Need a good lens for portraits

Rainy Day · 03-25-2011, 01:41 AM

Hi all!

Just bought a second-hand K7 from a work colleague, which came with the standard 18-55mm kit lens, and a Sigma 17-70mm Macro.

Now!

I'd like to do some portrait photography, and so far my best bet has been with the Sigma Macro. I've been talking to a few mates who are into Pentax photography and as far as I can gather Prime is the way to go.

But I'd like to get some advice from a few more experienced photographers!

So, I'd like to know a few good portrait lenses I can start shooting with, doesn't have to be limited to a prime/zoom, I'm open to either, and hopefully something that won't break my bank

TOUGEFC · 03-25-2011, 01:47 AM

Do you prefer auto focus or manual focus?
And whats your budget?

There are many many options.

Rainy Day · 03-25-2011, 02:27 AM

I'd PREFER a lens that can alternate auto/manual focus, but if it's a manual focus lens I won't mind so much!

Budget... probably a max of $400.00 at this stage...

twitch · 03-25-2011, 02:37 AM

At that price I would recommend a second hand DA 70mm f2.4 limited.

TOUGEFC · 03-25-2011, 02:42 AM

Beat me too it!
I also recomend a second hand DA70.

twitch · 03-25-2011, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by TOUGEFC

Beat me too it!
I also recomend a second hand DA70.

Ha, well I figure you're not going to send the OP'er your FA77 for $400, I'll give you $450 for it though

TOUGEFC · 03-25-2011, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by twitch

Ha, well I figure you're not going to send the OP'er your FA77 for $400, I'll give you $450 for it though

Haha, you will have to do better than that! Well at least its a better offer than Nicole, she wants it for free

psychdoc · 03-25-2011, 03:49 AM

I also vote for a second hand DA 70mm [or Tamron 28-75mm if you want a zoom and can live with its plasticky feel]

RioRico · 03-25-2011, 09:09 AM

Now is the time for me to jump in and declaim that portraits can be shot at any focal length; that shooting portraits with a lens with very thin DOF is tricky; that in controlled studio settings, auto aperture and focus aren't really necessary; that while I have and use 85/2's, my favorite portrait lens is an old manual M42 Sears-Tomioka 55-135/3.5 that cost me eight bucks; that for portraits, light is more crucial than the lens; et cetera.

That last bit is important. Because these fora attract gearheads, we're more likely to think in terms of "What lens should I use?" than "What light should I use?" I've told the tale of how, Back In The Day When Photography Was My Job, I shot many (un)official portraits in various formats ranging from APS-C-equivalent to large MF, and my preferred lens in all formats was 75-85mm often at f/4 or tighter -- different formats just meant different crops, that focal length is best for dimensionality -- but I DIDN'T WORRY ABOUT THE LENS! The lens is just a bit of glass (or plastic) that projects light onto a frame. Lighting, position, background, all are MUCH more important than that bit of optics.

Sure, go ahead and spend a few hundred bucks on a 70 or 77 or 85 or even a 90 macro, they're all splendid lenses, and hay, it's only money. Just don't expect the lens to shoot better portraits -- that's your task. You can also get wizard results using a US$5 75mm enlarger lens on US$8 tubes (fixed focus) or US$30 bellows (variable). Or using a US$10 200/4.5 with a US$3 +1 dioptre closeup adapter. The lens really doesn't matter. Light matters.

psychdoc · 03-25-2011, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

The lens really doesn't matter. Light matters.

Everything that RioRico said is true. But.
And some of us have this big 'but'

But all I can tell you is this: I shot for about a year with the sigma 18-200 when I got my first DSLR. The only lens I had. Pretty nice all around lens. Then I discovered that I do like taking portrait pics of my family. So I got the DA 70mm and the difference was enormous. Some of it was due to the bokeh that you could get with a faster lens. The other was that I could shoot in situations where the slower lens could not. The other is simply that some of us tend to shoot more when we have an equipment that we like to handle and shooting more improves skills. Then I got the 50-135 to take pics of my kids on stage performances and in sports. Great for 'action' portraits. Then sometimes you need something wider for indoor shots and wound up with the tamron 28-75 too...

For those of us for whom this is a hobby and or lack the skills or the time and energy these portrait lenses can provide a short-cut of sorts. I dont kid myself, my pics are nowhere close to being professional but I sure do use these lenses more and get more enjoyment out of them. I am sure there are cheaper options but...

So, in short. And I will use a computer analogy. If you are the type who would love a non-windows/non-apple computer and like to fool around with stuff like linux and ubuntu you can go one way. If you a run-of-the-mill guy like most of us who is happy with Windows and not sure what all the complaints are about you can go another way. And there are many gradients in between.

KLSMpls · 03-25-2011, 11:54 AM

If your budget goes up, the 50 - 135 DA* is stellar for portraits.

calicojack · 03-25-2011, 12:10 PM

As several people have said, it's all about light, not lenses.
You could do a fine job with that Sigma 17-70. However if you really want to spend money, you could try Vivitar 85mm f/1.4 Series 1 Manual Focus Lens for Pentax 85MMP also see Vivitar Series I (nee Samyang) 85mm F1.4 Aspherical IF Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database

**Ash** · 03-25-2011, 12:52 PM

Yes, finally... answers giving lighting as much importance as the lens...
It has been my experience throughout my portrait shooting that a good fast prime in itself is only good for portraits if you have good ambient lighting wherever you're going to shoot - a bright (or even subdued) room lit by a nice large window is a good example of this. Not everyone has this convenience. So I suggest strongly that the art of portraiture be learnt through lighting techniques as well as using good lenses. I'm not necessarily talking studio lighting, just working a single light source, like an off-camera flash, to get flattering portrait results no matter what the lens.

I reckon you'd be surprised what your Sigma 17-70 could do with the right light setup. So my first suggestion would be to invest in a wireless flash like an AF540FGZ or Metz 58. Then with the remaining funds consider a second hand A 50/1.7 or FA 50/1.4 - those lenses are excellent stopped down to f/2.8, which is about the limit to where I'd be shooting portraiture at that focal length.

Hope this helps.

Rainy Day · 03-25-2011, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Ash

I reckon you'd be surprised what your Sigma 17-70 could do with the right light setup. So my first suggestion would be to invest in a wireless flash like an AF540FGZ or Metz 58. Then with the remaining funds consider a second hand A 50/1.7 or FA 50/1.4 - those lenses are excellent stopped down to f/2.8, which is about the limit to where I'd be shooting portraiture at that focal length.

Hope this helps.

I actually have an AF540FGZ, forgot to mention that! And yes, I've done a bit of portrait photography with the Sigma 17-70 without the flash and in a room lit by two large windows only (on what I think was a cloudy day) and the results weren't too bad.

Rainy Day · 03-25-2011, 03:01 PM

And by the way, I am ALL FOR not spending any money if I can get away with it! I'm very new to this, and have tons to learn!

03-25-2011, 01:41 AM	#1
Rainy Day Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: The Southern Highlands Photos: Albums Posts: 134	Need a good lens for portraits Hi all! Just bought a second-hand K7 from a work colleague, which came with the standard 18-55mm kit lens, and a Sigma 17-70mm Macro. Now! I'd like to do some portrait photography, and so far my best bet has been with the Sigma Macro. I've been talking to a few mates who are into Pentax photography and as far as I can gather Prime is the way to go. But I'd like to get some advice from a few more experienced photographers! So, I'd like to know a few good portrait lenses I can start shooting with, doesn't have to be limited to a prime/zoom, I'm open to either, and hopefully something that won't break my bank

03-25-2011, 01:47 AM	#2
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	Do you prefer auto focus or manual focus? And whats your budget? There are many many options. Last edited by TOUGEFC; 03-25-2011 at 03:32 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What fast lens would you choose for portraits (if you were me)?	Metalwizards	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	01-25-2011 05:36 AM
Best Zoom lens for portraits	HoBykoYan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	05-08-2010 11:26 AM
Various portraits of my good friend Debby	mikerigel	Post Your Photos!	15	09-17-2008 02:54 AM
K20D tethered - good idea or no for portraits?	WMBP	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	05-19-2008 03:30 AM
Proof that crappy lens + good light = good photos	Finn	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	11-02-2007 11:19 PM

03-25-2011, 02:27 AM	#3
Rainy Day Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: The Southern Highlands Photos: Albums Posts: 134 Original Poster	I'd PREFER a lens that can alternate auto/manual focus, but if it's a manual focus lens I won't mind so much! Budget... probably a max of $400.00 at this stage...

03-25-2011, 02:37 AM	#4
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	At that price I would recommend a second hand DA 70mm f2.4 limited.

03-25-2011, 02:42 AM	#5
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	Beat me too it! I also recomend a second hand DA70.

03-25-2011, 03:00 AM	#6
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by TOUGEFC Beat me too it! I also recomend a second hand DA70. Ha, well I figure you're not going to send the OP'er your FA77 for $400, I'll give you $450 for it though

03-25-2011, 03:41 AM	#7
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	Originally posted by twitch Ha, well I figure you're not going to send the OP'er your FA77 for $400, I'll give you $450 for it though Haha, you will have to do better than that! Well at least its a better offer than Nicole, she wants it for free

03-25-2011, 03:49 AM	#8
psychdoc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Bham Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 949	I also vote for a second hand DA 70mm [or Tamron 28-75mm if you want a zoom and can live with its plasticky feel]

03-25-2011, 09:09 AM	#9
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Now is the time for me to jump in and declaim that portraits can be shot at any focal length; that shooting portraits with a lens with very thin DOF is tricky; that in controlled studio settings, auto aperture and focus aren't really necessary; that while I have and use 85/2's, my favorite portrait lens is an old manual M42 Sears-Tomioka 55-135/3.5 that cost me eight bucks; that for portraits, light is more crucial than the lens; et cetera. That last bit is important. Because these fora attract gearheads, we're more likely to think in terms of "What lens should I use?" than "What light should I use?" I've told the tale of how, Back In The Day When Photography Was My Job, I shot many (un)official portraits in various formats ranging from APS-C-equivalent to large MF, and my preferred lens in all formats was 75-85mm often at f/4 or tighter -- different formats just meant different crops, that focal length is best for dimensionality -- but I DIDN'T WORRY ABOUT THE LENS! The lens is just a bit of glass (or plastic) that projects light onto a frame. Lighting, position, background, all are MUCH more important than that bit of optics. Sure, go ahead and spend a few hundred bucks on a 70 or 77 or 85 or even a 90 macro, they're all splendid lenses, and hay, it's only money. Just don't expect the lens to shoot better portraits -- that's your task. You can also get wizard results using a US$5 75mm enlarger lens on US$8 tubes (fixed focus) or US$30 bellows (variable). Or using a US$10 200/4.5 with a US$3 +1 dioptre closeup adapter. The lens really doesn't matter. Light matters.

03-25-2011, 09:43 AM	#10
psychdoc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Bham Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 949	Originally posted by RioRico The lens really doesn't matter. Light matters. Everything that RioRico said is true. But. And some of us have this big 'but' But all I can tell you is this: I shot for about a year with the sigma 18-200 when I got my first DSLR. The only lens I had. Pretty nice all around lens. Then I discovered that I do like taking portrait pics of my family. So I got the DA 70mm and the difference was enormous. Some of it was due to the bokeh that you could get with a faster lens. The other was that I could shoot in situations where the slower lens could not. The other is simply that some of us tend to shoot more when we have an equipment that we like to handle and shooting more improves skills. Then I got the 50-135 to take pics of my kids on stage performances and in sports. Great for 'action' portraits. Then sometimes you need something wider for indoor shots and wound up with the tamron 28-75 too... For those of us for whom this is a hobby and or lack the skills or the time and energy these portrait lenses can provide a short-cut of sorts. I dont kid myself, my pics are nowhere close to being professional but I sure do use these lenses more and get more enjoyment out of them. I am sure there are cheaper options but... So, in short. And I will use a computer analogy. If you are the type who would love a non-windows/non-apple computer and like to fool around with stuff like linux and ubuntu you can go one way. If you a run-of-the-mill guy like most of us who is happy with Windows and not sure what all the complaints are about you can go another way. And there are many gradients in between.

03-25-2011, 11:54 AM	#11
KLSMpls Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 77	If your budget goes up, the 50 - 135 DA* is stellar for portraits.

03-25-2011, 12:10 PM	#12
calicojack Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Long Island, N.Y. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,124	As several people have said, it's all about light, not lenses. You could do a fine job with that Sigma 17-70. However if you really want to spend money, you could try Vivitar 85mm f/1.4 Series 1 Manual Focus Lens for Pentax 85MMP also see Vivitar Series I (nee Samyang) 85mm F1.4 Aspherical IF Lens Reviews - Pentax Third-Party Lens Review Database

03-25-2011, 12:52 PM	#13
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Yes, finally... answers giving lighting as much importance as the lens... It has been my experience throughout my portrait shooting that a good fast prime in itself is only good for portraits if you have good ambient lighting wherever you're going to shoot - a bright (or even subdued) room lit by a nice large window is a good example of this. Not everyone has this convenience. So I suggest strongly that the art of portraiture be learnt through lighting techniques as well as using good lenses. I'm not necessarily talking studio lighting, just working a single light source, like an off-camera flash, to get flattering portrait results no matter what the lens. I reckon you'd be surprised what your Sigma 17-70 could do with the right light setup. So my first suggestion would be to invest in a wireless flash like an AF540FGZ or Metz 58. Then with the remaining funds consider a second hand A 50/1.7 or FA 50/1.4 - those lenses are excellent stopped down to f/2.8, which is about the limit to where I'd be shooting portraiture at that focal length. Hope this helps.

03-25-2011, 02:59 PM	#14
Rainy Day Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: The Southern Highlands Photos: Albums Posts: 134 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ash I reckon you'd be surprised what your Sigma 17-70 could do with the right light setup. So my first suggestion would be to invest in a wireless flash like an AF540FGZ or Metz 58. Then with the remaining funds consider a second hand A 50/1.7 or FA 50/1.4 - those lenses are excellent stopped down to f/2.8, which is about the limit to where I'd be shooting portraiture at that focal length. Hope this helps. I actually have an AF540FGZ, forgot to mention that! And yes, I've done a bit of portrait photography with the Sigma 17-70 without the flash and in a room lit by two large windows only (on what I think was a cloudy day) and the results weren't too bad.

03-25-2011, 03:01 PM	#15
Rainy Day Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: The Southern Highlands Photos: Albums Posts: 134 Original Poster	And by the way, I am ALL FOR not spending any money if I can get away with it! I'm very new to this, and have tons to learn!