Pentax smc DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited


TonyM

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 17:14
Well I'm getting one anyway - couldn't resist when I saw this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pentax-smc-40mm-2-8-Limited/dp/B00077KMXG/ref=pd_rhf_p_t...

(They've also got the 43 at a very good price.) LBA - it's the only way! (Think this thread needs to lighten up a bit - this isn't cricket...)

Tony

shim

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 17:22
If 85mm lenses were standard for portraits how come so few of them were ever sold/existed..... and are not available on ebay.... the odd one that appears goes for about 800? Whereas 135mm's are all over the place from about 10. (I always considered the 135mm good but only suitable for portraits up to postcard size).

The percentage of 35mm users who preferred/owned 85mm is probably the same as it is today i.e. very small.

I have read the myths in AP about 85mm lenses, skyhooks, piano wire etc. I used a 135mm Nikkor on a Bronica 6x6 for the odd head and shoulders of models/actors etc. for years, that's the equivalent of a 90mm on 35mm, but it was very limited in what work could be done with it. 95% of the time I used the standard lens. They did make a Tele-Rolieflex with a 135mm on it but most pros using Rollieflexes preferred the standard lens so very few were sold.

I find it very strange that you are sticking up for the 85mm on 35mm film which in Digital terms has an equivalent of 57mm i.e. 60mm a focal length that you have already rubbished?

This thread is drifting too far off the original question which I think has been fully answered and should be closed.

shim

George Lazarette

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 17:25
bretbysteve wrote:
Pretty grumpy thread this is...

I knew a guy who shot street 'portraits' on a Canon F-1 with the FD 17mm lens...they were excellent. There are MANY ways to crack an egg.

Well, I knew a guy who shot eagles on the wing with a Box Brownie. Beat that!

Easy, I knew a man who shot fleas in the high Pyrennees with a Gandolfi plate camera. Only one picture came out in over five years of trying, but you had to admire his dedication to his art.

Moral: There are many ways to do all sorts of things, but some are better than others.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

George Lazarette

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 17:29
shim wrote:

This thread is drifting too far off the original question which I think has been fully answered and should be closed.
shim

Talk about hypocrisy! I suggest you pipe down, as you are the one who is prolonging it.
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

Unlocker

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 17:45
shim wrote:

I find it very strange that you are sticking up for the 85mm on 35mm film which in Digital terms has an equivalent of 57mm i.e. 60mm a focal length that you have already rubbished?

85mm x 1.5 crop factor = 127.5mm 'in digital terms'

WebsiteBlogGearTwitterFacebook

johnriley

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 17:46
George was rubbishing the use of a 43mm, or something about 60mm on 35mm, not the 85mm on 35mm film. Actually no, not rubbishing it, but saying it wasn't useful.

135mm lenses are so common because it was the longest lens that could be reliably focused on a Leica rangefinder and hence sort of drifted into use on SLRs. Frankly, I always thought it was too long and that 85-105mm was far better.

85mm is an ideal portrait focal length as it allows close communication with the model and yet we are far enough away to improve the shape of the features and make the images more natural.

This is actually very well known by photographers and always has been.
Best regards, John
Last Edited by johnriley on 11/07/2009 - 17:47

shim

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 18:10
Getting a bit confusing with the two systems. Your right John it was 60mm on 35mm..... so the new Pentax 55mm is almost the equivalent for digital to the 85mm on film.... 55 x 1.5 = 82.5mm..... A 60mm would be the equivalent of a 90mm on film.

I wonder how many photographers will buy a 55-60mm for portraits?

shim

George Lazarette

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 18:12
To be clear (before I get lynched by the 43mm fan club) I think it's a great lens with fewer obvious applications than many others. But the more creative amongst us are no doubt able to do things with it that I can't.

My "useless on digital" remark was designed to provoke a discussion. In that it succeeded, but I am sorry that one or two people (and he knows who he is!) seem to have taken it as a personal affront.

Would be nice to see one or two 43mm pictures, though.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

shim

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 18:25
Load of them on Flickr here

shim

Anvh

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 18:37
shim wrote:

I wonder how many photographers will buy a 55-60mm for portraits?

I was tempted to buy one for that reason but ended up buying the DA*50-135 for the convenience before that I used the 40mm 100mm combo.

Got one with the DA40 for you George does that count as well?


Model: PENTAX K10D
Shutter Speed: 1/200 second
F Number: F/2.8
Focal Length: 40 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Not the most perfect photo since I believe her right side is a bit overexpose... might be able to pull it back somewhat.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ

shim

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 18:54
Nice shot Stefan the eyes are nice and sharp and the ears out of focus which is good. It would improve it if the right side could be darkened, but if not it's still acceptable, very often happens with window light.

The fact that you haven't used a telephoto gives the photo great depth. Makes you want to move in to look at it as opposed to moving back with a telephoto shot.

shim

George Lazarette

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 18:59
Nice picture. How much did you crop it?

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

shim

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 19:00
Anvh wrote:
shim wrote:

I wonder how many photographers will buy a 55-60mm for portraits?

I was tempted to buy one for that reason but ended up buying the DA*50-135 for the convenience before that I used the 40mm 100mm combo.

The 43mm seems more popular for portraits than the so called "Ideal" portrait length of 55-60mm on digital. In fact very few portraits taken on these lengths:

http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/55mm
http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/57mm
http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/60mm

shim

shim

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 19:28
Stefan, compare yours to this one link which is a nice shot I found on Flickr taken with an 85mm (127mm on digital)..... far too flat..... makes you want to jump back away from the screen to look at it. Sometimes such as in fashion photography they actually want that effect even though it's not very intimate.

shim

George Lazarette

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 19:36
shim wrote:
The 43mm seems more popular for portraits than the so called "Ideal" portrait length of 55-60mm on digital. In fact very few portraits taken on these lengths:

http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/55mm
http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/57mm
http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/60mm

shim

How many 55mm, 57mm, and 60mm lenses do you know, Shim?

I suspect you will find very few portraits taken on 51mm, 52mm, and 53mm lenses, too.

Try to keep your feet on the ground.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.