Pentax smc DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited


rparmar

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 19:48
George Lazarette wrote:
Of course it is! I am quite insulted that you would think otherwise.

But why? My post was a joke too.

That should be obvious from the lack of any features that identify it as such. And my need to backpedal furiously when someone else protests my opinion.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.

rparmar

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 19:49
Oh yes. That last post? That was sarcasm.
Listen to my albums free on BandCamp. Or visit my main website for links to photography, etc.

shim

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 19:52
George Lazarette wrote:

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.


G

Hardly my fault that the writers of AP etc. have been claiming for all these years that 85mm on film = 57mm on digital is the ideal length for portraits and although they exist very few people use the Digital equivalent for portraits and very few lens companies actually make them.

shim

George Lazarette

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 20:27
rparmar wrote:
Oh yes. That last post? That was sarcasm.

It's OK, even an idiot would understand that. Mind you, I thought the same about my joke too.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

BODYHEAT

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 20:37
johnriley wrote:
85mm was the standard "portrait" focal length for all the film years of 35mm film.

Vericolor S in 35mm ans 120 was the staple diet of portrait and wedding photographers for several decades, because of its low contrast and ability to render dark suits and white dresses at the same time.

By the end of the 1960s even high quality magazines were switching to 35mm, and one of the men's magazines actually insisted on 35mm Kodachrome. I wouldn't know which one, of course.

It is of course quite true that wedding photographers were relatively slow to move away from 6x6cm.

I think there is some semantic issues around what the word 'portrait' means. For me, portrait has always meant head, shoulders and some torso, which would make 85mm a good choice, as opposed to 'headshot' which is basically the head and perhaps some neck for which you might want a longer focal length, like the old 120mm 2.8 which is a lovely lens, although there are exceptions. If someone has a long nose and you want to minimise their features a bit you'll want a longer length that foreshortens or squashes slightly, or if they have flatter features you might want to use a shorter focal length to bring them out a bit. But this is just 'technique' and the only thing that matters is whether you are happy with the result.

There are plenty of photographers who know all the 'technique' but don't have the 'eye'. I'd rather have the 'eye' than the technical expertise if I had to choose. Most of my favourite shots were done with my 'standard' 50mm 1.4 kit lens that came with the LX. Maybe we'd all be better photographers if there wasn't a choice of lenses and we had to think more carefully of how we compose and use a 'standard' lens, which would be in the 35mm-43mm range I guess for digital.
FILM - Pentax: LX, K2 - 24/2.8, 40/2.8, 50/1.4, 120/2.8, 80-200/4.5, 28-105mm 2.8 macro, AF 280T

DIGITAL - Nikon : D300 - 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX

George Lazarette

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 20:47
shim wrote:
Hardly my fault that the writers of AP etc. have been claiming for all these years that 85mm on film = 57mm on digital is the ideal length for portraits.
shim

No, they haven't.

The whole point about APS-C sensors is that they make your lenses appear to be longer. Have you been on Mars?

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

Unlocker

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 20:50
shim wrote:
85mm on film = 57mm on digital

I'll say it again.

85mm on film is 127mm on digital, not 57mm!!!!!!!!!

You multiply the focal length by 1.5 not divide it!

WebsiteBlogGearTwitterFacebook

George Lazarette

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 20:53
I'm not sure Shim actually owns a camera. He's very good at Googling, though. But less so at mathematics.

G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.

BODYHEAT

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 20:54
Unlocker wrote:
shim wrote:
85mm on film = 57mm on digital

I'll say it again.

85mm on film is 127mm on digital, not 57mm!!!!!!!!!

You multiply the focal length by 1.5 not divide it!

I think he means that a 57mm lens on digital gives the same field of view as an 85mm on film. 57 x 1.5 = 85mm to give the 'classical' portrait perspective and field of view
FILM - Pentax: LX, K2 - 24/2.8, 40/2.8, 50/1.4, 120/2.8, 80-200/4.5, 28-105mm 2.8 macro, AF 280T

DIGITAL - Nikon : D300 - 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX

Unlocker

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 20:59
No, that's the other way round! 57mm on digital divided by 1.5 is 39mm on film!

WebsiteBlogGearTwitterFacebook

BODYHEAT

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 21:04
Unlocker wrote:
No, that's the other way round! 57mm on digital divided by 1.5 is 39mm on film!

Now I am confused: If you take a 50mm 1.4 prime lens and use it on your film camera it will be 50mm, but if you use the same lens on your digital it will act like a 75mm.

So if you had a 57mm (not that they exist AFAIK) it would 'act like' 85.5mm on digital i.e. give the same field of view as 85.5mm would on your film camera
FILM - Pentax: LX, K2 - 24/2.8, 40/2.8, 50/1.4, 120/2.8, 80-200/4.5, 28-105mm 2.8 macro, AF 280T

DIGITAL - Nikon : D300 - 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED AF-S VR DX

Unlocker

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 21:10
That's better!

That's the reasoning behind the DA* 55.

WebsiteBlogGearTwitterFacebook

Anvh

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 21:21
George Lazarette wrote:
Nice picture. How much did you crop it?

G

How could you tell
A bit, to 50mm FOV I would assume.
I do have some non cropped with the 40mm just wait a bit.
I hardly use it for portrait since the 100mm is better for that so i'm with you on that George.
Stefan


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

mikew

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 21:33
Stefan - I'm guessing that George thought it was cropped because he can identify the perspective you expect from various focal lengths on a face having had many more years experience than you and I. He possibly couldn't have said 50mm equivalent but in FF range he 'knew' it wasn't 60mm equivalent.

Then again I may be wrong!

Mike
---------------------------------------------------

You can see some of my shots at my Flickr account.

Anvh

Link Posted 11/07/2009 - 21:39
No crop or editing all with the K10D and DA40







I know the first one isn't sharp but oh well was a funny photo and too bad of the man in the background
I'm only happy with the middle one to be honest.
With the third one the focus is just a bit too much to the back since his left eye isn't sharp.
Stefan


K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.