Cheap lenses for portraits
Posted 06/04/2017 - 14:23 - Helpful Comment
Link
I would throw in the Tamron 90m in all of it's guises.
You would have change for the Pentax 50mm 1.8!
Cheers
You would have change for the Pentax 50mm 1.8!
Cheers
www.flickr.com/photos/simac/
www.500px.com/simac
www.500px.com/simac
Posted 06/04/2017 - 15:05
Link
Some people say that macro lenses are too sharp for portraiture. But I have used them with fabulous results...
K-1Gripped K-1 ungripped K-5ii K7 Various lenses
Stuart..
Stuart..
Posted 06/04/2017 - 15:51 - Helpful Comment
Link
You should be able to pick up a tidy used FA 77mm Limited for around £400.
Otherwise i'd recommend the Tamron 70-200mm zoom.
Otherwise i'd recommend the Tamron 70-200mm zoom.
Posted 06/04/2017 - 16:29
Link
btw what's your opinion of the FA 50mm 1.4 focus on the K1? I did a good portrait session and eventually I decided to shoot a good amount of photos in MF because I was scared about the amount of focus failures.
Posted 06/04/2017 - 16:36
Link
Why was the focus "failing"?
Peter
Pentax K5
Pentax DA 18-55 Mk1, 50-200 (Samsung), 16-45, 55-300 Mk1, 35 f/2.4
Pentax MZ6 + FA28-90, FA50 f/1.4, M 50 f/1.7
Tamron 80-210mm & 28mm
Pentax K5
Pentax DA 18-55 Mk1, 50-200 (Samsung), 16-45, 55-300 Mk1, 35 f/2.4
Pentax MZ6 + FA28-90, FA50 f/1.4, M 50 f/1.7
Tamron 80-210mm & 28mm
Posted 06/04/2017 - 16:41
Link
if you are useing the k1 thinking back to the film days a lot of people use to use a 75mm and the 135mm
Posted 06/04/2017 - 16:42
Link
Wide aperture lenses have very little depth of field at wide apertures, so focus is tricky to nail sometimes. The tiniest bit of subject movement can move the eyes out of the point of focus.
I think the obvious choice is the Pentax 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. If you need to soften it, that can be done with a filter or in Photoshop. It's compact, offers a very useful focal length for portraiture and is well within your budget.
The HD Pentax-D FA 28-105mm, which you nay have bought with the camera, will also do very nicely.
I think the obvious choice is the Pentax 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. If you need to soften it, that can be done with a filter or in Photoshop. It's compact, offers a very useful focal length for portraiture and is well within your budget.
The HD Pentax-D FA 28-105mm, which you nay have bought with the camera, will also do very nicely.
Best regards, John
Posted 06/04/2017 - 16:51
Link
johnriley wrote:
Wide aperture lenses have very little depth of field at wide apertures, so focus is tricky to nail sometimes. The tiniest bit of subject movement can move the eyes out of the point of focus.
I think the obvious choice is the Pentax 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. If you need to soften it, that can be done with a filter or in Photoshop. It's compact, offers a very useful focal length for portraiture and is well within your budget.
The HD Pentax-D FA 28-105mm, which you nay have bought with the camera, will also do very nicely.
Wide aperture lenses have very little depth of field at wide apertures, so focus is tricky to nail sometimes. The tiniest bit of subject movement can move the eyes out of the point of focus.
I think the obvious choice is the Pentax 100mm f/2.8 macro lens. If you need to soften it, that can be done with a filter or in Photoshop. It's compact, offers a very useful focal length for portraiture and is well within your budget.
The HD Pentax-D FA 28-105mm, which you nay have bought with the camera, will also do very nicely.
I'd like to use at least a 2.8 for portraits, I own a vivitar 105 series 1, I would like to try it soon
Posted 06/04/2017 - 16:52
Link
pgweber wrote:
Why was the focus "failing"?
Why was the focus "failing"?
even if the model wasn't moving, some times the eyes weren't in focus. I also found out that some times the eyelids are in focus and the eyes are not . I don't shoot with aperture lower than 2.0
Posted 06/04/2017 - 17:23
Link
johnriley wrote:
Wide aperture lenses have very little depth of field at wide apertures, so focus is tricky to nail sometimes. The tiniest bit of subject movement can move the eyes out of the point of focus.
Wide aperture lenses have very little depth of field at wide apertures, so focus is tricky to nail sometimes. The tiniest bit of subject movement can move the eyes out of the point of focus.
I think that might have been what caused the poor focussing for me, with my 50mm f1.4 on one of the display K1s shooting the 'train set' at the NEC.
Peter
Pentax K5
Pentax DA 18-55 Mk1, 50-200 (Samsung), 16-45, 55-300 Mk1, 35 f/2.4
Pentax MZ6 + FA28-90, FA50 f/1.4, M 50 f/1.7
Tamron 80-210mm & 28mm
Pentax K5
Pentax DA 18-55 Mk1, 50-200 (Samsung), 16-45, 55-300 Mk1, 35 f/2.4
Pentax MZ6 + FA28-90, FA50 f/1.4, M 50 f/1.7
Tamron 80-210mm & 28mm
Posted 06/04/2017 - 19:58
Link
sebas77 wrote:
even if the model wasn't moving, some times the eyes weren't in focus. I also found out that some times the eyelids are in focus and the eyes are not . I don't shoot with aperture lower than 2.0
pgweber wrote:
Why was the focus "failing"?
Why was the focus "failing"?
even if the model wasn't moving, some times the eyes weren't in focus. I also found out that some times the eyelids are in focus and the eyes are not . I don't shoot with aperture lower than 2.0
Are you using centre point focussing directed on the eyes? If not the camera doesn't know the point of focus you're after. Of course it could be something's moved too.
John K
Posted 06/04/2017 - 22:19
Link
JAK wrote:
Are you using centre point focussing directed on the eyes? If not the camera doesn't know the point of focus you're after. Of course it could be something's moved too.
sebas77 wrote:
even if the model wasn't moving, some times the eyes weren't in focus. I also found out that some times the eyelids are in focus and the eyes are not . I don't shoot with aperture lower than 2.0
Quote:
Why was the focus "failing"?
Why was the focus "failing"?
even if the model wasn't moving, some times the eyes weren't in focus. I also found out that some times the eyelids are in focus and the eyes are not . I don't shoot with aperture lower than 2.0
Are you using centre point focussing directed on the eyes? If not the camera doesn't know the point of focus you're after. Of course it could be something's moved too.
oh yeah obviously, but I am not really sure how the focusing works through the viewfinder. I mean if it was a digital focusing, it would be precise at pixel level, but through the viewfinder most of the times the eye is smaller than the focus point, so I am not sure how precise the auto focus it.
Posted 06/04/2017 - 22:53 - Helpful Comment
Link
Set up a scene to simulate a model and practice to see what works for you, and repeat the shots until it works (almost) every time. If the shots are constantly front or back focussed It could be the camera needs the fine focus adjusting for the particular lens (most lenses seem to require this.)
John K
Posted 06/04/2017 - 23:47
Link
a few thoughts.
1) Eye tracking AF is super useful for this, but it's not on any Pentax yet. My Pentax DSLR's are notorious for catching the eyebrow and not the eyes. Live view with focus peaking gives better results for me.
2) I don't know how I feel about buying something like a K-1 and then not having any money for lenses. It's the lens that does the work of focussing the light on the sensor, so it's pretty important in the grand scheme of things. I find that professional photographers tend to value the lenses over the bodies, whereas consumers tend to study the body capabilities closely and often scrimp on the lenses. Will be good to hear your findings.
Keen to see how you get on and how you find the K-1 for this task
1) Eye tracking AF is super useful for this, but it's not on any Pentax yet. My Pentax DSLR's are notorious for catching the eyebrow and not the eyes. Live view with focus peaking gives better results for me.
2) I don't know how I feel about buying something like a K-1 and then not having any money for lenses. It's the lens that does the work of focussing the light on the sensor, so it's pretty important in the grand scheme of things. I find that professional photographers tend to value the lenses over the bodies, whereas consumers tend to study the body capabilities closely and often scrimp on the lenses. Will be good to hear your findings.
Keen to see how you get on and how you find the K-1 for this task
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
597 posts
13 years
Southsea
I understand that what I am asking doesn't make much sense, but I don't make any money out of photography, so for me it doesn't make any sense to invest thousand of pounds after I bought the K1
Let's not take in consideration the manual focus for a moment, as it's something I am still pondering (I believe I can actually work with manual focus, but it's something I am still testing). Also I am already owning a FA 50mm 1.4, which on the K1 I now find very useful.
If I want to spend less than 500 pounds, it seems that the current options I have are only:
- Tamron 70-200 2.8
- Pentax DA 70mm 2.4
anything else coming in your mind? My working focal range will be around 35mm and 105mm, but I have already got a 35mm and a 105mm although they are MF. I don't mind either primes or zooms, although I am currently convinced that primes for portraits are much more fun.