Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,009   Posts: 1,524,612   Online: 1043
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    27

    Pentax 6x7 Portrait Lens

    I recently picked up a beater Pentax 6x7. I have the 105mm lens (in bad shape).
    I'm trying to decide what lens to ad for portraits. I'd like to be able to do head shots.
    The candidates:
    135mm f4 macro. Slower than I'd like and I'm concerned about f4 both for the light and the dof. On the plus side, it'll get close as it is.
    150mm f2.8. I'll need an extension tube to get close. f2.8 is nice. I see less about this lens than I do the 165mm and they seem to go for less. I'm wondering if it is as good as the 165mm.
    165mm f2.8. Again, I'll need an extension tube and I like f2.8. I see this one recommended frequently. What does it have over the 150mm f2.8?


    Anyone with experience with these lenses that would care to share advice and examples?

    Thanks,

    Steve

  2. #2
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,039
    Images
    38
    I have the 135 macro and the 165 2.8. I find the 135 macro pretty much covers everything you need in a portrait but it isn't sharp wide open and when you extend the lens for close up you have to remember to open up as much as a stop. Using flash it is kind of a pain in the rear as you have to be methodical and remember not to forget to open up. I think if you use the camera meter, which I never do, it will tell you to open up as you extend the lens.. not sure about that. The 165 is a nice sharp lens, kind of large but the newer version is light weight. You have to be quite a ways away for closest focus.. something like 4 or 5 feet. Once you put an extension on it you will lose the 2.8 so I am not sure it is an advantage over the f4 135. The 105 that you got is a very nice focal length and is quite sharp, at least mine is. If you are buying off ebay you might just try getting one of the lenses and then if you don't like it put it back on ebay and you should get most of your money back.

    I have never tried the 150.
    Dennis

  3. #3
    jeroldharter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,958
    Images
    1
    I have the 165 mm f4 leaf shutter lens which would be desirable if you wanted to use flash or strobes. For available light, it offers no advantage over the regular 165 mm f2.8. The lens is very sharp and would work well.
    Jerold Harter MD

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    129
    can the latest 200/4 focus close enough? i would think that's what you're looking for, since you're going to lose some speed with extension tubes anyway.

  5. #5
    Mark Antony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    East Anglia,UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    772
    Images
    38
    I had the 150mm F2,8 really liked it, but yes the close focus could have been closer.
    My copy had a lot of scratches on the front element, but the lens has nice 'bokeh'
    The shot of my daughter here was on it.
    http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphot...9&ppuser=19618
    Mark

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    27
    Dennis,
    The 135 certainly seems the simplest option. I'm looking for image examples on flickr now. I doubt I'd lose an entire stop by adding 14mm of extension to the 165mm. Others have recommended a +1 diopter with this lens, but I'm wary of cheap diopters ruining good glass.

    Jerold,
    I seldom use flash, so the leaf shutter lens is not an attractive option for me.

    Raizans,
    The 200mm focuses slightly closer than the 165mm, so it must offer tighter shots. I wonder how tight?

    Mark,
    Nice shot from that 150mm. I'm begining to think it's a good alternative to the 165.

  7. #7
    dpurdy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Portland OR USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,039
    Images
    38
    http://dennispurdy.com/Portraits/Niko%20closeup.html

    This is a nice sharp example of close up with the 135. If you go back 4 or 5 more images they are all made with that lens.
    Dennis

    this would be either the 135 or the 165. It is a distance you can get with the 165
    http://dennispurdy.com/Portraits/Amelia.html

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    27
    Very nice stuff Dennis.
    Do you happen to recall the aperture for that Nico shot? I'm wondering what dof will look like. I've used dof master to calculate it, but seeing is so much better.

  9. #9
    luvcameras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    379
    pentax 67 lens information page:

    http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/p67ss.htm


    Dan
    Antique and Classic Camera BLOG
    www.antiquecameras.net/blog.html

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    799
    I wouldn't worry about losing speed when using an extension tube with the 165. I have a similar situation with my Bronica ETR/S cameras. If I use an E28 tube on one of my 150mm lenses I can get closer for portraits but this amount of extension is almost too much so I have to set the lens almost to the infinity mark to even things out. The net amount I have extended the lens by is less than 28mm. I finally found a 105mm f/3.5 Zenzanon which gets closer and is long enough compared to the standard 75mm lens to give a pleasing perspective. Adding an extension tube doesn't turn an f/2.8 lens into an f/4 lens. It simply reduces the amount of light hitting the film. If the f/2.8 lens had a long enough helicoid to get you as close as you want to be, you would lose just as much light. Most 6X7 shooting is not done hand held. For the purpose of portraits I think the Mamiya RB67 is easier. The built-in bellows can get you closer than you would get with most other medium format lenses which have built-in helicoids. I do hand held shooting with my Bronica GS-1 but I only have the 100mm focal length. For portraits I think I'd like to have a 200 but the 200 is more expensive, heavier and slower than a 150.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin