50mm Portrait Lens
- Thread starter Splitfirz
- Start date
I'd say no. Not worth the additional cost if these are your primary purpose. Why?
1. Landscapes - you'd often stop down, so you paid for the f1.2 for nothing.
2. 50mm is not very wide for most landscapes, though it will get some occasional use
3. Portraits - its hard to nail focus at f1.2; even worse if your subject does not stay still for you (event shoot; model shoot not paid by you; you child; sometimes the impatient wife
)4. DOF is very shallow at f1.2. Very little is in focus for a portrait. Yes, its ok to have the effect once in a while, but not all the portrait shots.
Nothing to stop you from getting a 50/1.2 though, as it does give you an additioanl option for low light performance and DOF control.
To me, a f1.2 lens is very much for special effect.
As an example, here is a thread I started some time ago with a 55/1.2
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=737316&highlight=[pinholecam]
oceanpriest
Senior Member
I still remember I kena poison from that thread :sweat:
detritus
Senior Member
not the same lah :bsmilie: macro only a few cm away from the subject and i may be using a tripod or monopod. portraits is harder to estimate from a distance and i would usually be shooting handheld. honestly, i do struggle with my FA50f1.4 sometimes.
close to S$1k iirc.
The 35mm focal length sits in-between the common needs of what you want (ie. landscapes and portraits). Its a 'compromise' solution. It won't take all the landscapes you'd want. It will imo take more people shots though.
If you want a new, cheap, AF, 'all rounder' prime, that its pretty versatile then DA35/2.4 is the way to go.
To cover wide landscapes and interiors, you will need a wide lens 18mm or below.
You can consider fast zoom like the 16-50/2.8 or 17-50/2.8.
Other zooms to consider would be the f4 lenses (16-45/4; 17-70/4; Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5)
detritus
Senior Member
haiz... cheap and good solution is the DAL 18-55 lah :bsmilie:
its a very capable lens. frankly, i would gladly use it for as a general light-weight walk-about... i'm even thinking of getting the WR version to pair with my K5... no fun lugging a 16-50 everywhere... heavy bugger :sweat:
last time we went to shoot at marina bay, FW's shot from the 18-55WR beats mine from the DA*16-50 hands down. bottom line: if u know how to get the best out of your lens, any lens will do.
its a very capable lens. frankly, i would gladly use it for as a general light-weight walk-about... i'm even thinking of getting the WR version to pair with my K5... no fun lugging a 16-50 everywhere... heavy bugger :sweat:
last time we went to shoot at marina bay, FW's shot from the 18-55WR beats mine from the DA*16-50 hands down. bottom line: if u know how to get the best out of your lens, any lens will do.
edutilos-
Senior Member
Hey guys!
My Pentax K-r has been serving me well since I bought it last year. After much playing around with my kit lens, my interest has now been gearing towards landscape/portrait photography. I believe a fast 50mm lens would help me in these 2 areas.
Any good yet affordable lens to recommend guys?
Cheers for a breezy Sunday morning!
I really doubt a 50mm will be very useful for landscapes. Sure, you can use it, but I find that it's a focal length (when paired with 1.5x crop factor) which is neither here nor there, not quite long enough to isolate, and much too tight to show wider expenses.
I think pinholecam had highlighted the 35mm f/2.4. It's small, light, and affordable. I'd go for it. If you choose to concentrate on portraits though, I'd say the 50mm f/1.4 is one of the more affordable portrait lenses Pentax has.
On APS-C sensors, the 50mm works out to be roughly 75mm equivalent on film, so is kinda leaning more towards portraiture shots.
Of the 50mm's the f1.7's are generally more affordable but alittle less readily available as compared to the f1.4s due to being slightly rarer.
Think the tradeoff is generally the smoothness (f1.4 smoother than f1.7) of the Bokeh if I'm not mistaken, this is all based on what I've been reading. But some seem to suggest that wide open, the f1.7 is sharper than the f1.4(@f1.8) which is alittle soft.
Since its being mentioned, how much are we talking about from the 16-50/17-5 f2.8's?
I was personally thinking that the new DA 18-135 WR seems to be getting good marks all around, inspite of its price. Is the performance of the other 2 zooms as good if not better than the 18-135?
Thanks!
detritus
Senior Member
felixcat8888
Senior Member
The DA 18-135 is F3.5-5.6 vs the DA*/Tamron/Sigma at F2.8. What are you asking? in terms of pricing or in terms of IQ?
Depends on what you want to shoot too. Low light? then F2.8. Normal shoots then F3.5.
I use my DA* for shooting school events which are mostly in the school hall and I seldom use flash so the F2.8 comes in handy.
a little strange to be comparing a DA-star lens with a superzoom i think?
My apologies if I was vague, DA* probably too high outta my reach for awhile so can only see **** for now..;p
I would shy away from the DA* for now, more interested in the Tammy/Sigma IQ & Price comparison Vs the 18-135 IQ & Price.
I hope to upgrade to K5 sometime later in the year if I can sort out the finances for it, and hope I can stave off LBA until then. On K-x now, is the IQ very much different between the DA-L & DA 18-55 Kits?
Thanks
felixcat8888
Senior Member
The Tamron/Sigma cost about SGD$6xx vs the DA 18-135 at SGD$759 or thereabouts. You can read the review by FW on the 18-135.
No difference between DAL/DA 18-55 in IQ as the DAL is a plastic mount lens vs the metal mount on the DA lens. both types are actually the same lenses except for the different mounts.
detritus
Senior Member
if u're upgrading to K5, the more reason to consider the 16-50 cos of weather sealing.
and the DAL version doesn't have quick shift. but as felix said. they are the same.
CorneliusK
Senior Member
You can take great landscape or portrait shots with virtually any lens, but its easier to do so with a lens which is specialized for the task. And unfortunately the demands for landscape lens and portrait lens are fairly different.
Landscape - wide angle / big aperture not needed / low distortion / corner to corner sharpness at f8
Portrait - Generally standard to telephoto length / big aperture & good bokeh / distortion, vignetting, corner to corner sharpness not so critical
It is not easy to design and build a lens which can meet both needs. And generally a lens that can meet multiple needs is either 1) very expensive or 2) is not really that good at both needs.
The Tamron 17-50 is special in that it is a versatile lens which can meet many needs well, due to its great image quality, plus it doesn't have a ridiculous price.
The DA* 16-50 is special also but its harder to recommend due to its higher price. But you do get what you pay for - better build quality, WR, SDM, very good sharpness/colour/contrast.
Landscape - wide angle / big aperture not needed / low distortion / corner to corner sharpness at f8
Portrait - Generally standard to telephoto length / big aperture & good bokeh / distortion, vignetting, corner to corner sharpness not so critical
It is not easy to design and build a lens which can meet both needs. And generally a lens that can meet multiple needs is either 1) very expensive or 2) is not really that good at both needs.
The Tamron 17-50 is special in that it is a versatile lens which can meet many needs well, due to its great image quality, plus it doesn't have a ridiculous price.
The DA* 16-50 is special also but its harder to recommend due to its higher price. But you do get what you pay for - better build quality, WR, SDM, very good sharpness/colour/contrast.
Similar threads
