[pseudobreccia]

Good morning, Tez

Since there's no selling/buying in the regular forums, please place a 'Wanted' post in this forum:

Wanted Items - PentaxForums.com


suggestions, comparisons, opinions, experience on lenses is awesome, but keep the offers, etc.. in the appropriate forums....

I didn't see anything about buying or selling in the post by Tez...the OP was merely asking what options were available on the market.

[pseudobreccia]

Does anybody know if you can get an 85mm lens for the K5? I have noticed on the Pentax website there is a 70mm lens - would this be comparable to an 85mm? I am into kid/portrait photography and looking for a lens where I can capture more Nat/playing shots without being right in their face. Any other suggestions/recommendations on other lenses for this also greatly appreciated.

Thanks

I have the ZEISS Planar 85mm F1.4 T* ZK...it is a wonderful manual-focus lens. I highly recommend it. It will not only work on the APS-C cameras such as the Pentax K-5...but works on the full-frame Pentax K-1 Mk II as well.

[pepperberry farm]

I didn't see anything about buying or selling in the post by Tez...the OP was merely asking what options were available on the market.

agreed - see post #12...

[normhead]

You already have a 70mm lens....so I'm assuming it's too short. I'm a fairly heavy zoom user, and a zoom that covers the range you are talking about is always on my camera. Either the 55-300, the DA* 60-250, or the DA 18-135. Yet I have very few images that cover the 77-85 range. Any way you can check what you actually shoot?
I have to throw my 2 cents behind the 50-135. But I'm not prime fussy. I own them, but I value convenience and the ability to frame tight, to make maximum use of the sensor with as little need as possible for cropping. Primes put you at serious disadvantage in fluid situations. While a prime might be optimized as a studio portrait lens, by building the studio for that portrait length. The type of shooting you are doing, capturing kids at play, is not what a traditional portrait lens is designed to do. Many of us wouldn't even call that a portrait, but probably would call it a candid image.

The above opinion has in the past been challenged rather vehemently (by those with no in studio training with portrait lenses) , and I really don't wish to argue the point... but, there's kernel of truth there that you might want to consider.

If you're capturing kids at play out doors you might even want to consider the 55-300 PLM. If it's subject isolation the you're after then the DA*55... but I find shooting my granddaughters even a 35mm lens might be a little too long when shooting indoors.

[Wasp]

I can see the rationale behind a zoom lens, but an 85mm prime is a very different animal. Even an f/2.8 zoom just cannot match an 85/1.4 for bokeh, soft backgrounds and shallow DOF goodness. Then there is portability. An 85/1.4 is kinda plump but a 50-135/2.8 is downright obese in comparison.

[normhead]

I can see the rationale behind a zoom lens, but an 85mm prime is a very different animal. Even an f/2.8 zoom just cannot match an 85/1.4 for bokeh, soft backgrounds and shallow DOF goodness. Then there is portability. An 85/1.4 is kinda plump but a 50-135/2.8 is downright obese in comparison.

Shallow DoF is good for controlled circumstances, when you have the ability to sit and fuss with stuff. Not so good for candids of playing children. Even in film days we used to "chimp" in the studio for shallow DoF. We'd ask the model to sit tight while we charged into the darkroom to proof the neg, and make sure we had the focus plane where we wanted it. The best set up is a chair with all your props arranged, so the subject just sits on the stool and everything is pre-arranged so nothing moves. The camera is in the same place, the stool is in the same place, the props are in the same place. You know exactly what you're getting.

A 1.4 lens is only worth it if you are willing to do the work and are in a situation where you have the time to do the work. Cross off either of those two and you are probably wasting your money. For one person a 1.4 lens is wonderful thing. If you have two playing and you want them both in focus, then ƒ8 is a wonderful thing. Once you start having to try and mentally map out where that focal plane is, you're in trouble, and when your D0F is 8 inches wide, you just can't do that accurately on the fly. You have to ask your subjects to freeze. If you're shooting candids, it's just not practical.

Not saying he wouldn't prefer the 1.4 prime, any 1.4 prime, just saying it's not a given.

I am into kid/portrait photography and looking for a lens where I can capture more Nat/playing shots without being right in their face.

He's not talking about a formal portrait lens. His description is more like talking action shots. And for action 2.8 is adequate. For not being right in their faces, something like a 200mm 2.8 or a 70-200 2.8 could be the ticket. You also have to remember, something like the 2.8 on the 100 is very much like the ƒ2 on my DA*55 1.4 that I usually use when I want smooth bokeh.

There's a lot of folks out there think buying a 1.4 lens is all they need to take "portraits". And a lot of folks who think any image with a person in them is a portrait. It's unfortunate. It makes communication on this type of issue complicated.

[Fluegel]

May I suggest any of the excellent 100 mm lenses for this purpose.
Longer lenses give you the opportunity to keep a bit more distance from the subject.
Most 100 mm lenses are of the macro kind which is an advantage as well.
They are less fast but that can be compensated for by choosing a higher Iso range.

Of the older manual lenses try to find the A versions that will give auto aperture control.

Paul

[xmeda]

70-200/2.8.....

[Benz3ne]

I'll offer the suggestion of some legacy lenses. There's some capable M42 lenses in the Jupiter-9 85mm f/2 Soviet lens, which would require an adapter for your K-5 (not particularly difficult to find or use), or the Takumar 85mm f/1.9 (which I'm not accustomed with but gets good press here).

For a direct K-mount fit I'd suggest the 85mm f/2 or one of the 85mm f/1.4's that have been mentioned already. Again, I'm afraid I have no experience with any of them but the 85mm f/2 looks like a great lens for not a stupid outlay.

I have the Jupiter-9 for what it's worth and it can produce some great photos, dreamy-soft and bokeh-licious at more open apertures and sharp from f/4-f/5.6 onwards. It'll still produce ball-bokeh stopped down given the 13 or so blades it features!

[xmeda]

Sigma 70-200 with 9 aperture blades and usable at F2.8 for portrature is able to isolate subject perfecly by thin DOF and perspective. It focuses fast, can go close and you have some freedom of movement. Bokeh is better than some monofocal lenses can provide.

Manual 85/1.4 lens on K5 is challenging... and if subject is alive, it is even worse. Remember that there is no manual focusing aid on K5. You only can try to rely on mid AF point confirmation (which is not as accurate as should be) or Live-view MF, but you need to magnify the image 2x-4x to see what is in focus. Then is becomes to be a bit clumsy, as you have to press LV, then INFO and THEN you are allowed to use back wheel to change magnification. K20D is better for this (but lacks other K5 advantages)..

[Benz3ne]

[...]Remember that there is no manual focusing aid on K5. You only can try to rely on mid AF point confirmation (which is not as accurate as should be) [...]

This is what I rely on with my K-70 and it's perfectly useable once you get used to it. In fact, I often prefer to manual focus over rely on autofocus now 90% of my lenses are manual.

The Sigma suggestion you made is certainly a good one. They seem to have a good reputation here and rightly so.
Same would go for the Pentax DA-50-135mm f/2.8 which would cover the 85mm mark, as would the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8.

[xmeda]

AF 85/1.4 we unfortunately have only two options. FA*85/1.4 which is quite expensive and hard to get nowdays. Or older Sigma 85/1.4, which has very good center part of image, but borders are not on same level as today's 85/1.4ART lens..

And considering the price, 70-200/2.8 Sigma or Tamron cost less and optically they are very close. Just not that bright/fast.. But when shooting portraits you'll end up using F2-F3.5 range to keep faces in focus depth anyway.


DA*50-135/2.8 has its SDM issues. Sigma 50-150/2.8 might be better in this regard. It is optically very good lens, but there are not many with K mount available on the 2nd hand market and it is crop lens only, while 70-200 can be used even on K-FF body without any cropping

[pres589]

Tamron offered a couple of 90mm macro lenses with AF, an f2.5 max aperture lens which is directly derived from the 90mm f2.5 Adaptall lenses, and the f2.8 macro that is still for sale new in k-mount. There can be, under very specific circumstances, an odd flare blob (technical term) may be exhibited by the f2.5 lenses when used on a digital camera which is said to be due to the rear-most lens element being flat on the face that is closest to the sensor.


I have an Adaptall version of the 90 f2.5 and I really like that lens. Very nice bokeh balls and general out of focus rendering. The AF version of the f2.5 lens, in k-mount, is not common but not impossibly rare to find. They seem pretty affordable and good at filling this area for digital shooters that are trying to find a replacement for an AF 85mm lens.

[vinni]

Remember that there is no manual focusing aid on K5.

It's not perfect - but for shallow DOF I use Life View and quickly click on the OK button for center zoom. It allowed me to create some great portraits.

[Wasp]

It's not perfect - but for shallow DOF I use Life View and quickly click on the OK button for center zoom. It allowed me to create some great portraits.

I do that on my K-x as well. One can move the zoom area around using the four way controller.