Pentax 67 135mm Macro for Portraits

This question pops up a lot...

 

I just picked up a 135mm Macro for $75 so thought it was worth a try.

So far, I don't find it it to be distorted at close range.

It doesn't focus as close as some of my other (35mm format) Macro lenses.

 

This is a shot at the closest Focus on a four year old.

Basically would give a tight head shot for an adult.

 

jmp<div></div>

Thats a beautiful photo. I use the135 macro for head shots and I love the image quality. You can crop a bit if you want to

get even closer. Using the lens with studio flash the only problem is remembering to open up a stop when getting in real

close like that.

Dennis

I used this lens for many years. I found three reasons why this is not the best choice for as a primary portrait lens:

 

1) Too slow

2) Very soft wide open

3) Too short

 

Can it take great portraits? Your picture proves yes. As long as you are aware of its limitations.

Too slow?

The Plane of Focus is REALLY narrow and this shot was at f5.6 or 8.

That is one of the disadvantages of being up close with a Macro lens...very little depth of field.

For closeup work I always try to stay at least f8.

I have an old Nippon Kogaku 135/2.8 for my Nikon system but I am not as close to the subject with that one.

f2.8 is useful on that lens.

 

Soft...

I took a couple of shots of other things wide open and it is on the soft side but I will just keep that in mind and use it as

a 'feature' sometime :)

 

Short

I might also get a 200...the late model that focuses closer.

Will get a wide lens first though.

 

jmp

Wow $75.00 for that lens, great deal, I bought one last year for 125 on ebay and thought that was a good deal.

Yesterday I saw one buy it now for $899!! new in box.....great pic btw... John

<p>How does the 135mm compare with the 100mm lens? I've been watching for a reasonably priced 100mm Pentax 67 macro for a while now but I may just opt for the 135mm.</p>