[leonine]

Hello friends,

I own the Pentax 645Z and the gorgeous 90mm f2.8. If I am allowed to own only one lens, it will the 90mm. If I am allowed two, the other one will be 28-45 f/4.5.

The most satisfying aspect of being a decent photographer is when I make available light portrait images of people using the 90mm, and they come back to say thank you again and again. I guess the rendering of the 90mm is something special as far as portraiture is concerned.

Now, I have been reading a lot about the Pentax 67 105mm f/2.4 being a "legendary" portrait lens. The images made using this lens that I saw on the Internet look wonderful.

A friend in the US says he has found a mint condition Pentax 67 105mm f/2.4 at a reasonable price of around USD 500.

GAS aside, I would like to know from the experienced members of this esteemed forum about how these two lenses compare for portraiture in the following circumstances :-

1. Both lenses on Pentax 645Z (the 105mm in manual mode using adapter)

2. 90mm on Pentax 645Z and 105mm on Pentax 67 (please disregard resolution, sharpness etc issues due to the obvious differences between digital and analogue, and let's look at only the "look" or "character" in portrait making using these two lenses, all other things being equal.)

I would also like to understand how the 105mm, an almost 50 year old lens design with fewer glass elements and old coatings, can be even compared to the modern digital optimised lenses like 90mm which is an almost "perfect" lens on technical parameters.

[mikeSF]

be sure to check out the 645 FA150/2.8. Of the 3, this has the best portrait bokeh, IMO.

[sculptor666]

the 150 is great, but lots of ca if that bothers you. the 90 is my favorite do-it-all lens. you didn't ask, but i'd also recommend the d-fa 35mm. this was a quick one with the 35... not the best example but i got her to sit still for a second where she wasn't laughing at me.

[leonine]

be sure to check out the 645 FA150/2.8. Of the 3, this has the best portrait bokeh, IMO.

I have the A 150mm f/3.5. It is nice.

But the Pentax 67 105mm f/2.4 has a reputation for being "legendary", a moniker not easily applied to other lenses. I am trying to understand if there is something really unique about it, specifically compared to the Pentax 645 90mm f2.8.

---------- Post added 03-16-22 at 11:56 PM ----------

the 150 is great, but lots of ca if that bothers you. the 90 is my favorite do-it-all lens. you didn't ask, but i'd also recommend the d-fa 35mm. this was a quick one with the 35... not the best example but i got her to sit still for a second where she wasn't laughing at me.

I have the FA 35mm f/3.5. Mostly used for landscape work.

This is a wonderful portrait. And to hold the pose for one sec for a giggling lady is no mean task

[mikeSF]

I have the A 150mm f/3.5. It is nice.

But the Pentax 67 105mm f/2.4 has a reputation for being "legendary", a moniker not easily applied to other lenses. I am trying to understand if there is something really unique about it, specifically compared to the Pentax 645 90mm f2.8.[COLOR="Silver"]

)

hmm, legendary, not from my experience. I was able to comfortably sell my 105 after incorporating the 90macro in my rig, just keeping 90, 120 and 150 in that focal length range.
105 lacked the sharpmess of 90 and 120, and I found the portrait bokeh (and sharpness) of the FA150 to be superior.
good luck

[leonine]

hmm, legendary, not from my experience. I was able to comfortably sell my 105 after incorporating the 90macro in my rig, just keeping 90, 120 and 150 in that focal length range.
105 lacked the sharpmess of 90 and 120, and I found the portrait bokeh (and sharpness) of the FA150 to be superior.
good luck

Thank you. Was looking forward to advice from someone like you who has used both the 67 105mm and 645 90mm.

Perhaps, if I ever bring myself to pick up the Pentax 67 itself, I will pick up this 105mm as the only lens with it.

Do you have any experience of the A 150mm f3.5 compared to the FA 150mm f2.8? I have the A lens and it is a joy just to use it for the old times sake. Sharp enough but not as clinically sharp as the 90mm. I like using that lens a lot.

[desertscape]

I would also like to understand how the 105mm, an almost 50 year old lens design with fewer glass elements and old coatings,

The original 105 used Thorium glass and was changed in design type to accommodate a non-radioactive high index glass. Also changed was the coating. The ones since circa 1975 are SCM, which is a 7 layer multi-coat. The improvements over this coating has been minimal over the years. The lens at f/8 can make prints of 24 X 30 inch size. It does well on the 67 for portraits. DOF can be a bit too thin at f/2.4.

[RICHARD L.]

Well, I don't take "portraits" wide-open but my late-model P67 105 mm f/2.4 is terrific as a landscape tool (colors, contrast and sharpness are first rate).

Cropped image


Full framed image

[Edmunds]

The 105mm f/2.4 is legendary when shot on a Pentax 6x7 film camera. This is a 70x55mm negative. In comparison, a 645Z has a "tiny" 44x33mm sensor.


Basically until the arrival of modern lenses of the last 5-10 years, the 105mm f/2.4 offered a full frame equivalent of a 50mm f/1.2 - but without all the issues that come with shooting a 35mm camera and a 50mm f/1.2 lens. If you have shot an older DSLR/SLR camera and an older than current generation 50mm f/1.2 wide open, you will know that the results can often be underwhelming to say the least. This wasn't the case with the 105mm f/2.4, which could be shot wide open.


Being able to shoot a 50mm f/1.2 equivalent wide open opened up creative opportunities that otherwise don't exist. With such shallow depth of field you can shoot full body portraits of people, get sufficient shallow depth of field, and the environment around them - this is "the look" you are talking about. While it is possible to shoot shallow depth of field with a longer lens, this introduces perspective compression, and you lose the environment the person is in. While the depth of field is just as shallow, it is a fundamentally different photograph. At the same time, being simply a gigantic SLR, it was very accessible from a usability standpoint, could be easily taken to location, etc.


Thus, for decades, the Pentax 6x7 cameras with the 105mm f/2.4 lens was able to create pictures that had literally no equal in photography.


That said, on a 645Z, the 105mm f/2.4 behaves merely like an 85mm f/1.8 equivalent which simply isn't very interesting. There are no lenses on a 645Z that would deliver a 50mm f/1.2 look, or even a 50mm f/1.8

[RICHARD L.]

Two other P67 lenses that could be considered for use on the 645Z are :

1) P67 90 mm f/2.8



2) P67 165 mm f/2.8



Both lenses can be used wide-open or at f/4 and perform well on the 645Z sensor. The 165 mm f/2.8 is particularly impressive.

[leonine]

Thank you friends for your advice. I guess I will get a Pentax 67 with the 105mm lens soon, specifically for portraits.

[Sandy Hancock]

I have often thought about the 67 105/2.4, but I already have the the 90/2.8 and 150/2.8 (and the 120/4.0 macro for that matter). I am pretty convinced they are all decent portrait lenses:





But if I want super shallow DoF and unique bokeh on the 645Z, my Schneider 125/2.0 projector lens is my go-to:



The downside is f/2.0 is all you get, so most of the time I'll opt for the other two lenses.

But as @scultptor666 showed, the 35/3.5 is no slouch either if you want a bit of environment around your subject.

[leonine]

Thanks Sandy. Lovely portraits. Thanks for sharing.

I will pick up the 105mm to pair with the Pentax 67 that I wish to get just to get started with film photography again. For 645Z, I guess the 90mm is very good. And so is the MF 150mm f/3.5 that I own.

[Eyewanders]

Thanks Sandy. Lovely portraits. Thanks for sharing.

I will pick up the 105mm to pair with the Pentax 67 that I wish to get just to get started with film photography again. For 645Z, I guess the 90mm is very good. And so is the MF 150mm f/3.5 that I own.

I do not shoot Pentax digital in MF but in terms of performance and look, I've shot 67 glass on 645 (645Nii mostly) format for a good while, such that I don't own any native 645 glass for years now; I only adapt 67 lenses. That's mostly for consolidation of kit because I'm a 67 shooter first. But to that end, it's never felt like a compromise.

The 67 105 will obviously (as Sandy and Edmonds explain above) never realize it's full performance (the kind that led it to be "legendary") on 645 film or digital, but I use it fairly often and it works extremely well. A couple examples shown below. You can peruse the full album for this wedding if you like, which has a nearly 50/50 mix of coverage (in addition to B&W on 35mm at the beginning and end portions) done with both 645 and 6x7, all using the 67 glass.

Full album link is here: Wade & Becky's Wedding, July 23rd 2016 | Flickr
(note to avoid confusion: the images below and those at this wedding link above are in my two different Flickr accounts.)

The 105 is quite tight on 645 but works well for portrait indeed (2nd image below)... But in it's place I use the 67 90/2.8 far more often (on the 645nii), and in situations like this will pair it and the 45/4 on the 645, then the 105mm and 75mm on the 67 and/or 67ii. Makes for similar coverage and I generally move to 645 when the pace is quicker (for obvious reason). Incidentally, that 67 45/4 lnes is actually one of my favorites on 645 format, providing a look that is *somewhat* akin to the FA31 on Pentax 135 format ( shown in the last image with cinnamon rolls). All this to say, 67 glass works more than admirably on the 645 format, but the 105/24 used as such is not *really* the 105 everyone knows/loves.

Just thought I'd share all this for reference/perspective.



Pentax 645Nii | 67 105/2.4 | Konica Centuria 400 Pro e.i. 200



Pentax 645Nii | 67 105/2.4 | Konica Centuria 400 Pro e.i. 200


(contrast the above with the 105/2.4 on 67, this outtake shot with the nearly-large-format look for which the 105 is loved, simply can't be realized on 645...)


Pentax 67 | SMC 67 105/2.4 | Konica Centuria 400 Pro e.i. 200


Pentax 67II | SMC Takumar 105/2.4 | Provia 400F (RHPIII) @400
(just another showing the striking separation it can get with full body framing - this was a self-timer self-shot test and was "scanned" with a Ricoh GRIII, but that's a different story/topic)


(and here are a couple examples of the 67 45/4 on 645 format...)


Pentax 645Nii | 45/4.0 | HP5 Plus +1



Pentax 645Nii | 45/4.0 | HP5 Plus +1

Sorry for the blast of images, but I thought they could be helpful. Cheers all.

[Edmunds]

Pentax 67II | SMC Takumar 105/2.4 | Provia 400F (RHPIII) @400
(just another showing the striking separation it can get with full body framing - this was a self-timer self-shot test and was "scanned" with a Ricoh GRIII, but that's a different story/topic)

Yep, this is "the look". Nice shot!


Not happening on a 645Z. Its a travesty that Pentax only released f/2.8 lenses for the 645Z, because it renders skin tones sooo nicely.