Best portrait lens for Pentax 67?

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 01-27-2014, 08:39 AM

Which is the best portrait lens for the Pentax 67 system?
150mm, 165mm, 200mm?

MysteryOnion · 01-27-2014, 10:21 AM

I like the 105mm (normal) for portraits, however the 165mm does a nice job too.

tuco · 01-27-2014, 10:39 AM

Are you going to use strobes? But of the listed lenses, the 165mm is the classic portrait focal length (eg 85mm equivalent in small format). You could take a portrait with any of those lenses.

**gofour3** · 01-27-2014, 11:26 AM

I’ve got the 150/2.8, 165/2.8, 165/4 & the late 200/4. They are all good for portraiture, so it would depend on what type. The 150 & 165mm lenses are best for body shots and the 200mm for head portraits.

I would get at least the late 200/4 and one of the 150/165s

Phil.

Silent Street · 01-27-2014, 03:23 PM

This is very subjective — how long is a piece of string??

My 2c worth is the 165mm f4 leaf shutter (with MLU and tripod braced) with a respectable working distance. This 'howitzer' is also quite at home in a landscape context in the right conditions.

Second best choice is the squat, easy-going 90mm f2.8 with its bright aperture for shallow depth of field just beyond the ears in portraits.

johnsey · 01-27-2014, 04:36 PM

I agree with Silent Street, it definitely depends on your preferences and needs. The 165mm is LS is also a nice choice to allow faster sync speeds. The 150-165mm range will put you at a traditional portrait length.

revdocjim · 01-27-2014, 11:57 PM

Even though I have almost all the lenses mentioned so far except the LF, I must admit to not having done portraiture with this system. But I would point out that the 150 is going to be the cheapest since it is only available in the Takumar version. It should be available for less than $100. The 200 also tends to be very affordable whereas I expect you'll pay a little more for the 165 and the standard lenses, especially if you choose the P version of the latter. But at these prices, try em all! (the voice of reason!)

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 01-28-2014, 01:50 AM

I've already got the 200mm (bought several years ago for almost nothing on the idea that...welll, some day I will end up with a Pentax 6x7...). But I find it a bit long so far.
It is very inexpensive...I suspect it was made in relatively large numbers because it was probably the 2nd lens people got after the normal lens, much like all the 135mm lenses made for 135 mm film cameras, which was in everyones camera bags...and hence are inexpensive today. But when I shoot my kids it is raraly studio setups, but from ordinary life, and I whish to catch a bit of what they are doing, and then the 200mm is too long, at least indoor. Perhaps I will end up using a normal lens in those cases.

Of course, what focal length one prefere is subjective. My question was more like the "which is the best lens" of these? It appears to me that the 165mm should be ideal, but it get some bad and some good reviews. So perhaps the 150mm is a safer option?
I like the idea of a leaf shutter, but I think it will have to wait for now. Is there one 90/2.8 version with leaf shutter and one without? Do they have the same lens design? Obviously the 165mm with and without leaf shutter are two separate lenses with even different speed.

How about the 135mm macro for portraits?

Does anyone know a source of lens design diagrams for the 67 lenses?

Silent Street · 01-28-2014, 02:57 AM

There is a 90mm leaf shutter version separate to the usual 90mm f2.8 lens. From what accounts I have read the optical performance is not that far removed, but the leaf shutter mechanism makes the LS version heavier — is weight a consideration for you? This (90) lens has fewer operational idiosyncracies than the 165mm LS (e.g. mirror lock-up can be used with the 90mm LS but not the 165mm LS — whether or not you can justify using MLU with leaf shutter mode engaged is entirely up to you rather than speculative feedback). I have the 165mm LS and it is quite heavy but it is very sharp and crisp on Velvia 50 at 12x16 enlargements. I would definitely not besmirch it on the basis of a handful of negative or marginal comments on this forum or elsewhere, especially from only occasional users with limited experience; I use mine quite often in situ, as I said earlier, in the landscape context and it has saved quite a few situations where I found myself too distant from the subject. The 90mm f2.8 lens inclusion is a 'bridge' between the 55mm and 165mm, again, just right for a great many situations and I have no plans to add to this kit (this is enough weight to carry around, thanks!

)

desertscape · 01-28-2014, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden

Does anyone know a source of lens design diagrams for the 67 lenses?

I have all of the cross sections ever published for the 67 system. The 90 Takumar (LS) is a 6 element Double Gauss; the 90 Pentax is a 7 element Double Gauss; the 135 is a 5 element semi-symmetrical Dynar; the 150 Takumar & Super Takumar are 5 element Double Gauss; the 165 f/2.8 is a 6 element air spaced Double Gauss; the 165 LS is a 5 element Ernostar, as is the 200 Pentax.

I love the 165 LS and don't use the Leaf Shutter for portraits because I don't use a flash. Both the 200 Pentax and 165 LS have f/32 which allows for landscape work as well. If you need to see the actual cross section of a particular lens, let me know.

**gofour3** · 01-28-2014, 02:07 PM

Yeah I would agree with Tuco & Silent Street and go with the 165/4 LS over the 165/2.8 or 150/2.8.

Phil.

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 01-28-2014, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by desertscape

I have all of the cross sections ever published for the 67 system. The 90 Takumar (LS) is a 6 element Double Gauss; the 90 Pentax is a 7 element Double Gauss; the 135 is a 5 element semi-symmetrical Dynar; the 150 Takumar & Super Takumar are 5 element Double Gauss; the 165 f/2.8 is a 6 element air spaced Double Gauss; the 165 LS is a 5 element Ernostar, as is the 200 Pentax.

I love the 165 LS and don't use the LS for portraits because I don't use a flash. Both the 200 Pentax and 165 LS have f/32 which allows for landscape work as well. If you need to see the actual cross section of a particular lens, let me know.

I'm surprised that I haven't been able to find cross section diagrams for the Pentax 67 lenses on the web. Not even on Pentax forum. If you could scan them, we could make Adam add them to the lens data base...

**Douglas_of_Sweden** · 01-28-2014, 04:48 PM

Actually I found most of the lens diagrams now, but for some reason it was much more difficult than any other lens diagrams I've been looking for.

WIde angles: Pentax SMC 67Ïµ
Normal and short tele: Pentax SMC 67Ïµ
Long tele: Pentax SMC 67Ïµ
Zoom, soft and macro: Pentax SMC 67Ïµ

We should make Pentaxforum add these to the lens data base.

**gofour3** · 01-28-2014, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden

Actually I found most of the lens diagrams now, but for some reason it was much more difficult than any other lens diagrams I've been looking for.

WIde angles: Pentax SMC 67Ïµ
Normal and short tele: Pentax SMC 67Ïµ
Long tele: Pentax SMC 67Ïµ
Zoom, soft and macro: Pentax SMC 67Ïµ

We should make Pentaxforum add these to the lens data base.

Good stuff, yeah they should be added!

Thanks, Phil.

desertscape · 01-28-2014, 09:58 PM

Douglas, I am the same person on Flickr as srasmuss.
There are some cross sections shown in the lens test area here on Pentax forums. But I agree there should be more included. Most shooters do not know what to make of these but for the well informed, they are important. The reason I favor the 165 LS is because of its Ernostar design and its proven performance. Leica used this design type quite extensively in their 180 mm lenses and even in their 90 mm with great success. Pentax obviously took notice and adapted this design type to the 67.

01-27-2014, 08:39 AM	#1
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374	Best portrait lens for Pentax 67? Which is the best portrait lens for the Pentax 67 system? 150mm, 165mm, 200mm?

01-28-2014, 01:22 PM	#10
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Does anyone know a source of lens design diagrams for the 67 lenses? I have all of the cross sections ever published for the 67 system. The 90 Takumar (LS) is a 6 element Double Gauss; the 90 Pentax is a 7 element Double Gauss; the 135 is a 5 element semi-symmetrical Dynar; the 150 Takumar & Super Takumar are 5 element Double Gauss; the 165 f/2.8 is a 6 element air spaced Double Gauss; the 165 LS is a 5 element Ernostar, as is the 200 Pentax. I love the 165 LS and don't use the Leaf Shutter for portraits because I don't use a flash. Both the 200 Pentax and 165 LS have f/32 which allows for landscape work as well. If you need to see the actual cross section of a particular lens, let me know. Last edited by desertscape; 01-28-2014 at 10:01 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best lens for portrait	Leonski, Macedonia	Visitors' Center	7	08-06-2013 03:31 PM
best portrait lens pentax ever made	everydaylife	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	38	10-15-2012 08:38 AM
What is the Best Focal Length for a Portrait Lens?	Drom	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	94	04-22-2012 02:00 PM
Whats the best portrait lens for a K20D?	jeryst	Pentax DSLR Discussion	50	11-07-2011 06:13 AM
Best choice for a long, prime portrait lens?	m88k	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	08-11-2010 03:13 PM

01-27-2014, 10:21 AM	#2
MysteryOnion Giveaway winner! Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: beantown Photos: Albums Posts: 944	I like the 105mm (normal) for portraits, however the 165mm does a nice job too.

01-27-2014, 10:39 AM	#3
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Are you going to use strobes? But of the listed lenses, the 165mm is the classic portrait focal length (eg 85mm equivalent in small format). You could take a portrait with any of those lenses.

01-27-2014, 11:26 AM	#4
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,091	I’ve got the 150/2.8, 165/2.8, 165/4 & the late 200/4. They are all good for portraiture, so it would depend on what type. The 150 & 165mm lenses are best for body shots and the 200mm for head portraits. I would get at least the late 200/4 and one of the 150/165s Phil.

01-27-2014, 03:23 PM	#5
Silent Street Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Castlemaine, Victoria, AUS Photos: Albums Posts: 1,151	This is very subjective — how long is a piece of string?? My 2c worth is the 165mm f4 leaf shutter (with MLU and tripod braced) with a respectable working distance. This 'howitzer' is also quite at home in a landscape context in the right conditions. Second best choice is the squat, easy-going 90mm f2.8 with its bright aperture for shallow depth of field just beyond the ears in portraits.

01-27-2014, 04:36 PM	#6
johnsey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Fargo, ND Posts: 113	I agree with Silent Street, it definitely depends on your preferences and needs. The 165mm is LS is also a nice choice to allow faster sync speeds. The 150-165mm range will put you at a traditional portrait length.

01-27-2014, 11:57 PM	#7
revdocjim Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Mt. Akagi, Gunma Prefecture Posts: 374	Even though I have almost all the lenses mentioned so far except the LF, I must admit to not having done portraiture with this system. But I would point out that the 150 is going to be the cheapest since it is only available in the Takumar version. It should be available for less than $100. The 200 also tends to be very affordable whereas I expect you'll pay a little more for the 165 and the standard lenses, especially if you choose the P version of the latter. But at these prices, try em all! (the voice of reason!)

01-28-2014, 01:50 AM	#8
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374 Original Poster	I've already got the 200mm (bought several years ago for almost nothing on the idea that...welll, some day I will end up with a Pentax 6x7...). But I find it a bit long so far. It is very inexpensive...I suspect it was made in relatively large numbers because it was probably the 2nd lens people got after the normal lens, much like all the 135mm lenses made for 135 mm film cameras, which was in everyones camera bags...and hence are inexpensive today. But when I shoot my kids it is raraly studio setups, but from ordinary life, and I whish to catch a bit of what they are doing, and then the 200mm is too long, at least indoor. Perhaps I will end up using a normal lens in those cases. Of course, what focal length one prefere is subjective. My question was more like the "which is the best lens" of these? It appears to me that the 165mm should be ideal, but it get some bad and some good reviews. So perhaps the 150mm is a safer option? I like the idea of a leaf shutter, but I think it will have to wait for now. Is there one 90/2.8 version with leaf shutter and one without? Do they have the same lens design? Obviously the 165mm with and without leaf shutter are two separate lenses with even different speed. How about the 135mm macro for portraits? Does anyone know a source of lens design diagrams for the 67 lenses?

01-28-2014, 02:57 AM	#9
Silent Street Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Castlemaine, Victoria, AUS Photos: Albums Posts: 1,151	There is a 90mm leaf shutter version separate to the usual 90mm f2.8 lens. From what accounts I have read the optical performance is not that far removed, but the leaf shutter mechanism makes the LS version heavier — is weight a consideration for you? This (90) lens has fewer operational idiosyncracies than the 165mm LS (e.g. mirror lock-up can be used with the 90mm LS but not the 165mm LS — whether or not you can justify using MLU with leaf shutter mode engaged is entirely up to you rather than speculative feedback). I have the 165mm LS and it is quite heavy but it is very sharp and crisp on Velvia 50 at 12x16 enlargements. I would definitely not besmirch it on the basis of a handful of negative or marginal comments on this forum or elsewhere, especially from only occasional users with limited experience; I use mine quite often in situ, as I said earlier, in the landscape context and it has saved quite a few situations where I found myself too distant from the subject. The 90mm f2.8 lens inclusion is a 'bridge' between the 55mm and 165mm, again, just right for a great many situations and I have no plans to add to this kit (this is enough weight to carry around, thanks! )

01-28-2014, 02:07 PM	#11
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,091	Yeah I would agree with Tuco & Silent Street and go with the 165/4 LS over the 165/2.8 or 150/2.8. Phil.

01-28-2014, 03:31 PM	#12
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374 Original Poster	Originally posted by desertscape I have all of the cross sections ever published for the 67 system. The 90 Takumar (LS) is a 6 element Double Gauss; the 90 Pentax is a 7 element Double Gauss; the 135 is a 5 element semi-symmetrical Dynar; the 150 Takumar & Super Takumar are 5 element Double Gauss; the 165 f/2.8 is a 6 element air spaced Double Gauss; the 165 LS is a 5 element Ernostar, as is the 200 Pentax. I love the 165 LS and don't use the LS for portraits because I don't use a flash. Both the 200 Pentax and 165 LS have f/32 which allows for landscape work as well. If you need to see the actual cross section of a particular lens, let me know. I'm surprised that I haven't been able to find cross section diagrams for the Pentax 67 lenses on the web. Not even on Pentax forum. If you could scan them, we could make Adam add them to the lens data base...

01-28-2014, 04:48 PM	#13
Douglas_of_Sweden Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Stockholm Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,374 Original Poster	Actually I found most of the lens diagrams now, but for some reason it was much more difficult than any other lens diagrams I've been looking for. WIde angles: Pentax SMC 67Ïµ Normal and short tele: Pentax SMC 67Ïµ Long tele: Pentax SMC 67Ïµ Zoom, soft and macro: Pentax SMC 67Ïµ We should make Pentaxforum add these to the lens data base.

01-28-2014, 08:28 PM	#14
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,091	Originally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Actually I found most of the lens diagrams now, but for some reason it was much more difficult than any other lens diagrams I've been looking for. WIde angles: Pentax SMC 67Ïµ Normal and short tele: Pentax SMC 67Ïµ Long tele: Pentax SMC 67Ïµ Zoom, soft and macro: Pentax SMC 67Ïµ We should make Pentaxforum add these to the lens data base. Good stuff, yeah they should be added! Thanks, Phil.

01-28-2014, 09:58 PM	#15
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	Douglas, I am the same person on Flickr as srasmuss. There are some cross sections shown in the lens test area here on Pentax forums. But I agree there should be more included. Most shooters do not know what to make of these but for the well informed, they are important. The reason I favor the 165 LS is because of its Ernostar design and its proven performance. Leica used this design type quite extensively in their 180 mm lenses and even in their 90 mm with great success. Pentax obviously took notice and adapted this design type to the 67.