|
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions
09-17-2011, 02:35 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-21-2010, 09:32 AM
|
| |
A fast 50 you already have but you do have to be pretty close up to your subjects to get head and shoulders. I just recently (as in today received) my FA 77 and It just blows me away. I personally think the 70mm range is a nice range to do portraits. Since FA is outta price range, get the DA 70. It's faster focusing than the FA 77, it smaller, lighter (a little), and cheaper then the FA and it's in a focal length you don't have. it's a hair faster (stop wise) than the DA 40 too. I wouldn't go DA* 55 unless you are at the type of party where people get soaked and you're equipped with a K-7 (or a K20D, K200D, K10D, or LX :-P) That's my thought on matter. Oh I voted DA 70 :-)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-21-2010, 06:43 AM
|
| |
Im surprise no vote for the Sigma 50 1.4
This is even sharper than the DA*55 and FA50
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-21-2010, 06:33 AM
|
| |
just to keep IRA happy, I voted something else.
I have none of the lenses you have listed, but have many lenses that are quite suitable for portraits, depending on exactly what you plan to do, and what size studio / what shooting distance you will have.
Personally I like longer portrait lenses, and even with the crop factor I really like 85mm, there I have the vivitar series 1 85 F1.4 and a super tak 85 F1.9
If this requires too much distance, I can put my SMC-Pentax 50mmF1.4 or Super Tak 50mm F1.4 or my Helios 58mmF2, or either a canon FD 50mmF1.8 or Nikor AI 50mmF1.8 (each with their own 1.25x optically corrected K mount adaptor)
I can also go to my SMC Tak 35F2 if I am really pushed on distance, or any of my zoom lenses that cover any part of the range above.
The point really is, exactly what you are doing and what apertures you want to shoot at.
Once you start looking for very shallow DOF, you are into primes because even at F2.8 a zoom does not have the shallow DOF you are looking for.
There are a lot of cases where you really want to shoot below F2.8 for artistic reasons. For these shots, I like my 50's and 85's.
BTW, I also have the option to stand back and pick up my 135 F2.5, which for outdoor portraits is a great lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-13-2010, 11:24 AM
|
| |
The pin on an M42 lens is for actuating the aperture. When mounted on a K mount camera with an adapter the pin will be inside the mount and so cannot get stuck preventing the lens being removed. The infamous Ricoh pin is on the back of the mount flange in a similar position to the pins on the back of pentas A and AF lenses and tends to get stuck in the focus screw drive. I have numerous M42 mount lenses and have never had a problem wuith any of them. The helios 44 is a great lens, you can't go wrong getting one.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-23-2010, 06:08 AM
|
| |
I've had my 10-20 for well over two years now (obviously the older model) and have been very happy with it.
But being a gadget freak with a VERY severe case of LBA, I have the new 8-16 on order from Adorama already. It will be interesting to compare the two.
But on the original topic, I must admit to not being concerned about the slight wide-open advantage of the newer 10-20, as I rarely use mine anywhere near wide open. I usually have it around the f/8-f/11 range. I also have a Hoya Pro circular polarizer filter - the one with the extrenely thin bezel. I get minimal vignetting with it, and it is great for landscape shots, or just general walkabout stuff on a very bright day, like the weather here in Australia much of the time.
So, in summary - if you can't wait, get the older 10-20 for less money. If you can wait, and money isn't a problem, then hang on for the 8-16.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
04-23-2010, 01:54 PM
|
| |
I have old one. I was tempted by new one simply because of f3.5 at 20mm. No other reason. But I haven't found review (so far) that would rate it higher than the old (4-5.6) version. And the pictures provided on Photozone when they tested it for Nikon are pretty dreadfull IMO...
so I'm sticking to my old rusty trusty slow version...
|
