[dcBear78]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Wait.... Ted's a actually had a Pentax? They must've accidentally ordered it.

When I bought my FA31 I found buying direct from CRK to be my cheapest option. Even cheaper than eBay grey imports.
www.pentax.com.au

[stevebrot]

But again, am buying the portrait lens since my 18-135mm autofocus really hunts sometime to lock in focus when taken indoors during party.

If that is the reason, then I would suggest that a "portrait lens" probably will not give you what you need. The main AF system (non-live view) on your camera really won't work any faster just by putting a moderately long prime with larger maximum aperture up front.

Question...are you using live view or the viewfinder? The live view AF is more accurate, but slower, much slower.


Steve

[dcBear78]

Indoors and parties then the wider lenses would be useful. I've only had experience with DA35 which has SUPER fast focus and the FA31 which is almost as quick.

[magkelly]

77ltd +1
(FA*85 is my first choice, but too expensive for first portrait lens).

Me too, though I'd buy it in a heartbeat if money was no object. I'm a bit disappointed to hear that the 18-135MM isn't acting as a good portrait zoom. That's one of the reasons I was looking at getting it. I'd like to have a useful portrait lens in that range that is WR...

[jaikumarr18]

If that is the reason, then I would suggest that a "portrait lens" probably will not give you what you need. The main AF system (non-live view) on your camera really won't work any faster just by putting a moderately long prime with larger maximum aperture up front.

Question...are you using live view or the viewfinder? The live view AF is more accurate, but slower, much slower.


Steve

@Steve, am using viewfinder and not comfortable with live view. 18-135 mm WR lens is good for outdoors but not great for indoors or during low light situation. Moreover, I wont be having much space to zoom in completely to get background blur when taking pictures indoors.

---------- Post added 03-18-14 at 02:45 AM ----------

Wait.... Ted's a actually had a Pentax? They must've accidentally ordered it.

When I bought my FA31 I found buying direct from CRK to be my cheapest option. Even cheaper than eBay grey imports.
www.pentax.com.au

@dcBear78 : Teds and Georges sell Pentax cameras all the time. You can also order it online on teds.com.au.

---------- Post added 03-18-14 at 02:55 AM ----------

To be honest, until now I thought only 50mm primes are best for portraits. But now I can see lot of options for portraits and am really confused. 30mm, 35mm, 70mm, 85mm etc....

[dcBear78]

To be honest, until now I thought only 50mm primes are best for portraits. But now I can see lot of options for portraits and am really confused. 30mm, 35mm, 70mm, 85mm etc....

Well 50+mm is ideal. But you have to also think about when and where you are wanting to use it. For indoors you will not have much room to back up. Maybe a 50mm will get a bit, but a 35mm(ish) will be more ideal as you will not need to be so far back. From my previous examples, the headshot of my daughter is with an FA77 from one side of a bedroom/study to the other. So about 3m and it is just head n shoulders. But the one sipping the lemonade I was sitting right at the table with her (maybe half a metre away).

For me if I'm inside my go to lens would be my FA31 (DA35 previously before getting the FA).

DA35mm Standing on the other side of the kitchen bench


Something around the 50mm mark would be the best compromise.

[howieb101]

Slso look out for fa100 f2.8 macro and Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro. Both would be good for portraits. One of my most favourite portraits ever is with the smc-f 135mm F2.8. Great lense. The only issue with the longer lenses is you require more space

[howieb101]

Here are two examples. One with a f135mm f2.8 and the second with da40 f2.8

[jaikumarr18]

My main purpose of the prime lens is for portraits, indoors, parties with low lights and weddings. For outdoors I can still use my 18-135mm WR lens which is still a good lens for outdoors.

@dcbear78, Pentax smcP FA 31mm f/1.8 costs around $1300 at teds.com.au which is way too much over my budget. Am looking for around $500 max and unless if its really worth that value I can go upto $800 at this point of time.

---------- Post added 03-18-14 at 12:58 PM ----------

@magkelly, Pentax 18-135mm WR is good for outdoor portraits but I had issues indoors and low lights. The autofocus hunts most of the time. Also you might not have enough space to zoom in completely for background blur when taking during parties.....Hence am looking for a prime lens for indoor portraits, low light and for parties....

---------- Post added 03-18-14 at 01:00 PM ----------

@howieb101, as you said longer lens require more space. Do you have any pictures taken indoors with da40 f2.8?

[normhead]

@ repaap, thanks for the response. I got mixed review for DA 50 1.8 but cant deny the fact that its the cheapest of all. So I believe is good value for money.

Plain and simple, everyone should have a 50, it's IMHO the shortest focal length I would use for portraits. And if you budget is 500, you cn get both that and the 35 2.4.

But here's what I'd look at...
This Tamron 28 75mm F2 8 XR Di LD Lens for Pentax DSLR Refurbished 4960371004310 | eBay

Or this
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] AF016P-700 B&H

Both are only ƒ2.8, but 2.8 is pretty functional indoors.

[howieb101]

Well infoors with limited space or shots of people across the table the Fa35mm F2 is great and my preference over thr Da40. You can get this new at Adorama. The F2 really does make a difference.

[stevebrot]

But again, am buying the portrait lens since my 18-135mm autofocus really hunts sometime to lock in focus when taken indoors during party.

Plain and simple, everyone should have a 50, it's IMHO the shortest focal length I would use for portraits. And if you budget is 500, you cn get both that and the 35 2.4.

Norm, do you think that either of those options will provide faster AF than what the OP has with his 18-135? It turns out that is his concern. At least that is what he said above (faster AF w/o hunting). A screw-drive lens might provide that whether it is portrait length or not. I know you have the 18-135. Do you also have a 50mm and 35mm screw drive for comparison?


Steve

[dcBear78]

Plain and simple, everyone should have a 50, it's IMHO the shortest focal length I would use for portraits. And if you budget is 500, you cn get both that and the 35 2.4.

Good point. You could get 2 excellent lenses for your budget. All the examples I provided earlier were with the DA35, even though I now have the FA31.

[jaikumarr18]

Good point. You could get 2 excellent lenses for your budget. All the examples I provided earlier were with the DA35, even though I now have the FA31.

@dcBear78, So would DA 35 2.4 AL is better for portrait, indoors/parties in low light condition? Not sure what is the other lens that you were recommending though. When you stated 2 excellent lenses for my budget.

But again, am ok to spend a little more if am getting one perfect lens which can perform better than these two lenses.

[dcBear78]

The DA35 runs for about $200 and the 50mm are pretty cheap too.

I can't help with price or recommendations for 50's as I do not own one. But there have been ones suggested here earlier. So for your budget you could get both lenses and cover both focal ranges. Both would be good inside. The 50mm would be better provided you have the room. If not the 35 is good for being able to get closer or wider shots.