The Voigtlander is likely the ultimate. My fave of those I can afford is the "Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 Close Focus" in M42 mount. Looks like this:




And this (!):



It's actually a 1:2 macro lens. But Vivitar didn't want to brag, and so say merely "Close Focus".

You're missing a nice 135mm. Just saying.

Do show how the Makro-Planar works out.

I agree with everything Robbie has said in this thread. And his photos agree with me.

I tend to use the 43 Limited about ten times as often as the super-fast 50, because I value the rendering and compact build over the soft bloomy wide aperture. Both are great lenses.

Carl Zeiss Jena DDR MC S 1:3.5 F=135mm
Vivitar Series 1 135mm 1:2.3
Pentacon 2.8/135

Discussed here:

Three 135mm Lens Recommendations

And even better:
Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 Auto Telephoto Close Focusing

It has a very special rendering for portraits.

Unfortunately Pentax has failed to make a convincing case for K-mount. There will be no such Sigma lens if history is to be credited.

I have never credited Sigma, but with this recent re-invention they have totally fish-slapped me. Amazing!

Now, if only Pentax would do the same. But instead, one strange and unworthy niche product after another... Pentax have become simply and only Ricoh, when it could have been Ricoh who revived Pentax.

It's the post-processing. There would be very little difference between the lenses as far as colour rendition goes. With a properly exposed RAW file you can get any look you like.

I can't think of a single situation in which I would use a zoom. To me they are big, ugly, slow, and generally don't render how I want to see. But hey, different people shoot in different ways.

Moving your shooting position is not the same as changing focal length on a zoom. The first changes your perspective. The second changes your field of view. Different things. There is no such thing as "zoom with your feet".

I shot a session yesterday that we started with no idea how to frame things. I tried a Vivitar 24/2, FA43 Ltd, and FA77 Ltd. If I'd had more physical space I would have tried even longer focal lengths.

The process was a matter of getting the desired depth of field with the optimal field of view. We settled on the K50/1.2. Turned out that 50mm at f/1.4 was perfect.

The smallest aperture I tried was f/2.4. So I guess that would have ruled out any and all zoom lenses!

That is your answer. Lots of support out there for using the GH1/2/3 in video rigs, including companies dedicated to making gear. If you go with MFT mount you can later upgrade to dedicated videocams including the BMCC, protecting your investment in lenses and rig.

Pentax is simply not a player in the video game.

Ian, you already gave him a fast 50. Job done. Good choice!

If he wants the best he can buy the FA77 down the line.