Best lens or lens/tube(s) for headshots

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Pentax 67 SLR : One Thread

My 150mm is terrible for headshots, filling only about 1/3 to 1/2 of the frame at the most including hair and neck. I'm getting the two LS lenses (the 90 next week, yippie!)and would also like to finish my setup with a wide angle (probably 55) and a good lens for headshots. Is the 300mm a viable option? or the 200 and extension tube(s)? or a double cheese/anchovies...oops...pizza guy just buzzed...yippie!

...or the 150/165 with a 2x? (what happens to min. focusing distance with a converter?)

thanks all

shawn

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), January 30, 2000

Answers

The 150mm with a closeup achromat will put you "in their face" and may make some people uncomfortable. I prefer the new version 200mm (Pentax). It will do a fairly tight head shot without tubes or closeup attachments. The 300mm is OK for people shots where you need the distance i.e. travel portraits. But, for tight head shots, you are better off with the 200 Pentax. DOF starts to become a problem with the 300. SR

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), January 31, 2000.

Shawn: I use the Pentax close-up lens T132 for portrait work with the 2.8/165mm. The T132 is an achromatic (two elements) lens which produces excellent quality in combination with the 165mm lens. I guess its performance in combination with the 150mm lens would be similar.

-- Joachim Inkmann (joachim.inkmann@uni-konstanz.de), January 31, 2000.

Well, it's a personal thing, but the 135mm will close focus to get a tight (!) headshot and won't distort the perspective TOO much. It's very close to 150 as far as focal length is concerned. It will go to 1:3 without tubes, which is enough for a face to almost fully fill the frame (the "fff" rule :-))). The trick with these lenses is achieving exact focusing when using them wide open - it can be a bitch getting those eyes sharp!

The new 200 (SMC Pentax version) focuses to 1,5 meters (as opposed to the Takumar 200 which only "did" 2,5) and is actually made for such situations, but I wouldn't know what it ACTUALLY does because I haven't used it yet. The 135 just keeps surprising me so much I needn't think of a 200.

I also have the 165/2.8. I presume you will be getting the 165/4 which is the LS version. Think what a 2x doubler does - it thakes you 2 stops, making the lens 330/8. f/eight is much too much. 165/2.8 with 2x would still go somehow at 5.6, but forget about doubling the 165/4. The 2x TC KEEPS THE FOCUSING DISTANCE OF THE LENS (Yippiee..) thus getting a telephoto with much closer focusing distance. But at what cost! The f/stop is much more valuable, don't you agree? And the quality WILL degrade with a 2x TC, but that's actually GOOD for portraits, because Pentax lenses are such sharp monsters !? (laugh).

Hmmm... If I were you I would choose the 135 macro. And please, forget the 300, it's not made for these purposes.

-- Alex B. (samedobrefotke@hotmail.com), January 31, 2000.


Hummm. I was hoping the 165/4 LS with 2x. I forgot about the -2 stops. f8 would be wide open, which probably means I wouldn't want to shoot below f11, which means probably 1/3-1/2 my shots I couldn't use it for. 135 macro is stretching it though; not enough compression (neither was the 85mm Nikon for my tastes, so the closer I can get to 300mm the better). Maybe the 150 with the 2x is the best choice; what do you think given what I just said? I'll still get the 165LS, just won't sell the 150 (just dedicate it to headshots)...shawn

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), January 31, 2000.

I think 2x TC with 150 is a rational choice. I'll definetly buy the 2x (there are two - "T6" and just plain "2x", the latter being newer) for my 165/2.8. I'll be able to get a 180mm focal lenght I loved so much on my Mamiya RZ by sticking a 2x to 90/2.8, too. Options are our friends...

-- Alex B. (samedobrefotke@hotmail.com), February 02, 2000.


I vote for the 200. No tubes to worry about, and it has a good working distance.

Check out this shot done with the 200 http://www.rapfoto.com/graphics/kvtight.jpg

Good luck.

-- Robert Anderson (randerson1@uswest.net), February 02, 2000.


Be care when buying a 2x converter for the 165LS. The older converter, the T6-2X will not fit this lens due to the glass elements bumping into each other. I believe we have the same problem with the 1.4X rear converter, but I don't have this one so maybe someone else can give a definite answer on this. I'm pretty sure the newer 2X rear converter will fit though, but someone else will have to confirm this too. The T6-2X will work on lenses 135mm and up, except tor the 165LS. Bob

-- Bobby Mahaffey (mahajen@prodigy.net), February 02, 2000.

Robert, I like the compression on that image. Could you tell me what percentage of the frame the head actually made up? Could you get a really tight 11x14" print with the same cropping?

I'm in the midst of paying for the 90LS, and I think with a 2x that will be close enough to 200mm for me. And with my current 150, I end up with 4 useful focal lengths (90, 150, 180, 300). When I add the 165LS in a couple of months, my options open up even more. With just 3 lenses and a 2xTC, I end up with a full system pretty much, minus extreme telephoto and wide-angle, the first of which I can probably do without most of the time, and with the second I can just buy the 55mm.

I'm really impressed with the price/performance aspect of the Pentax system. There's really nothing around like it.

Thanks for all your responses. shawn

-- shawn gibson (SeeInsideForever@yahoo.com), February 04, 2000.


Shawn,

I'm one of those "crop in the camera/full frame" kinda guys, so what you see is what's on the film. I had the lens racked all of the way out, and used a gentle swaying of my body to adjust for the critically shallow focus/moving model.

This was shot under HMI [rented], on Kodak EPP that was cross- processed in C-41.

-- Robert Anderson (randerson1@uswest.net), February 04, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ