[Kay350]

Hi everyone!

I`ve been thinking recently about my own limiting factors, as well as equipment limitations. And I know I`ve got no skills to become a full-time pro for now, as I`m still fresh to "the club" of photography, but one thing bothers me- would my photos improve if I use better equipment? Better lenses namely, as better camera is out of the question for now (K-3 is in no way limiting me, I believe). The photos I take are 90% studio, so:

- small apertures (when was I below f5.6?)
- controlled lightning
- huge depth of field

I already learned, that with those conditions, lenses behave very, very similarly. In a good way. I`m having a hard time finding differences between shots taken with DA50 and DA18-135 for instance. At f8 the difference in sharpness is not that great, while stuff like microcontrast and colors can be changed in PP (which I always do, those shots really need that to "shine"). I read that better lenses have different rendering. But is it relevant at small apertures? If I made portraits outdoors, with natural lightning then I guess it would be more important. So, my last concern is sharpness (already really happy about that in my DA50)- but as long as I`m not printing large, does it even matter? Would better lens resolution be even visible on a K-3 photo?

So, what it boils down to:

Buy, for example:

- DA*55, FA77 or anything in that category, get extra light (useless in my conditions), better rendering (I do not need pretty OOF areas in my applications);
- DFA100, 50macro etc , get better resolution (which is always nice, but... )

OR

don`t buy anything new and don`t believe in pixie dust ^^

It would be easier if I were shooting wildlife, just get longer, brighter and faster focusing guns (and get a loan). But in my spot I`m getting a felling that all I need to do is at most invest in more lightning equipment and better ideas instead of new lenses.

And yeah, I would like to know if I`m not missing anything by not having those premium glass, as my best lens is a cheap DA50. I know, I know, not the gear but the photographer takes pictures...

Would love to hear from you guys on this little dilemma of mine; here are some of my shots, to help you get an idea.

[W.j.christy]

I have the DA-50 and the 18-135. I like the DA-50 quite a bit for portraiture work, but have relegated the 18-135 to travel/rainy day (literally bad weather lens).

Your pictures are quite good, I would recommend changing out your zoom lens a faster one.

Yes you will lose some focal length, but it looks like you don't need an incredibly long lens for the work that you do.

I own the sigma 17-50 f2.8 and when i starting to use it was absolutely floored by the image rendering. It is far superior to the 18-135 in micro contrast and sharpness.

Now if you really want to have a go, you could start to play with some of the old M42 mount lenses. I recently picked up a Super Takumar 50 1.4 to try out and its produces some very nice images.

Not sure of your budget but the sigma lens is currently around $350 us and the you can pick up the takumar for about 80 or less on ebay or in the classified ads here in the forums.

Just my 2 cents

[Imp]

Great shots! That's all i've got to say

[Adam]

I read that better lenses have different rendering. But is it relevant at small apertures?

You've certainly got some great shots there! You'll probably see a small improvement with the DA* 55mm or FA 77. Why not give the DA* 55mm a try and see how it goes? If there's no difference, send it back

One area in which the former should be better is focusing. Not only is the AF quiet, but manual focusing can be carried out much more precisely.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[Kay350]

Thanks.

Changing the zoom is an idea I head in the back of my head for a while, but that has to wait, it is not my first concern.

The question remains- is it relevant for studio photography to have better lenses if you only use small apertures? If I were to shoot an outdoor portrait with shallow depth of field then yeah, i.e. Sigma 85F14 would be WAY better than my little DA50. But at f8 or so, indoors?

[othar]

Beside some snapshots of the family I usually only do landscape/cityscape and similar photography so I am not very familiar with portrait and studiowork. That said I think your pictures are quite good and appealing, but I think you can improve them somewhat with the equippment you already have. For instance I am not sure if the eyes in the first 2 pictures are really in focus (maybe I am mistaken, I don't have a good monitor at hand), to me it seems as if the nose is more in focus, so you either can focus on the eyes and recompose with the center af point or choose another af point near the eyes. In my opinion you can achieve another improvement with slightly different crops. For instance the first picture shows too much hair, I would crop the picture shortly under the hairline this way the eyes wouldn't be so close to the middle too. The second picture seems to me a little too narrow at the sides (is this a 16:9 crop?) maybe in 2:3 or 4:3 would be better.

Regards Patrick

Edit: concerning new lenses you might try the DA 55mm or the FA 77mm lens, they are highly regarded portrait lenses. The two macro lenses despite beeing capable lenses might be a little unforgivingly sharp for portrait photography.
But this is only my opinion based on reading reviews, I don't own any of the mentioned lenses. If I have a patient model I use my A 50 f1.7 or my Samyang 35mm lens for my portrait attempts, but the lack of AF can be challenging with kids :-)

[hcc]

The question remains- is it relevant for studio photography to have better lenses if you only use small apertures?

Yes. The FA77mm Ltd is a fabulous lens. I shoot a lit bit portrait (my family) and a lot outdoor. I learned to value the FA77mm for incredible shots: the rendering is fabulous. The photo below is at larger aperture, but the lighting was very difficult, yet the FA77mm strived. I have also achieved great shots at small aperture (f8 and above) in outdoor settings.

It took me sometimes to appreciate the FA7mm Ltd. Once I learned how to use it, the FA77mm has become one of my favourite lens, together with the Voigtlander Nokton 58mm (a superbe MF lens). (Note: I am not a professional. I also do not own the DA*55mm.)

Hope that the comment may assist.

BTW: great shots in your original post. Very impressive! My favourite is the 3rd shot.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[ChristianRock]

I think you'll see a bit more improvement from learning PP techniques than from newer lenses. Also, continue practicing flash (strobist) techniques. Not that newer lenses ever hurt anybody

But I think that with time you'll be able to bring out more from the pictures - not that your pictures aren't good now. They just miss a bit of "pop".

[RonHendriks1966]

The da*55 is by far the best lens for your work. You don't need any other lens. I assume you always work on iso 100. You controle the light, workspace and all around. Does it make a lot of difference? No not compared to the da50, but it is noticable. I did some shooting some time ago with 31mm, 55mm and 85mm and all three are stunning, but the 55 is just that little better in fine detail then the other two.

[UncleVanya]

At f/8 my A* 85 was one of the sharpest lenses I have ever had the opportunity to use. The FA 77 is essentially it's little brother/cousin. Similar optical designs just smaller. I think you might find it slightly more interesting and sharper than the DA 50 but - and it's a big one - I agree with the idea that PP and flash techniques could make more of a difference. There's nothing wrong with the work you have done - it's fantastic compared to what I could produce - but I think there is room for improvement and it's far more likely to be noticed than the lens change. Upgrades to lighting options, improvements in small details of technique are more likely to yield rewards.

If you needed more flexible focal lengths and wanted a faster lens I would have suggested the DA* 50-135 - but since you don't seem to need the things that make it special...

[Tas]

G'day,

I'm not into portraiture however I do have a lens to suggest that you might consider in lieu of the DA*55 or the FA77 I don't have either of those two lenses and am aware of the regard they are held in but I have a soft spot for the DA70 as I actually have experience with one of these.

It's a wonderful short tele lens that is sharp, relatively fast, small and the pricing is smack in the middle of the four lens you mentioned. It also works nicely on the K-1 with the vignetting very natural that virtually disappears as you stop down.

To give you an idea here's some links to portraits taken with the DA70 on APSC:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/41784287@N07/5926593036/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/41784287@N07/5926570810/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/wesleywong/2340861010/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/14667436@N02/23960992443/in/album-72157650432680956/ (left click on this image as a larger version was posted that you can zoom into)

As I said I don't do portaits (this is as close as I get to a portrait https://www.flickr.com/photos/25114742@N07/26397130483/in/album-72157626215013302/) but I do suggest you consider this option as well.

Tas

Ps: As a couple of people have mentioned PP, you might also be interested in this: https://www.on1.com/news/category/product-training/portrait10/

[UncleVanya]

G'day,

I'm not into portraiture however I do have a lens to suggest that you might consider in lieu of the DA*55 or the FA77 I don't have either of those two lenses and am aware of the regard they are held in but I have a soft spot for the DA70 as I actually have experience with one of these.

I own the DA 70 and the FA 77 and I can echo that both are fantastic lenses.

[Digitalis]

Sigma 85F14 would be WAY better than my little DA50. But at f8 or so, indoors?

99% of modern lenses are quite good at f/8 - it takes a truly abysmal lens to perform poorly under studio conditions. When you are using wider apertures than f/4, then the gap between good and better glass will become apparent.

I use the FA77 quite a bit in the studio, on the K1 it becomes a superb lens for portraiture as it is less likely to intimidate the subjects unlike the large 85mm f/1.2 lenses....or 960mm 8X10 format lenses I work with.


Pentax K10D - SMCP-FA77mm f/1.8 Limited @ f/11 ISO 100 1/180th

[clackers]

That's the beauty of studio shots, Kay350.

You maximise picture quality by getting the best out of the lens ... and even the FA77 is better at f5.6 than it is at f1.8.

This is a 17-50 f2.8 stopped down to f7.1 ...

[Kay350]

Thank you all for helpful ideas.

As for DA 70- I may have an opportunity to test it in the near future, so I`ll see if it suits me. I know it is a great performer outdoors.

The DA*55 was just an example- I don`t really care that much about autofocus noise or size of the lens. So, I was thinking about Samyang 85, maybe this would be the sweet spot for me.

I think you'll see a bit more improvement from learning PP techniques than from newer lenses. Also, continue practicing flash (strobist) techniques. Not that newer lenses ever hurt anybody

But I think that with time you'll be able to bring out more from the pictures - not that your pictures aren't good now. They just miss a bit of "pop".

That`s what I was thinking. As I mostly do things by trial and error, my progress is a bit slow with PP. And, what is worse, I don`t have any "examples" in my head, I just make every photo seperatyly and decide on the go if it looks good or not. Maybe it is time to invest more time in learning Photoshop magic.

Ps: As a couple of people have mentioned PP, you might also be interested in this: https://www.on1.com/news/category/product-training/portrait10/

Great idea, but I don`t use that software. Have you got any good, comprehensive tutorials for photoshop? Digging through all the trash on youtube is painful.