[Serkevan]

I just think it would be better for people not to form unrealistic expectations about what an ultra-wide can do.

I know, I have one . I personally enjoy the distorted perspective a lot.

[Sandy Hancock]

Should you really be photographing head shots with an ultra-wide? It won't necessarily provide the most flattering look.

There is more to portraiture than head shots.

Wide angle lenses excel for environmental portraiture, usually half or full body of the subject while exploiting the depth of field to keep the background context recognisable but hopefully nicely rendered. The very same distortion which makes them unflattering for head shots can produce some elongation to legs and arms, which can be exploited to the subject's advantage.

Convenience is no the only reason phone cameras are popular for Instagram selfies.

[northcoastgreg]

There is more to portraiture than head shots.

You're missing the point. The discussion was primarily about separation, and to achieve separation with an ultra-wide, it helps to get as close to your subject. Hence, if you're trying to take a portrait and get separation, you're going for head shots, not full body.

Perhaps it would have been better if Mr. Iwasaki had not mentioned bokeh as one of the features of the lens. It has led people to put too much emphasis on it. Undoubtedly, if you photograph something small enough (like Mr. Iwasaki's seashell), you'll get marvelous separation and bokeh (those waves!). But I will venture to guess that the vast majority of images taken with this lens will not feature any significant degree of separation or bokeh. The lens will be used to photography landscapes (both natural and urban), interiors, and general scenics. Some of those images undoubtedly will feature featherless bipeds of one sort or another (along with the occasional quadruped, unfeathered of course). But I'm not going to be expecting to find gobs of bokeh in any of them.

[BruceBanner]

Thanks for re-opening this thread.

Mea culpa ...

⇒ First, I apologize to anyone that thought I was getting on my "high horse" about what I have done in life other than photography. That was probably quite out of place here and I will try to better in the future. Promise.

⇒ Second, if I offended anyone by my rather harsh criticism for lack of information concerning this 21mm, then I regret that, too.

⇒ Third, if anyone wants more UWA image samples (just to get an idea of what's out there and what its perspective looks like), then give me a green light. I have some SMC M 20/4 images that can be posted.

Cheers, J

And I apologize for overreacting instead of finding a way for a friendlier resolution of our small conflict of opinion.
I definitely understand your impatience about knowing more, as I feel the same. The lens is on my shopping list, and I liked what we found out so far (21mm instead of - say - 24-ish, DC motor, WR). I feel very enthusiastic about it.
And by the way, I liked the pictures you posted.

[Wheatfield]

You're missing the point. The discussion was primarily about separation, and to achieve separation with an ultra-wide, it helps to get as close to your subject. Hence, if you're trying to take a portrait and get separation, you're going for head shots, not full body.

The nature of wide angles is that a head shot is going to be difficult unless you want to make your subject look like a camel. However, an ultra wide can be very useful to show a person in their environment with a half length portrait. Careful camera placement would yield a very nice image from a half a dozen feet away from the subject, and would give a feeling for the room the person is in at the same time with a 21mm lens of reasonably fast speed.
A lot depends on the maximum aperture if one considers separation to require very shallow depth of field. I've always considered separation to be a feeling of three dimensionality of the image, an impression that I can reach into the photograph and touch the back of the subject's head. Often, that is achieved in the lens design phase by allowing a degree of undercorrected spherical aberration. This is what gives the 77mm lens it's rather magical quality of having the subject seem to be floating in front of the background.

[robbiec]

Sit down at a table with your K-whatever & DA15. The 15 has a bit of curvature so take that into account, arrange 4 or 5 people to duck towards you like in a rugby scrum but not handling each others tackle say at 1.5m - 2m distance, take the shot. Portraiture with an UWA. My arms are about 1m long, more than enough for a selfie with the wife.

[BruceBanner]

You're missing the point. The discussion was primarily about separation, and to achieve separation with an ultra-wide, it helps to get as close to your subject. Hence, if you're trying to take a portrait and get separation, you're going for head shots, not full body.

Perhaps it would have been better if Mr. Iwasaki had not mentioned bokeh as one of the features of the lens. It has led people to put too much emphasis on it. Undoubtedly, if you photograph something small enough (like Mr. Iwasaki's seashell), you'll get marvelous separation and bokeh (those waves!). But I will venture to guess that the vast majority of images taken with this lens will not feature any significant degree of separation or bokeh. The lens will be used to photography landscapes (both natural and urban), interiors, and general scenics. Some of those images undoubtedly will feature featherless bipeds of one sort or another (along with the occasional quadruped, unfeathered of course). But I'm not going to be expecting to find gobs of bokeh in any of them.

Rather than repost the images again, I will just point you to these shots that I think best illustrate what Sandy (and I) are saying in regards to using a DFA 21 in terms of portrait use. Please note that the shots are half to full body, not head.

D FA 21 Limited is one of the three. - Page 15 - PentaxForums.com

Especially note the ballroom posed shots, they are taken at exactly 21mm at f4. The subject isolation is not so great (better than it would have been if the DA 12-24 were used on the KP), but I have to use flash to help stress focus to the subjects. I want the context of the environment with the portrait but really, f2 here would have been awesome. If the DFA 21 is no faster than f3.2 then I am really not sure if it is going on the buy list (how much better is it going to achieve those shots?). Consider the results of the FA31 on a 3/4 body shot taken wide open below, masses amounts of 3D subject isolation;



I am thinking (because the lens is a DFA Ltd) that it will follow in those foot steps. It might not get f1.8, or f2 even, but a f2.4-2.8 should provide similar rendering capabilities to a FA31@1.8 in terms of isolation of people/animals with a wider FoV. Personally I am hyped for it.

[noelpolar]

I love wide lenses and people shots with appropiate context.... would not go on holiday without one (lens that is... happy to holiday without people).... just never put fat people at frame edge..... or the holiday is over.

[clackers]

A wedding photographer could work their entire career with just the three f2.8 zooms. But specialty lenses will break up the feeling of every shot looking like every other shot, such as a macro lens for details, and an ultrawide for portraits, too.

Ultrawides are challenging for sure. In landscape photography, they can diminish the natural beauty around you by pushing mountains far away and making them insignificant (better off actually to get close to a low foreground subject), and in portraits, there's distortion at the edges, so you shoot with the subject in the middle and keep the camera exactly parallel like this shot I took opposite Melbourne's main train station, with a 24mm Sigma (it has nice bokeh, too, you can see, nine rounded blades):



I also deliberately use the edge distortion here at 21mm on my Sigma DG 12-24mm to get an unsettling effect - the model is simultaneously casual and intimidating, with her legs stretched out like that:



So ultrawides are a powerful weapon, but not everyone is up to dealing with them, so of course not everyone should buy them.

That's why the first new Star prime was the 50mm, who can't use that? There would be a lot of older forum members here who maybe started as youngsters with a Pentax film camera and maybe the 50mm f2.

[noelpolar]

So ultrawides are a powerful weapon, but not everyone is up to dealing with them, so of course not everyone should buy them.

The most exciting times in my life have been when I've got a powerful weapon that I lacked the "whatever's" for.... like as a 21yo when I traded my Honda XL250 on a GSX 1100 (Suzuki Katana).... many memorable moments followed.

[Jean Poitiers]

These are M 20/4 images from the K-1 that I took early Spring below our lockdown in France. They are for a now-cancelled regional clubs photo expo ... the theme is "Vue du sol" meaning "view of the ground" or "view from the ground". It's kind of a play on words.

Here the K-1 is resting on the asphalt and the subjects are French attorneys protesting against the new proposed retirement pension reforms ... I was @ about f/8 and in hyperfocal for these. Chimped after several images shot at the end of a blind point & shoot spray.

[monochrome]

This time I think I’ll have to choose one:

• D FA21 Limited
• K-new

In a way I hope the camera isn’t compelling because I really want the 21.

[Mistral75]

^ You'll get both, as usual.

[BruceBanner]

This time I think I’ll have to choose one:

• D FA21 Limited
• K-new

In a way I hope the camera isn’t compelling because I really want the 21.

It's a good point actually. I don't need to buy the K-new straight away, whereas the DFA21 could be put to use fast on the K-1. I just want to know what kind of performance the K-new will give as it will dictate longer term decisions. I may decide to get more milage out of my KP, or go with another brand for crop camera usage. If the K-new is really spectacular it may move higher on the list and see the DFA 21 close behind... I cannot make any financial decisions on either of these items however as much is still unknown.

[Rondec]

There is more to portraiture than head shots.

Wide angle lenses excel for environmental portraiture, usually half or full body of the subject while exploiting the depth of field to keep the background context recognisable but hopefully nicely rendered. The very same distortion which makes them unflattering for head shots can produce some elongation to legs and arms, which can be exploited to the subject's advantage.

Convenience is no the only reason phone cameras are popular for Instagram selfies.

I think Greg is only commenting on the fact that bokeh isn't typically a big feature with this focal length. There are a few things you would close enough to that you would blur the background considerably, but probably not portraits.