Pentax 67 - Which lens allows for super tight portraits (shoulder-up, neck-up, etc.)?

moodlover · 12-09-2015, 11:42 AM

Hello, I was previously using an RZ67 w/ 110mm f/2.8 lens and it was brilliant, I could take neck-up shots and focus on the eyes with no problem. Now I am interested in purchasing a Pentax 67 since I had to sell my RZ67, and was always fascinated by the 105mm f/2.4 lens. Further research into it is quite disappointing as it seems I cannot use it to for close portraits due to its 3.25ft minimum focus distance. Does anyone know what I can do? I read the 90mm is about 2.25ft MFD so that would allow tighter shots, but I also read that it's bokeh quality is not as foggy and smooth as the 105mm's so that's unfortunate.

Do extension tubes diminish image/bokeh quality at all, if I put one on the 105mm?

Example of how close I want to be: http://i.imgur.com/uDcbw2r.jpg

**gofour3** · 12-09-2015, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by moodlover

Hello, I was previously using an RZ67 w/ 110mm f/2.8 lens and it was brilliant, I could take neck-up shots and focus on the eyes with no problem. Now I am interested in purchasing a Pentax 67 since I had to sell my RZ67, and was always fascinated by the 105mm f/2.4 lens. Further research into it is quite disappointing as it seems I cannot use it to for close portraits due to its 3.25ft minimum focus distance. Does anyone know what I can do? I read the 90mm is about 2.25ft MFD so that would allow tighter shots, but I also read that it's bokeh quality is not as foggy and smooth as the 105mm's so that's unfortunate.

Do extension tubes diminish image/bokeh quality at all, if I put one on the 105mm?

Example of how close I want to be: http://i.imgur.com/uDcbw2r.jpg

Welcome to the forum. Your best bets are the 165mm and 200mm focal lengths. See the links below to the lens reviews and sample pictures:

SMC Pentax 67 / SMC Pentax-6x7 165mm F4 Leaf Shutter Reviews - 67 Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

SMC Pentax 67 / SMC Pentax-6x7 165mm F2.8 Reviews - 67 Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

SMC Pentax 67 200mm F4 Reviews - 67 Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Phil.

**blackcloudbrew** · 12-09-2015, 12:15 PM

165 LS for sure.

desertscape · 12-09-2015, 06:18 PM

The old 150 Takumar f/2.8 is often overlooked but is a fine performer. It does well for portraits but I have never shot a tight head shot with it. There is a #1 extension tube that can be used in case it can't get as close as you would like. The lens is in the $50 -- $150 range (cheap) used because most shooters do not know of this lens. It is a Double Gauss design just like the 105, 90 and 165 f/2.8.

thomasfallon · 12-10-2015, 07:03 AM

An extension tube will not degrade the bokeh, but moving in closer will greatly reduce DOF. Portraits done at closer than 3.25 feet will show extreme distortion. The nose is going to protrude and the ears will become extremely small. Working at six feet and cropping would give you tight portaits without distortion.

iDon · 12-10-2015, 11:35 AM

I'm not sure, if the normal primes (90, 105) or short "portrait" tele lenses (150, 165, 165 LS) are the best choice for your needs. As you noted, their magnification/min. focus distance probably is not what you look for.

I'd recommend you the 67 200mm (later version, not the Takumar one), because it's much more suitable for tight portraits and is a wonderful lens.
If you prefer a shorter focal length, another - maybe not so obvious - choice could be the 4/135mm Macro. It's capable of even higher magnification and you can get closer to your subject, if you have to shoot in tighter rooms or if you like shooting from slightly above. DOP and look should be comparable to your familiar 2.8/110.

PS: I also tried using the 165 LS with the shortest extension tube, but it's not very handy and I felt a bit restricted.

tuco · 12-10-2015, 11:46 AM

You want tight head shots? Then a 105/2.4 with #1 extension tube is one option. I've shot all the lenses listed so far and I don't recall any getting in really tight except, perhaps my 300mm EDIF lens

iDon · 12-10-2015, 12:37 PM

fyi there is also a close up filter for the 105/2.4, but very hard to find. It's called "smc close up lens S82". Accessory: SMC Close-up Lenses | Pentax67.net
I don't have any experience with it, but I guess, it's more practical to use than an extension tube.

Unregistered User · 12-10-2015, 12:37 PM

Pentax 6x7+ extesiontube 1+ 105/f2.4@f/4.0. I took a few images and some @ f/2.4 but then the nose and forehead got out of focus.

I find that this combo makes the model look thinner/skinnier than a Pentax K-3 with the DA*300.

**Ed Hurst** · 12-10-2015, 01:39 PM

Have you considered this:

SMC Pentax 67 100mm F4 Macro Reviews - 67 Normal Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

**gofour3** · 12-10-2015, 01:47 PM

Extension tubes, macro lenses and close-up filters will get the tight head shots, but you are "in" the models face.

The later 67 200/4 allows you to step back and get the same results, that would be my first choice.

Phil.

jengajams · 12-15-2015, 10:59 AM

Yeah take either the 105/2.4 or either of 165's depending on how shallow you want your portrait to be. The 105/2.4 good all around for everything.

**bobbotron** · 12-15-2015, 11:16 AM

Pfft, get a 300mm lens and get way back.

Bokeh, check.

johnsey · 01-08-2016, 07:13 AM

Definitely another vote for the 165 LS, both of the 165mm have great bokeh, and the focal distance makes up for the 5ft focusing distance.

You could also consider the 100mm macro which is a stellar lens in all respects if you want the focusing distance.

denniswilliams · 01-09-2016, 12:23 AM

I have many of the 67 lens set. The 135 is a lens which always seems to render exactly as expected. Both in color and B&W. My go to lens for over two decades.

01-09-2016, 12:23 AM	#15
denniswilliams New Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: The American Southwest Posts: 13	135mm f4 Macro I have many of the 67 lens set. The 135 is a lens which always seems to render exactly as expected. Both in color and B&W. My go to lens for over two decades.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Which lens should I purchase for K-3 and close up portraits with good bokeh and DOF?	AntonioD	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	23	07-29-2015 09:09 PM
Building up a lens collection for the Pentax 645Z	sculptormic	Pentax Medium Format	7	03-27-2015 03:16 AM
Nature Wrapped up tight	RobG	Post Your Photos!	17	11-23-2013 02:42 AM
Pentax pop-up flash - range and suitability for portraits?	José Ramos	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	3	05-23-2010 03:04 PM
lens tune up?? cleaning etc	dcmsox2004	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	04-14-2009 03:56 AM

12-09-2015, 11:42 AM	#1
moodlover New Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 11	Pentax 67 - Which lens allows for super tight portraits (shoulder-up, neck-up, etc.)? Hello, I was previously using an RZ67 w/ 110mm f/2.8 lens and it was brilliant, I could take neck-up shots and focus on the eyes with no problem. Now I am interested in purchasing a Pentax 67 since I had to sell my RZ67, and was always fascinated by the 105mm f/2.4 lens. Further research into it is quite disappointing as it seems I cannot use it to for close portraits due to its 3.25ft minimum focus distance. Does anyone know what I can do? I read the 90mm is about 2.25ft MFD so that would allow tighter shots, but I also read that it's bokeh quality is not as foggy and smooth as the 105mm's so that's unfortunate. Do extension tubes diminish image/bokeh quality at all, if I put one on the 105mm? Example of how close I want to be: http://i.imgur.com/uDcbw2r.jpg

12-09-2015, 11:53 AM	#2
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	Originally posted by moodlover Hello, I was previously using an RZ67 w/ 110mm f/2.8 lens and it was brilliant, I could take neck-up shots and focus on the eyes with no problem. Now I am interested in purchasing a Pentax 67 since I had to sell my RZ67, and was always fascinated by the 105mm f/2.4 lens. Further research into it is quite disappointing as it seems I cannot use it to for close portraits due to its 3.25ft minimum focus distance. Does anyone know what I can do? I read the 90mm is about 2.25ft MFD so that would allow tighter shots, but I also read that it's bokeh quality is not as foggy and smooth as the 105mm's so that's unfortunate. Do extension tubes diminish image/bokeh quality at all, if I put one on the 105mm? Example of how close I want to be: http://i.imgur.com/uDcbw2r.jpg Welcome to the forum. Your best bets are the 165mm and 200mm focal lengths. See the links below to the lens reviews and sample pictures: SMC Pentax 67 / SMC Pentax-6x7 165mm F4 Leaf Shutter Reviews - 67 Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database SMC Pentax 67 / SMC Pentax-6x7 165mm F2.8 Reviews - 67 Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database SMC Pentax 67 200mm F4 Reviews - 67 Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database Phil.

12-09-2015, 12:15 PM	#3
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	165 LS for sure.

12-09-2015, 06:18 PM	#4
desertscape Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272	The old 150 Takumar f/2.8 is often overlooked but is a fine performer. It does well for portraits but I have never shot a tight head shot with it. There is a #1 extension tube that can be used in case it can't get as close as you would like. The lens is in the $50 -- $150 range (cheap) used because most shooters do not know of this lens. It is a Double Gauss design just like the 105, 90 and 165 f/2.8.

12-10-2015, 07:03 AM	#5
thomasfallon Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 43	An extension tube will not degrade the bokeh, but moving in closer will greatly reduce DOF. Portraits done at closer than 3.25 feet will show extreme distortion. The nose is going to protrude and the ears will become extremely small. Working at six feet and cropping would give you tight portaits without distortion.

12-10-2015, 11:35 AM	#6
iDon Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 40	I'm not sure, if the normal primes (90, 105) or short "portrait" tele lenses (150, 165, 165 LS) are the best choice for your needs. As you noted, their magnification/min. focus distance probably is not what you look for. I'd recommend you the 67 200mm (later version, not the Takumar one), because it's much more suitable for tight portraits and is a wonderful lens. If you prefer a shorter focal length, another - maybe not so obvious - choice could be the 4/135mm Macro. It's capable of even higher magnification and you can get closer to your subject, if you have to shoot in tighter rooms or if you like shooting from slightly above. DOP and look should be comparable to your familiar 2.8/110. PS: I also tried using the 165 LS with the shortest extension tube, but it's not very handy and I felt a bit restricted.

12-10-2015, 11:46 AM	#7
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	You want tight head shots? Then a 105/2.4 with #1 extension tube is one option. I've shot all the lenses listed so far and I don't recall any getting in really tight except, perhaps my 300mm EDIF lens

12-10-2015, 12:37 PM	#8
iDon Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 40	fyi there is also a close up filter for the 105/2.4, but very hard to find. It's called "smc close up lens S82". Accessory: SMC Close-up Lenses \| Pentax67.net I don't have any experience with it, but I guess, it's more practical to use than an extension tube.

12-10-2015, 12:37 PM	#9
Unregistered User Guest	Pentax 6x7+ extesiontube 1+ 105/f2.4@f/4.0. I took a few images and some @ f/2.4 but then the nose and forehead got out of focus. I find that this combo makes the model look thinner/skinnier than a Pentax K-3 with the DA*300.

12-10-2015, 01:39 PM	#10
Ed Hurst Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Sydney Posts: 1,657	Have you considered this: SMC Pentax 67 100mm F4 Macro Reviews - 67 Normal Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

12-10-2015, 01:47 PM	#11
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	Extension tubes, macro lenses and close-up filters will get the tight head shots, but you are "in" the models face. The later 67 200/4 allows you to step back and get the same results, that would be my first choice. Phil.

12-15-2015, 10:59 AM	#12
jengajams New Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 1	Yeah take either the 105/2.4 or either of 165's depending on how shallow you want your portrait to be. The 105/2.4 good all around for everything.

12-15-2015, 11:16 AM	#13
bobbotron Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Ottawa, ON Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,349	Pfft, get a 300mm lens and get way back. Bokeh, check.

01-08-2016, 07:13 AM	#14
johnsey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Fargo, ND Posts: 113	Definitely another vote for the 165 LS, both of the 165mm have great bokeh, and the focal distance makes up for the 5ft focusing distance. You could also consider the 100mm macro which is a stellar lens in all respects if you want the focusing distance.