Pentax 67 what is your go to portrait lens?

[harlequin]

Hello Team,

Was using friends p67 with 120 soft lens to do some portraits, however seems a little wide for portraits, the dial in Softness is nice but they do make a 150mm, 165mm and even 200 mm, would like to emulate 85mm or 105mm on Nikon 35.

What say you?
Can the 135 macro be used?

What lens do you prefer for this as I can only purchase 1 at this time, any photo samples greatly appreciated...

Be Safe!

Harlequin

 

[Ari]

105mm f2.4 wide open most of the time.
I may be an outlier as I generally don't like longer-than-normal lenses for portraits.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I only own two lenses for P67, the 90mm and the late recalculated 200. I owned the 75mm but sold it. I use the 90 wide open for portraits to get that cool "wide angle bokeh" effect you can only get with medium format. I would like to pick up a 150 or 165, and I almost did from KEH in "ugly" condition a few weeks ago when I saw one for $75 but I blinked and missed it!

 

[Randy Stewart]

The adequacy lens for portraiture is a matter of perspective, and perspective is governed by distance between lens and subject. So for a head shot on 35mm, a 100mm lens seems about right, On a Pentax 67, a 200mm or 165mm makes you stand off far enough for head or head and shoulders portraiture. On 35mm, a full figure portrait might be fine with a 50mm, but a head shot will give "camel nose". So, on a 67, a 105mm is going give obvious distortion of the face for a head shot but would be fine for a full figure. Of course, there are always going to be some who protest that they shoot all of their portraits on 35mm with a 35mm lens, and from their results, I'd take that to be a true statement.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Although I have five 6x7 lenses, I really only use the 135 and 105. I do portraiture (rarely environmental) so those lengths work fantastic for full body up to headshots.

 

[johnha]

For 6x7 the general rule is to double 35mm focal lengths. The 135 macro & 165/2.8 are both good options (I've recently acquired the 150 but haven't used it much yet). I'd prefer the f/2.8 of the 165 over the f/4 of the 135.

There are two 200 f/4 lenses, the later one is better for portraits as it focuses much closer. The earlier one requires a short extension tube for tight head shots. This is the later one : https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-67-200mm-F4-Lens.html

 

[dourbalistar]

There are two 200 f/4 lenses, the later one is better for portraits as it focuses much closer. The earlier one requires a short extension tube for tight head shots. This is the later one : https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-67-200mm-F4-Lens.html

Antique Cameras lists three versions of the 200/4. I have the S-M-C version, and John is correct that it has a very long minimum focus distance of 2.5m (~8 feet). As for image samples, this site has some excellent image samples from various lenses:
https://skrasnov.com/pentax-67/

 

[johnha]

The first two versions of the 200/4 have the same optics but possibly different coatings: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-Takumar-6x7-200mm-F4-Lens.html

The name changed from Super Takumar to Super-Multi-Coated Takumar, although Pentax may have been using SMC coatings on earlier lenses. Many of the P6x7 lenses went through name changes as the bodies were updated, some were 'left behind' with the older names.

The older lenses with the knurled metal rings have a certain charm to them. I have both the 2nd & 3rd versions and apart from the minimum focussing distance, there's little to choose between them. The built-in slide out hood on the 2nd version is more convenient than the screw-on hood of the 3rd version (although the front element is fairly recessed).

 

[ignatiu5]

I generally use the 165/2.8 for portraits (as below), but if I could choose only one lens, it would be the 105/2.4, because it has more versatility (for my needs, at least) and I have no issue using it for portraiture.

 

[Hatchetman]

I use the late 200mm because I don't have the 165mm. Maybe I should rectify that.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

The first two versions of the 200/4 have the same optics but possibly different coatings: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-Takumar-6x7-200mm-F4-Lens.html

The name changed from Super Takumar to Super-Multi-Coated Takumar, although Pentax may have been using SMC coatings on earlier lenses. Many of the P6x7 lenses went through name changes as the bodies were updated, some were 'left behind' with the older names.

The older lenses with the knurled metal rings have a certain charm to them. I have both the 2nd & 3rd versions and apart from the minimum focussing distance, there's little to choose between them. The built-in slide out hood on the 2nd version is more convenient than the screw-on hood of the 3rd version (although the front element is fairly recessed).

The late 200mm is really an excellent lens, very sharp and nice bokeh. Also, really smooth to focus and long throw so very precise focus is possible. I can't believe anyone needs a hood on the lens, as the front element is really recessed. I think you would have trouble finding a way to flare it unless you were shooting straight at the sun. All that said, I think this lens is ridiculously heavy and large, almost to the point that I can't hold up the camera with one hand when I have it on.

 

[Alan Gales]

105mm f2.4 wide open most of the time.
I may be an outlier as I generally don't like longer-than-normal lenses for portraits.

I hear the Pentax 105 is a peach for portraits. My buddy Harold owns one but he shoots landscapes, preferably without any people.

 

[Ari]

A peach; that about describes it, Alan. It's great for portrait work.

 

[DREW WILEY]

165/2.8

 

[Alan Gales]

A peach; that about describes it, Alan. It's great for portrait work.

View attachment 245200

Well, it looks like I heard correctly, Ari.

Your daughter is a peach too!

 

[John Koehrer]

The macro may give you the fl you think you want but if you want a softer image I think you're going
the wrong way. Most people are looking for tack sharp image with them. They might work wide open but that's about it.

 

[GLS]

105/2.4, 135/4 or 165/2.8 all work well.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

105mm f2.4 wide open most of the time.
I may be an outlier as I generally don't like longer-than-normal lenses for portraits.

I don't have a Pentax 67 nor am I planning to buy one, but if I had one, I for sure would buy that lens as well. The pictues I saw taken with that lens, damn.

 

[Ari]

Well, it looks like I heard correctly, Ari.

Your daughter is a peach too!

Thanks, Alan!