Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-19-2016, 04:28 PM - 1 Like   #151
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 150




10-19-2016, 05:02 PM   #152
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Genf
Posts: 91
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
The only one that compares is a bit longer and a lot fatter:

Compact Camera Meter
Which is not available in K mount either... This Otus looks impressive but I doubt I ever use one (no AF on top and canikon only)
10-19-2016, 06:44 PM   #153
Site Supporter
mattt's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Niagara
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,658
QuoteOriginally posted by Zygonyx Quote
Have you noticed the volume of the new Art ?



No thanks, happy with my FA*85/1.4
While I'm no fan of the Angry Photographer - I think this is an attempt to rationalize the pixie dust of older lenses and their simpler recipes....

The flattening of modern lenses or the death of 3d pop ? YANNICK KHONG
10-20-2016, 07:14 AM - 1 Like   #154
Pentaxian
hoopsontoast's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 822
QuoteOriginally posted by OoKU Quote
Lovely shots, I have often thought of downsizing my Sigma 85mm f1.4 to the FA77, DA70 or D-FA100 Macro but not quite decided yet.

I would love a more compact portrait lens like the K85 or VL90 I used to have




10-20-2016, 09:30 AM   #155
Pentaxian
unixrevolution's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Waldorf, MD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,844
QuoteOriginally posted by hoopsontoast Quote
Lovely shots, I have often thought of downsizing my Sigma 85mm f1.4 to the FA77, DA70 or D-FA100 Macro but not quite decided yet.

I would love a more compact portrait lens like the K85 or VL90 I used to have


I have never actually found any reason to want more Shallow DoF than the 90mm f/2.8 that I have, at least on Full Frame.
10-20-2016, 10:45 AM   #156
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,602
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by unixrevolution Quote
I have never actually found any reason to want more Shallow DoF than the 90mm f/2.8 that I have, at least on Full Frame.
Macro lenses aren't portrait lenses.
10-20-2016, 12:10 PM   #157
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 212
Pentax should counter with a DFA 85mm f/1.2
10-20-2016, 12:14 PM   #158
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,602
Original Poster
As long as they keep the FA 77mm F1.8 ltd.

10-20-2016, 01:21 PM   #159
Pentaxian
unixrevolution's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Waldorf, MD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,844
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
Macro lenses aren't portrait lenses.
Please explain why this matters.
10-20-2016, 02:04 PM - 2 Likes   #160
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,314
QuoteOriginally posted by unixrevolution Quote
Please explain why this matters.
Portrait lens: - Beautiful bokeh
- Renders skin tones nicely
- Good working distance and FoV for pleasing perspective and distortion characteristics
- Has a lot of character in the way it renders people, colors, and OoF areas

Macro lens: - Highly corrected
- Brutally sharp (not good, as it renders all blemishes, impurities and zits on the person's face. It even renders any differences in makeup application)
- Allows really high magnification (main reason for owning a macro lens, not really needed for portraiture)
- Clinical, lab-like rendering, with next to no "lens character" (portraits generally require some mood, feeling, which is harder to create with a dedicated macro prime)

Yes, you can use a macro lens for portraiture. You can use a fisheye lens, as well. The question is just what you want, and which lens gives the closest, best results. You can use portrait lens with bellows or extension tubes for macro purposes, but the photos will not be as sharp, highly corrected as using a dedicated macro lens. Of course, these days you can use instagram-style filters and give any photo some type of "character", but that's a whole other can of worms
10-20-2016, 03:52 PM   #161
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,602
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by unixrevolution Quote
Please explain why this matters.
What Na Horuk said. ;-)
10-20-2016, 04:47 PM   #162
Pentaxian
unixrevolution's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Waldorf, MD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,844
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
Portrait lens: - Beautiful bokeh
- Renders skin tones nicely
- Good working distance and FoV for pleasing perspective and distortion characteristics
- Has a lot of character in the way it renders people, colors, and OoF areas

Macro lens: - Highly corrected
- Brutally sharp (not good, as it renders all blemishes, impurities and zits on the person's face. It even renders any differences in makeup application)
- Allows really high magnification (main reason for owning a macro lens, not really needed for portraiture)
- Clinical, lab-like rendering, with next to no "lens character" (portraits generally require some mood, feeling, which is harder to create with a dedicated macro prime)

Yes, you can use a macro lens for portraiture. You can use a fisheye lens, as well. The question is just what you want, and which lens gives the closest, best results. You can use portrait lens with bellows or extension tubes for macro purposes, but the photos will not be as sharp, highly corrected as using a dedicated macro lens. Of course, these days you can use instagram-style filters and give any photo some type of "character", but that's a whole other can of worms
Thanks for taking the time to explain! I initially took the retort that a macro is not a portrait lens to be a knee-jerk by someone paying too much attention to labels and not enough attention to results, but your considered explanation shows that isn't the case.

That all does make quite a bit of sense, when you consider the lenses beyond their focal length and apertures, and go into their rendering, coatings, and other considerations. However, I also believe that if a lens works for a given purpose, it works no matter who made it, or why, and my Tamron 90mm F/2.8 does give me good portraits. I bought that lens early in my career, and its usefulness as a portrait lens and a macro, pulling double-duty, has made it indispensible and a terrific value. It's nicknamed "The portrait macro" for a reason, after all. Would a lens with two stops more light and 5mm less length do better? Probably. Enough to justify getting another lens? Debatable.

I like the portraits I get out of my 90. They don't seem "too sharp" to me, nor do they seem to lack character or good bokeh. I really am working from the results here, not just the similarities in focal length and aperture It may not be perfect, but it's more than adequate for a hobbyist like me. And it saves a spot in my bag for something else

Last edited by unixrevolution; 10-20-2016 at 05:01 PM.
10-21-2016, 04:45 AM   #163
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,314
QuoteOriginally posted by unixrevolution Quote
I like the portraits I get out of my 90. They don't seem "too sharp" to me, nor do they seem to lack character or good bokeh. I really am working from the results here, not just the similarities in focal length and aperture It may not be perfect, but it's more than adequate for a hobbyist like me. And it saves a spot in my bag for something else
One thing you can do is go here: Pentax Camera & Lens Sample Photo Search Engine - PentaxForums.com
Now look at photos taken with classic portrait lenses like FA 77mm ltd, or DA* 55mm f1.4. Compare those to Pentax 100mm macro, Tamron 90mm macro. The difference will become apparent quite soon (even though you can compensate for this with good technique, lighting), but it depends on you whether you want to spend so much money on that difference. I didn't! I have a DFA 100mm, but the most "portrait" lens that I have is probably the very affordable Helios 44-2. I don't really take portraits, not a priority of mine right now
10-21-2016, 06:59 AM   #164
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,924
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
One thing you can do is go here: Pentax Camera & Lens Sample Photo Search Engine - PentaxForums.com
Now look at photos taken with classic portrait lenses like FA 77mm ltd, or DA* 55mm f1.4. Compare those to Pentax 100mm macro, Tamron 90mm macro. The difference will become apparent quite soon (even though you can compensate for this with good technique, lighting), but it depends on you whether you want to spend so much money on that difference. I didn't! I have a DFA 100mm, but the most "portrait" lens that I have is probably the very affordable Helios 44-2. I don't really take portraits, not a priority of mine right now
I think an update of the FA 77 -- fix the purple fringing issues (that's the biggest issue with the FA 77 at present), add in quick shift, and maybe add in some sealing (at least a seal at the lens mount) -- would make it a perfect portrait lens. Comparing the DFA 100 macro to it definitely gives a different feel. The biggest thing is the transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus and bokeh. FA 77 may not be as brutally sharp as the DFA 100mm (although it is pretty sharp at f2.8), but it gives really nice results in portraiture.

10-21-2016, 07:53 AM - 3 Likes   #165
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 655
QuoteOriginally posted by mattt Quote
While I'm no fan of the Angry Photographer - I think this is an attempt to rationalize the pixie dust of older lenses and their simpler recipes....

The flattening of modern lenses or the death of 3d pop ? YANNICK KHONG
My goodness!

I've never seen so much blatantly incorrect nonsense about optics in my life. For example, yes, glass does "slow down light" but the light speeds back up the instant it reaches air between the lenses or as it travels to the sensor. Glass is not a capacitor. Most of the light loss is not in the glass but in the surfaces between air and glass. In that regard, a modern lens with better coatings may have less light loss than an older lens with worse coatings even if the newer lens has many more elements. The bigger front elements of modern lenses have nothing to do with light loss... I could go on but suffice to say there's probably almost no correct explanations in the entire blog.

There may well be good physical reasons for the differences in how older versus newer lenses render images, but Khong's reasons are not it.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
85mm, depth, dock, dof, f1.4, field, head, k-mount, lens, lenses, ltd, pentax news, pentax rumors, portrait, releases, sigma, sigma 85mm f1.4, sp, subject, tamron
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sigma 85mm f1.4 gordon_l34 Pentax Price Watch 6 12-02-2016 01:41 AM
Sigma 85mm F1.4 on sale. David&karen Pentax Price Watch 2 03-13-2016 05:21 PM
Lens Tournament: FA* 85mm F1.4 vs A* 85mm F1.4 Adam Pentax Forums Giveaways 5 10-23-2014 10:47 AM
FA77mm f1.8 vs Sigma 85mm f1.4 schnitzer79 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 29 06-23-2014 05:22 AM
77mm f1.8 or Sigma 85mm f1.4 for outdoor portraits? crossover37 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 60 05-12-2011 11:04 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:23 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top