a means to get you where you want to go. c[_]