Portrait lens.

Flat looking usually results from flat lighting

I can't believe that a professional photographer has said that

Flat perspective can't be achieved by lighting perhaps you need
to look here link

or at this video link

Unfortunately fashion photographers seem to have brainwashed people
to believe that longer is better and the flat 2D monitor seems to
have killed off the skill of looking at a print. People probably
do look better through binoculars, but I'm used to seeing them
close up distorions and all.

I've always liked Baileys 60's approach to portraits where he used
mostly a standard lens on a Rollei. One of my favourite Bailey books
is "Goodbye Baby & Amen" which is mostly the standards lens.

Similar shots are here and they all show great depth and 10x8 prints
off any of them would look great. The Terence Stamp and Jean Shrimpton
shot wouldn't look as intimate through a 200mm lens. The Stones and
Beatles shots wouldn't be the same without the depth. The distortion
is part of the picture.

Michel Comte also has great depth to his portraits
and I would think uses mostly a standard lens.

http://www.listal.com/list/portraits-by-michel-comte

Edit: Strange looking through that site a lot of the
pictures chosen seem to be standard lens and very
few extreme telephotos (135mm on 35mm... 90mm APS-C)

Beautiful pictures - b&w edition vol. 2
http://www.listal.com/list/beutiful-pictures-bw-edition

May be people with a good eye for photographs do
still exist

-





Goodbye

The OP might want to take a look at elfers' post in the classified ads for a great start with a portrait lens at a very good price...

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/fs--pentax-a-50mm-f1-7-38196

Hope it helps

Hi guys, thanks for the many replies. I wasn't very clear on the focal length in my op. The problem with my Tamron is that it's too long and even a 50mm is too long. A friend of mine has said unless I'm spending £400-500 I'm not going to get what I'm after, not sure if theres any truth to that.

No, you don't need to spend that much.

There are few people who would describe a 50mm lens as being too long for portraits. The Pentax 55mm f1.4 lens is a traditional portrait lens, albeit a little pricy. The 50mm f1.8 should be ideal for about £239.00

If you really find 50mm too long for your style of photography, then the inexpensive 35mm f2.4 is a fine lens, price around £150.00

Hey john, how would you rate the speed and sharpness of the 35mm lens you mentioned in comparison to the more dearer ones?

I agree with John. depending on your prefs you might conside rthe 35 2.4 or any 50 mm

also see this debate here:
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/flat-looking-38195/p-0#comm427402

You list the 18-55 kit lens in your signature I would suggest that you use that to find the focal lenth that suits your style.

The original kit lens is quite soft around the edges,at the long end, which actually works out quite well for portraits.

The DA 35mm F2.4 is said to be based on the FA35 F2.0 which is slightly faster. I have this lens and use it as a standard lens when I want to travel light. It is very good though others have commented on unflattering Bokeh.
The third Pentax 35 mm is the DA*35 F2.8 macro, which is very sharp and a high quality lens, but exposing every imperfection can again be quite unflattering.

I have a number of 50mm lenses and find myself reaching for an 'A' series F1.4. I like the more muted colours compared to the FA 50 F1.4. Apart from having a shallower depth of field, when compared to the F1.7 the F1.4s are noticably softer at the edges up to F8. This can be used creatively to create isolation and a psuedo 3D effects.

Regards - Steve

Forget everything everybody has said so far, and use the lens that gives the results you want.
Sometimes (often), a "portrait lens" is not the lens that will give you what you want.
A "super sharp" lens is not necessarily the best lens for portrait, especially with people having skin problems. A softer lens might give a more pleasing look with less post processing, thus saving time and money.

It's an excellent lens.

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/smc-pentax-da-35mm-f-2-4-al-lens-review-16804

I agree with John, the DA35 F2.4 is an excellent lens. I have used it for several full length portrait shoots. However I don't use it for head a shoulders, as being a 35mm, you do get some distortion (even on APS-C) where the emphasises the sitters nose more. This is where a longer focal length lens comes into its own. The features become more natural, hence the 85-90mm focal range. Yes you have to stand further back with APS-C, but you do get the way that focal length creates the image.

Now as for sharpness, personally I like a sharper lens, sometimes it is needed for certain subjects, but if a softer look is required, then I don't mind spending a few minutes PP to apply a clarity reduction or gaussen blur to the shot, whilst keeping the most important bit of a portrait - the eyes - sharp.

On the other hand, it is probably why I also have the old SMC-M 55mm too, as it is not as razor sharp as say my Tamron 90mm or DA*50-135mm, but soft enough to flatter the subject without having to do much if any PP should I wish. Plus that extra 5mm over a "nifty fifty" reduces the ever so slight distortion you can get with a 50mm that you can still get on head and shoulder shots.

In all honesty there is not a single lens that is the Perfect portrait lens, but in fact a lot of lenses of various focal lengths that suit different poses and subject matters. As long as the lens you go for suits your needs, then go for it.
The big positive is that being a Pentax user, you can spend as little or as much as you want to get the lens or lenses that you need.

As to give you an example, these are the lenses that I have used for portraits, depending on subject, number of people and effect, indeed I still use:-

SMC-DA35mm F2.4
SMC-F28mm F2.8
SMC-FA50mm F1.4
SMC-M55mm F1.8
SMC-DA*50-135mm F2.8
SMC-Takumar 55mm F1.8
SMC-DA 40mm F2.8 Limited
Sigma 105mm F2.8 Macro
Tamron 90mm F2.5 SP Macro
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8
SMC-DA 16-45mm F4 (mainly in the 28-35mm range before I got the primes)

Finally, if you have a budget of £400-£500, why not get the DA35mm F2.4 AND the FA50mm F1.4 or DA50mm F1.8 so you then have not one but two lenses to partner the Tamron for various portrait work? Then play and have fun.
Just a thought

Whilst I had the K-5 II I made a point of using all the digital filters and for those who like soft focus there looks to be potential in the Soft filter.

I'm going to try that for portraits. Not for all of them of course, that would be boring, but when it seems appropriate.

my 85 2.2 soft works too.. often need nd filters..

Soft focus filter. I forgot about that, I did some using this very filter in the K20D. Actually it was rather good. Not for everything as you say John, but does a great effect. I must look on the K-5 and try it again.

How is the Sigma 30mm f1.4 in comparison to the Pentax DA 35mm f2.4?