[OoKU]

[fsge]

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)

[mattt]

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

[hoopsontoast]

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

[unixrevolution]

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.

[D1N0]

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.

[serothis]

Pentax should counter with a DFA 85mm f/1.2

[D1N0]

As long as they keep the FA 77mm F1.8 ltd.

[unixrevolution]

Macro lenses aren't portrait lenses.

Please explain why this matters.

[Na Horuk]

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

[D1N0]

Please explain why this matters.

What Na Horuk said. ;-)

[unixrevolution]

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

[Na Horuk]

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

[Rondec]

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.

[photoptimist]

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.