Pentax 67 what is your go to portrait lens?

harlequin

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
239
Location
Los Angeles/San Antonio
Format
Medium Format
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
 

Grim Tuesday

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
738
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
277
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2019
Messages
570
Location
Virginia
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
289
Location
Lancashire,
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
497
Location
Bay Area, CA
Format
Analog

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

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
289
Location
Lancashire,
Format
Medium Format
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).
 
Last edited:

ignatiu5

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
334
Location
Philadelphia, USA
Format
Medium Format
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.
 

Grim Tuesday

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
738
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format

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

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,253
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format
Ari said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

John Koehrer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,280
Location
Aurora, Il
Format
Multi Format
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.
 

Ernst-Jan

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
555
Location
NL
Format
Medium Format
Ari said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…