[house]

As has been mentioned the smc Pentax M 100mm f2.8 is a good but cheap lens suitable for portraits on a K1000
SMC Pentax-M 100mm F2.8 Reviews - M Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

There are lots of other options but the above should be cheap and relatively easy to get hold of.

[Photos-by-Chas]

Gotcha....I want want to be able to have the ability to take portrait type shots and have a little zoom. I'm not planning on doing extreme wildlife photography. Could you help filter down some lenses? Some people have posted AF lenses and I'm perfectly fine with doing it manually. I don't want to buy something that is complete junk, I'd rather spend the few extra dollars and get something respectable. I am trying to research this myself, but I surely do not have the amount of experience as others. Do you have anything in mind?

Sending you a PM.

[mikesbike]

A major important lens spec for portrait use is the aperture it is capable of, so you can control depth-of-field (DOF) that is, how much of the scene will appear sharp and in focus. Often, with portraits especially, you will want to have the background de-focused to some varying degree. You do this by using a larger aperture (smaller number). It is easier, less expensive to find a good prime (non-zoom) lens having a larger aperture than is the case with zoom lenses.The focal length also contributes to DOF. A longer FL will bring with it a shallower DOF when set at the same aperture compared to a shorter FL.

The focal length range is also a matter of being at a particular distance form the subject so as to not disturb their natural expression, and then the matter of perspective. A wide angle perspective will tend to elongate the subject more, which can make the nose look longer, etc and somewhat otherwise distort the facial features when trying for a more closeup shot. OTOH, with too much telephoto, the perspective becomes compressed. So the person no longer exhibits a natural 3 dimensional look, and noses, as well as other various features, become flattened. The recommended range with FF cameras including 35mm film is generally between 70-135mm. Some say 85mm is ideal, others prefer 100 or 105mm as ideal. The bokeh of the blurred background becomes important also.

[Just1MoreDave]

I narrowed it down a little by thinking about my preferred distance to the subject, what I like in the frame, what kind of light I want to shoot in and in your case, preferred film speed. A lens at f2.8 or faster (lower f number) is going to cost more but have more flexibility in low light or less sensitive films. You have the option of just having the subject in focus and the background and foreground slightly blurry, usually good. Classic choices range from 50mm to 135mm, with good reasons why. You can make lots of focal lengths work anyway - just stand pretty far away and 400mm is OK, but you'll have to yell to interact with the subject. The shorter lenses allow you to be closer or get more in the frame, longer lenses the opposite.

Fast lenses in the 50mm range are easy to find and cheap if you don't already have one. Beyond 55mm, often the lenses are designed for a specialty like portrait or macro, and therefore more expensive. Then at 135mm, there are cheap lenses again, partly because there are many 135mm lenses and partly because some designs are cheap to build.

I'd probably buy three lenses. A Pentax-M 50mm f1.7 unless you already have a 50-55mm lens, which is probably close enough. Then a Pentax-M 135mm f3.5. That shows you either end of the classic range and together might run you $80-100 for good copies. Then something in the middle, lots of excellent suggestions already. The Pentax-M 100mm f2.8 is a good idea and not too expensive, but might run tou another $80-100. Maybe a Tamron Adaptall model 52B or BB 90mm f2.5 and a K/M adapter.

[DonV]

I'm getting confused...lol. I have a Canon DSLR as well, and in the future I'm going to buy lenses for that. For now, I'm starting with the basics of film photography. So from what everyone is saying 70mm-130mm should be the range I am looking for? Can I also use that for long range as well?

---------- Post added 07-02-21 at 12:55 PM ----------


Is it a K mount?

Yes,
you can find Pentax or other 3rd party brands in the Pentax "K" mount.

Some of the best manual focus zoom lenses, available for Pentax k mount, are the Tamron Adaptall Lenses. They can be bought for a song or a few $$ today- say $50 delivered.

If I were going to use a K1000 for film, I'd find a good condition Tamron Adaptall zoom with the Pentax K/m manual focus/auto aperture. For the K 1000 you don't need the expensive PKA version of the mount.

I suggest you go to the Forum Reviews and look under 3rd party lens reviews and have a look at the film era Tamron lenses.
Check out this link for choices and read the reviews.
Tamron Adaptall Lenses for Pentax: Zoom Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

[stevebrot]

I'm getting confused...lol. I have a Canon DSLR as well, and in the future I'm going to buy lenses for that. For now, I'm starting with the basics of film photography. So from what everyone is saying 70mm-130mm should be the range I am looking for? Can I also use that for long range as well?

Most of the answers so far have assumed use of a K1000. Whether you intend to also shoot digital using Canon gear may or may not be related. One thing at a time?

I don't want to buy something that is complete junk, I'd rather spend the few extra dollars and get something respectable.

I know your explanation is specific to the other comment, but "respectable" is sort of a strange term and so is "complete junk". The specific recommendations on this thread are all very respectable and none are for junk, regardless of whether they are AF or "modern" and regardless of price point. I suggested two lenses that would have been contemporary to early versions of your K1000, but that was pretty much coincidental. The same will provide the same value for task with the flagship K-1 dSLR as with your K-1000. Yes, they are that good.

Lecture over...


Steve

[clickclick]

Many good suggestions here, so I won't repeat them. Perhaps your budget will become the guiding factor.

[DWS1]

Back when the K1000 came out I seem to remember a 135mm F:2.8 being the ultimate portrait lens.

[stevebrot]

Much is made about target focal length for portraits and what makes a good lens for that purpose; though in reality, the focal length is mostly a practical consideration related to rules of perspective, ease of working with the subject, and practical considerations regarding studio size, lighting options, etc. It goes like this...

Working distance can be your friend!
...and a longer working distance than "normal" buys you:

• Freedom from perspective distortion from being too close (big nose/lips)
• Desirable "flattening" of features
• Background isolation
• Ability to not be in the subject's face
• Greater freedom with lighting and posing

Of course, it is a longer focal length that makes the greater working distance possible for the desired portrait framing.

Too much of a good thing?
When was the last time we saw a video of a portrait shoot where the photog was using a lens that was more than a little bit longish? That does seem to be very rare...not unknown, but definitely outside the norm. The reason is practical and explains why so-called portrait lenses for 35mm film are crowded into the space between 70mm and 105mm focal length. There is nothing magical except that:

• Allows for adequate distance to satisfy requirements for commonly used poses and compositions
• Does so without straining studio space constraints
• Allows the photog to be close enough to allow easy communication
• Is sort of a sweet spot balancing DOF and subject isolation needs

Is that all?
Of course not! Lens character is another component, but "dreamy" only takes one so far and is often not the desired rendering. Many "portrait" lenses are sort of soft wide open, while quite sharp a stop or so down. Single focal length is nice, but often a short zoom (say 70-150mm) be just what your need. It is this last bit that is part of the fun. Strangely, 50mm works nicely for environmental and full-length work.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Back when the K1000 came out I seem to remember a 135mm F:2.8 being the ultimate portrait lens.

...or at least a component of the classic three-lens kit. I know that I have used a 135mm for such, particularly outside when a longer view is needed...




Steve

[UncleVanya]

Portrait focal length discussions get really weird quickly. I think one reason is that we all may think of portraits differently. I have self portraits from 8mm Fisheye Lenses and I’ve taken portraits with 400mm lenses all on apsc! The trick is as Steve said, working distance. If you are familiar with how the lens performs and the subject is willing to work with you at that distance without being stressed by the camera gear bring in their personal space or the fact you need radios or semaphore to give directions because you are so far away… it will work.

I find 200mm on apsc as long as I’m willing to typically use outdoors. 135 is more comfortable, but I like longer lenses than some people for this. I’m also ok down to about 40mm on apsc, 31 even works but not as well. So in full frame terms I’m mostly between 60-200, 300 on occasion.

This is why on the k1000 given the desire for a longer lens and a zoom possibly, The A 70-210 f4 might be ideal. The only catch is the slow max aperture.

[blacklite]

Gotcha....I want want to be able to have the ability to take portrait type shots and have a little zoom. I'm not planning on doing extreme wildlife photography.

I wonder if the OP is confusing a zoom lens for a telephoto lens… So many people seem to think that zoom means telephoto, as in it “zooms you closer”.

OP - zoom just means a lens that can change focal length, as against a prime lens that is fixed focal length.

[Wasp]

For a bit of a bargain, check out the Samyang/Rokinon 85mm f/1.4. You focus it yourself but it gets great results. There is an AF version but I'm not sure if it comes in vitamin K. It is a real bokeh beast, so I have two. In different mounts, hehehe.

An f/2.8 zoom is versatile but f/1.4 is a different beast altogether.

[mikesbike]

For a bit of a bargain, check out the Samyang/Rokinon 85mm f/1.4. You focus it yourself but it gets great results. There is an AF version but I'm not sure if it comes in vitamin K. It is a real bokeh beast, so I have two. In different mounts, hehehe.

An f/2.8 zoom is versatile but f/1.4 is a different beast altogether.

Looks like a very good option, depending on price, and with the K1000 you have to focus it yourself anyway. As long as the lens features an aperture ring.

[UncleVanya]

I mentioned this lens (https://www.adorama.com/mtk85mmbkfef.html?) before. I just found a video review with images:

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

The Rokinison / Samyang 85 f1.4 is a bit more money ($250) and has fewer aperture blades. Both are good inexpensive options that work on film and digital.