Is the 135mm Macro for Pentax 67 well suited for portraiture or is it a too short focal length for this matter (will it occur "wide" angle perspective : big nose, mini ears) ? this lens is the equivalent of 65mm in small format. Is it enough or does the macro obey to other rules concernig perspective ? Is the new 100mm Macro also suited for portraiture ?

Thanks a lot for any reply

-- Amine SULTAN (aminesultan@hotmail.com), October 06, 2000

Answers

A 135mm does not give the photographer or the subject enough space. The subject will feel you are in their face/too close and not really give you a good portrait. Using the 135 for group shots is ok because you can move back for the shot. For a tight head shot, the 200 Pentax would be better. SR

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), October 06, 2000.

I agree with Steve...to get a head shot with the 135, you wind up invading the model's personal space and it shows in the portait. And yes, you do get a little distortion. Not much, but noticeable.

The newer 200 lens works very well for head shots. But I've found that to get a really tight head shot, I still need to use an extension tube (number 2 works well).

-- Scott Whitford (swhitford@msn.com), October 08, 2000.

Over the past 5-7 years, the fashion industry has been greatly influenced by photojournalists. As a result, fashion and editorial shooters have gone to shorter lenses. I have had a very good response from agencies when I use my 135 for headshots. Although I have heard mixed reviews concerning the sharpness of the 135, I have been satisfied with mine. When shooting a headshot with 35mm I have not hesitated using the Nikon 60mm macro lens. If you have a question regarding perspective I would suggest renting the lenses and comparing the images. Good luck, Tony

-- Tony Clark (tcphoto@earthlink.net), October 08, 2000.