Portraits

Liam, thanks for the great diagram, but another thing ive noticed is that when i take a photo on the k10, with any lens for that matter, it actually comes out to more than i see in the view finder. now if you catch my drift, its at the edge of the frame. say i line it up at the very edge of a poster on the wall, making sure that the wall isnt seen through the viewfinder, the wall will still show up on the LCD once the button is pressed. i may sound like a complete idiot but i swear its happening, i might have to post an example to show what i mean.

thanks.

Hi Zach,

that's normal, and there's nothing wrong with either you or the camera.

I think, off the top of my head, that the K10's viewfinder shows 95% of the image (it varies across the Pentax range), so it gives you a margin of error in reality. If you see it in the view finder, it'll definitely be in the final shot. Much better than chopping off a head.. (not that you can do that with TTL finders anyway.. in theory)

Cheers

Liam

thanks again Liam.

One question that is bothering me is actually almost then one that started this thread:

What do you think is the best portrait lens: FA 50mm 1.4 or FA 77mm 1.8?

I know the price difference between them is absurd (the 77mm is 2-3 times more expensive), but what is the best focal length? I have an A 50mm 1.4 wich I love, but I want an autofocus lens. Isn't the 77 too long on digital (for portraits)? Do you feel it works well inside a room, or do you keep touching a wall with your back when trying to frame a shot?

Thanks!
--
Flink

Actually, the 50mm is slightly below the bottom of the normally accepted range for portraits. Traditionally (on film), 85mm has been seen as ideal, with people using 100mm, 120mm or even 135mm quite happily.

50mm translates as 75mm on digital, and 77mm as 116mm. Personally, I prefer the slightly longer focal length, and anyway the image quality of the 77mm is materially superior to the 50mm. It's one of the few lenses in the world you can say that about.

As Tyr, I think, pointed out in another thread, the relationship of price to image quality is not linear. At the high end of the market, a smallish increase in IQ translates into a large increase in price.

I paid £375 for my 77mm on Ebay, and £100 for my 50mm. Both are worth every penny, and more.

And, no, the 77m is not too long for indoor portraits. Groups are another matter.

G

I don't own either lens but I do have a FA 50mm F1.7 and an FA* 85mm F1.4 and of the two I much prefer the 85mm for portrait use - that might suggest that (for me at least) of the two you mention the 77mm would be better however given it's relatively slow for a prime the faster 1.4 max aperture of the 50mm would even things up a bit I think.

With film cameras my most used portrait lenses (including in the studio) were the FA* 85mm F1.4 and an 80-200 F2.8 zoom and still do when using a DSLR.

The FA 50 1:1.4 is noticeably softer wide open than the 77mm. Often a benefit in portrait pics. The effect can be induced later of course.

The funny thing about the 77mm is that although it is a very sharp lens, it is also kind to skin. Don't ask me how or why, but it's not cruelly sharp, as some lenses are.

It's that quality above all that makes it such a good portrait lens.

G

Is it possible that it has high resolution but slightly lower contrast?

Many lenses are designed to be quite contrasty and this gives a harsh but punchy result - quite unsuited to portraiture.

Maybe the 77mm just has a different balance of properties, a more subtle mix.

I'm sure you are right. Subtle is the word for this lens.

G

just being picky, but an eos 5D is about £1500 and is full frame. Whether i'ts any better is another matter.

Pictures from the 5D aren't noticeably better than from other cameras with similar pixel counts however it is "better" in that it gives you the same focal length equivalents as with 35mm i.e. my lovely Tokina ATX-Pro 20-35 F2.8 was a lot more useful as a 20-35mm ultra-wide than it is as a 30-52 mm equivalent with my DS or K10D (as it virtually never gets used).

Gosh, prices are falling quckly.

G

I mostly use my smc 50mm 1.4 for portraits

I was recently given an old tamron 90mm f2.5 macro

initial impressions is that its both quite sharp and quite nice for portraits.

lots of detail, not too much contrast, less than the smc 50mm.

not sure what they go for used, but i'm hanging on to mine.

90mm sometimes on the long side for indoor portraits though i'm finding.

and f2 would have been preferable.

the jupiter 85mm f2 can also be nice for portraits, lovely smooth bokeh, lovely modeling, but not at all sharp so only useful for intentionally soft shots. i don't really use mine except for the occaisonal abstract.