[Dan Rentea]

Try doing a close portrait with a 35mm sometime. The 35 is right up there for versatility, but the 50 will work better in more situations. Granted it isn’t wide enough a lot of the time, but then neither is the 35. Granted it isn’t long enough a lot of the time, but it will do better than the 35. I worked as a photo finisher through the 1980s when the single focal length compact with 35mm lens was king. Most of what I saw would have been improved by longer glass.

I take portrait all the time with the 35mm lens. That's why I own 35, 85 and 135mm lenses and I skipped the 50mm lens. As I said, I tried to like the 50mm focal lenght, but it doesn't help me at all. It's as you said: not wide enough, not long enough. Each time I organise a portrait shooting indoor there must be a beginner who tells me before we start to shoot that I need a 50mm or a 85mm for portraits because the 35mm is to short. But, the 35mm lens gives me a different perspective than a normal 50mm lens or than the 85mm. A 50mm lens wouldn't have helped me at all for the images with the green background. The one from the right was taken with my 35mm lens, the one from the left was taken with my 85mm, on a full frame. Totally different perspective, but I like both of them. The one taken with the 35mm got me close to the model and her expression changed each time I got closer and closer. It's a more intimate image for me the one taken with the 35mm and it would have been even better if the sun didn't get behind clouds. I can get even closer to the model with the 35mm, but I would need to take the shot from above her eyes. It's a simple trick that work when you need even closer shots than this one with a wide lens.

Or, take the image with the girl next to the piano. I couldn't get the shot with a 50mm lens because I was already leaning against the wall behind me.

Or, take the image with the girl in bed. It was taken with a 35mm in a small hotel room. How would a 50mm lens could of help me? It wouldn't because it wasn't enough room to get creative with a 50mm lens.

And for the last image the 50mm would have been to short because the wolf already saw me close enough, even if I was using the 85mm.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 03-03-2018 at 08:11 AM.

[Wheatfield]

I take portrait all the time with the 35mm lens. That's why I own 35, 85 and 135mm lenses and I skipped the 50mm lens. As I said, I tried to like the 50mm focal lenght, but it doesn't help me at all. It's as you said: not wide enough, not long enough. Each time I organise a portrait shooting indoor there must be a beginner who tells me before we start to shoot that I need a 50mm or a 85mm for portraits because the 35mm is to short. But, the 35mm lens gives me a different perspective than a normal 50mm lens or than the 85mm. A 50mm lens wouldn't have helped me at all for the images with the green background. The one from the right was taken with my 35mm lens, the one from the left was taken with my 85mm, on a full frame. Totally different perspective, but I like both of them. The one taken with the 35mm got me close to the model and her expression changed each time I got closer and closer. It's a more intimate image for me the one taken with the 35mm and it would have been even better if the sun didn't get behind clouds. I can get even closer to the model with the 35mm, but I would need to take the shot from above her eyes. It's a simple trick that work when you need even closer shots than this one with a wide lens.

Or, take the image with the girl next to the piano. I couldn't get the shot with a 50mm lens because I was already leaning against the wall behind me.

Or, take the image with the girl in bed. It was taken with a 35mm in a small hotel room. How would a 50mm lens could of help me? It wouldn't because it wasn't enough room to get creative with a 50mm lens.

And for the last image the 50mm would have been to short because the wolf already saw me close enough, even if I was using the 85mm.

Isn’t it funny how I specified close portraits and in order to make a point, you came back with environmental portraits. They are nice pictures, but they don’t come anywhere near addressing the point I made.
This isn’t a case of you moving the goal posts, you are trying to move the entire stadium.
Why don’t you show us some of your head and shoulder portraits that you have done with your wide angle lens since that is the point you are trying to argue.
Until you actually address the subject, I think we can agree that you are not making any valid points.

[Dan Rentea]

Isn’t it funny how I specified close portraits and in order to make a point, you came back with environmental portraits. They are nice pictures, but they don’t come anywhere near addressing the point I made.
This isn’t a case of you moving the goal posts, you are trying to move the entire stadium.
Why don’t you show us some of your head and shoulder portraits that you have done with your wide angle lens since that is the point you are trying to argue.
Until you actually address the subject, I think we can agree that you are not making any valid points.

I think your first comment was something like "the 50mm lens is the most versatile single focal length lens for the 35mm format". And you mentioned also in the other comment "try doing a close portrait...", not head and shoulders portraits. I gave you some examples of close portraits, taken from 1m distance from the model (the one with green background) and another two taken from 1,5 - 2,5m distance from the model (the girl next to the piano and the one in bed). To me this is what I call close portraits and in the same time versatility. If you are interested only in head and shoulder portraits, then why we are talking about versatility? 50mm is far from being ideal for head and shoulder portraits, 35mm being even more unsuited for this, but only for a reason: you get to close to the subject and it's inconfortable for the subject. You can deal with the perspective of the lens with some tricks. An 85mm will do the job better than the 50mm lens if you're interested in head and shoulder portraits, a 100mm lens or a 135mm will be even better for that.

But, you asked for a head and shoulders portrait taken with a 35mm lens. I have on my computer (I don't intend to search other images on my hard drives ) a candid one taken at the request of the mother. I pretended to photograph the girl's bag that she held in her hand (I can focus with the 35mm from a 15-20cm distance from the subject), I took 2 or 3 pictures of the bag and showed them to her so that she can relax and then I took 3 - 4 random shots of her, this image being the tightest from the series. First image is the edited one, the second is the original. I posted the original so that you can see how shooting a little from above with a wide angle lens can change the perspective (it makes the subject head look smaller).

And I will give you another example of the "versatility" of a 50mm lens. I was documenting the life of the peasants from a mountain village a few years back (I had a K-5 II with the 35mm lens with me, thinking perhaps at that time that the 50mm lens is the most versatile prime ) and for the last image that I posted (please excuse the quality of it, I save it from my Facebook page) I almost took away the paint from the walls to get the picture and the girl's feet were left outside the frame, the grandma's room being so tiny. If I had a 35mm equivalent focal lenght, a lot of other images I would have taken that day.

So, if you want to further discuss the versatility of the 50mm lens, give me some arguments, other than your affirmation that the 50mm lens is the most versatile single focal length lens for the 35mm format.

[Wheatfield]

If you like the 35, good for you. If the industry as a whole agreed with you, then why wasn’t the 35mm lens considered the standard for decades?
Anyway, carry on. I will cede that you are more willing to engage in a debate than I am, and concede that for you, the 50mm lens doesn’t work.
For me it does, and the industry seems to support that view, outliers notwithstanding.

[Dan Rentea]

If you like the 35, good for you. If the industry as a whole agreed with you, then why wasn’t the 35mm lens considered the standard for decades?
Anyway, carry on. I will cede that you are more willing to engage in a debate than I am, and concede that for you, the 50mm lens doesn’t work.
For me it does, and the industry seems to support that view, outliers notwithstanding.

I'm talking about versatility. I don't care if the 35mm lens fits into the category of wide angle lenses, if the 50 mm lens is the standard one and so on. When you say is the most versatile single lens, at least throw in some arguments. That I was trying to do by posting the images, not to start a debate. If the 50mm lens works for you, then tell us what you are shooting on regular basis and why do you think it's the most versatile prime lens. It's all I wanted, to understand the reasons behind your affirmation.

[biz-engineer]

I'm talking about versatility.

If the only prime you have is a 50mm than it''s got to be versatile. 35mm + 85mm is more versatile than 50mm alone, that is why if you already have a 35 and 85, 50mm isn't used much. Currently Pentax does have the FA31 and FA77 that can cover the cases your presented in this thread. Now for having new modern primes with similar focal length to match the K1, the Pentax user will have to wait 2 to 3 years, whereas the Canikon user can have those lenses without waiting.

[Dan Rentea]

If the only prime you have is a 50mm.

This reason is actually good enough. If I have a camera and only a 50mm lens, then that lens would be a versatile lens. We went off topic and I think it was my fault because I looked at the roadmap and it seems that an 85mm and a wide angle lens (20mm, 24mm 28mm or a 35mm) are going to be released next year and the 50mm lens is part of the reason, I believe. I'm not thrilled of this decision of Ricoh, but the 50mm lens is here in a few weeks so let's hope it will sell a lot.

[MarkJerling]

The one from the right was taken with my 35mm lens, the one from the left was taken with my 85mm, on a full frame. Totally different perspective, but I like both of them. The one taken with the 35mm got me close to the model and her expression changed each time I got closer and closer. It's a more intimate image for me the one taken with the 35mm and it would have been even better if the sun didn't get behind clouds.

Lovely images Dan, all of them. As for the first two images: What jumps out to me with regard to these two images, is how the one on the right seems to have more "depth". There's an almost 3-D quality to that shot, which (to me anyway!) is not as pronounced in the left image. It could, of course, be subjective, but before I knew which was shot with which lens, because I looked at the images before reading your comments, I thought that one did more for the portrait that the other.

[Wheatfield]

I'm talking about versatility. I don't care if the 35mm lens fits into the category of wide angle lenses, if the 50 mm lens is the standard one and so on. When you say is the most versatile single lens, at least throw in some arguments. That I was trying to do by posting the images, not to start a debate. If the 50mm lens works for you, then tell us what you are shooting on regular basis and why do you think it's the most versatile prime lens. It's all I wanted, to understand the reasons behind your affirmation.

The 50 works for me in more situations than any other focal length. I find the 35mm to be either too wide, or not wide enough. According to Lightroom, I uses lenses with that field of view (21mm on APS-C, 31 or 35mm on K1) slightly over 1% of the time, but I use something closer to the normal for the format more like a third of the time.
When I was shooting in the studio, my focal length of choice was short telephoto, and my usage numbers are very skewed towards the 70mm, 77mm and 85mm simply because something like a third of my images are shot in the studio. Take away that and I’m using a standard something like half the time.

[RobA_Oz]

Lovely images Dan, all of them. As for the first two images: What jumps out to me with regard to these two images, is how the one on the right seems to have more "depth". There's an almost 3-D quality to that shot, which (to me anyway!) is not as pronounced in the left image. It could, of course, be subjective, but before I knew which was shot with which lens, because I looked at the images before reading your comments, I thought that one did more for the portrait that the other.

I agree. There's a reason why the FA31 is so well-liked, and I reckon the FL could be as much a part of it as the optical design. Until I got one, I had eschewed that FL (or its neighbourhood, to be more precise) as not being wide enough. Now, it's one of my most used FLs.

The probable reason why 50mm (or thereabouts) was the "standard" FL for so long is that it is the easiest one to design for the 35mm film format, and the cheapest to manufacture, especially at the larger apertures. Those of us who grew up with 35mm film probably became "institutionalised" as a result of its ubiquity.

[surfar]

Those of us who grew up with 35mm film probably became "institutionalised"

What do you mean "became"?...

[Wheatfield]

I agree. There's a reason why the FA31 is so well-liked, and I reckon the FL could be as much a part of it as the optical design. Until I got one, I had eschewed that FL (or its neighbourhood, to be more precise) as not being wide enough. Now, it's one of my most used FLs.

The probable reason why 50mm (or thereabouts) was the "standard" FL for so long is that it is the easiest one to design for the 35mm film format, and the cheapest to manufacture, especially at the larger apertures. Those of us who grew up with 35mm film probably became "institutionalised" as a result of its ubiquity.

There is probably much truth in that. I shot for most of ten years with just a 50mm lens because I couldn’t afford anything else.

[Zygonyx]

This whole conversation is insane.
All we need to be concerned about is the Pentax name on the lens. That means, custom Pentax electronic reporting and lens identification in the exif, and operates like every Pentax lens. It won't be like my Rokinon that just says "A lens" and I have to dial in the focal length. It won't e like my Sigma 70 that gives me there right FL but the wrong lens name.

All I care about is that the lens gives me the same convenience as a Pentax lens. I seriously don't understand why anyone gives a rat's tail about this. Lenses are judged on their optical characteristics first, and then on how they function on your camera. If every Pentax ever made was designed by some guy living in his mom's basement, I personally wouldn't care. It's about the product, not the name on it.

When ever someone says "this lens is a rebadge" I think "what a useless waste of brain cells that information is."

I fully agree with this.
We should stop "shooting our feets" with such pointless suspicions, which as clearly demonstrated btw Tamron and Pentax 24-70 case, are meaningless in terms of IQ and build qualities.

[Dan Rentea]

Lovely images Dan, all of them. As for the first two images: What jumps out to me with regard to these two images, is how the one on the right seems to have more "depth". There's an almost 3-D quality to that shot, which (to me anyway!) is not as pronounced in the left image. It could, of course, be subjective, but before I knew which was shot with which lens, because I looked at the images before reading your comments, I thought that one did more for the portrait that the other.

That's why I like to play when I go out and shoot. I knew that I want a different approach so I replaced the 85 with the 35mm, I ask the model to bring her right foot closer to the body in order to avoid the tipical distortion created by the wide focal lenght to the foot closer to the camera, then I started to give her some indications in order to obtain that attitude/expression of her face which is completly different than the expression from the other image.

To me, the right image is also better because it brings me closer to the model despite the framing being almost the same in both images (the wide angle lens gives to the image the 3D look that you mentioned), but more important it's the attitude/expression of the model which I absolutely love. That counts for me more than anything else when I shoot portraits. I don't care about ISO, I don't care if I shoot with a 70-200mm f4 at 200mm f4 and the guy next to me shoots the same model with a 200mm f2 lens, at f2. I don't care if I shoot with a K5 and the guy next to me shoots with K1. When comes to portraits none of this doesn't interest me.

Look af the viking shoot as another example. I've got 2 big challenges there:
- getting both the wolf and the model in focus with an 85mm lens, shooting at f2.5
- the wolf expression/position; it was very important to match the wolf expression to the one of the woman warrior

I choosed the cheap 85mm f1.8 for this image despite the fact that I had with me also 135mm f2L, 70-200mm f4. I didn't care about anything except getting the right expression.

Back on topic. I've got the feeling that the Pentax 70-200mm f4 is going to be one of the most (if not the most) desirable lens from the new roadmap. If it will be (and I'm sure it will) as good as the other 70-200mm f4 lenses from competition, then Pentaxians will be amazed by what this lens can do for the money. Outdoor and in good light my 70-200mm f4 gives me better images at 200mm f4 than Canon 85mm f1.2L at f1.8. It's an amazing versatile lens.

[awscreo]

mmmm, 70-200 f4 is so tempting lol. I'd definitely sell my tamron and get that one, picking up a fast aperture shorter telephoto for portraits. Even though optically I quite like the tamron, carrying it around together with 15-30 and 28-105 is a pain lol. Most of the days I take 15-30, 28-105 and a small fast prime to go with it.