[GeneV]

I'm not buying the pixel dust thing.
Have you noticed if images off your 77mm have more 3 dimensionality compared to your 70? That was one of the first things I noticed about the 77 when I bought it, but I haven't compared the two lenses in that regard.
I suspect if my shooting room was a little bigger, I'd use my 77 more, and I suspect if I wasn't the lens junkie that I am, I wouldn't have bought the 70mm at all.
But I did, and quite honestly, I'm hard pressed most of the time to see any qualitative or quantitative difference between the two. They are both excellent lenses.
That 7mm shorter focal length was the decider for me, and that's because I only have 30 or so feet from background to wall in my studio.

I am not sure about the dust, either. I do notice the 3d effect, but it is not a huge factor in my slight preference for the FA77. The subjective qualities which distinguish it are very subtle. I don't have a studio, and the 7mm is usually an advantage to me shooting in a gym or large dance hall as is the 135 coverage and the aperture ring. I could also point to numerous travel shots of architectural details that the DA70 does better. Really, I would not want to give up either of these lenses.

[NaClH2O]

While I think the DA 70 is a very good deal, maybe it makes sense to invest in the FA 77 for the bokeh.

*snip*

also resell value. The resell value on the 77 is quite high. I don't think that the DA 70 is as high

NaCl(not that you will want to sell it, but I'm just saying)H2O

[paperbag846]

Thanks guys. Looks like the lens is not the deal I thought it was, so I will let it slide.

I think the 70 would work very nicely for me (especially if it focuses as quickly as my DA 40), but I think I'm going to just wait a while, accumulate some funds and think hard about the 100mm Macro / Tokina 90mm Macro, either of which would open me up to a whole new world in photography. Plus, it would space out my lens collection a little, which is pretty bunched up right now (I don't really count the 80-200, that lens is fun, but not a particularly useful tool).

The fact that the 100 macro is WR is tempting - I don't have something weather proof, and a 100mm macro would have all sorts of uses on nature walks / adventures. It would give me good compression for portraits (maybe too much), and I always prefer sharpness in camera over softness. Photoshop can easily soften an image, but sharpening can get ugly quickly.

Thanks so much everyone. I realize the 100 WR is more expensive, not as fast to af, and larger.. but I don't see the DA 70 going anywhere anytime soon, and I'm really not sold on the 77mm FA LTD idea.

[paperbag846]

also resell value. The resell value on the 77 is quite high. I don't think that the DA 70 is as high

Are they really proportionally that different? I suppose if I bought the FA 77 used, I would get the exact same amount back when I sell it. But same could be said about the DA 70, which also does not cost me as much up-front.

[Wheatfield]

Are they really proportionally that different? I suppose if I bought the FA 77 used, I would get the exact same amount back when I sell it. But same could be said about the DA 70, which also does not cost me as much up-front.

The 77 is more likely to be discontinued than the 70. When/if that happens, 77m lenses will go up in value as people who have been fence sitting panic buy them before they can't be had.
Which is funny. The 77 is a nice lens, it may even be better than the 70 (I don't think so but others do), but it certainly isn't enough better to deserve the cult status that it enjoys.

[paperbag846]

The 77 is more likely to be discontinued than the 70. When/if that happens, 77m lenses will go up in value as people who have been fence sitting panic buy them before they can't be had.
Which is funny. The 77 is a nice lens, it may even be better than the 70 (I don't think so but others do), but it certainly isn't enough better to deserve the cult status that it enjoys.

I personally already think that the price it goes for is a little silly. 780 + tax ... jesus. I'm not going to say it isn't worth it... but I do think that the older price scheme made sense. I would splurge on the FA 77 if it was the old price. Now I think it would be plain irresponsible.

I actually think Pentax created the legendary status by purposely pricing those primes out of reach for most people. What the best lens out there? The one I can't afford . Seriously though, by pricing these lenses at such a high mark, they become a sought-after luxury item. It's no longer about performance, it's about prestige. Pentax wins too, because it still costs the same amount to make each lens. Granted, the Canon 85 1.2 is what, 2 grand? So taken in perspective the 77 is a good deal.

Hey, whatever it takes to keep paying R&D to supply us with nice new designs .

[Wheatfield]

The old pricing scheme is partly responsible for why Pentax had to whore themselves to Hoya to survive.
It's also why you will read so much complaining from people regarding the price of Pentax equipment. Everyone longs for the good old days when Pentax was the cheap and cheerful brand and you could buy a lens for a few peanuts and a couple of Twinkies, but Hoya has a different business model from the old Pentax.
Hoya seems to think that they should be making money with their investment, something the old Pentax inexplicably didn't seem to understand.

[paperbag846]

And I have no problem with them making money. In fact, if they keep up the momentum, I see some pretty amazing things down the road. Let's just say *the k5 is just the beginning* :O.

[GeneV]

I really don't take that much issue with the manufacturer pricing of the Ltd lenses. They are great performers, metal and beautifully made. When one looks at what a lens like the FA77 sold for 30 years ago, inflation adjusted, I wonder if it was really much cheaper even in the old days. I don't recall the price, but I do recall that an M85/2 was enough of a stretch for me in 1980 that I passed.

[Rondec]

I really don't take that much issue with the manufacturer pricing of the Ltd lenses. They are great performers, metal and beautifully made. When one looks at what a lens like the FA77 sold for 30 years ago, inflation adjusted, I wonder if it was really much cheaper even in the old days. I don't recall the price, but I do recall that an M85/2 was enough of a stretch for me in 1980 that I passed.

I think there was a brief period in the late 90's, early 00's where prices bottomed out, more of an aberration than anything else. Any time I feel bad about Pentax prices, I look at the price of the 'L' Lenses from Canon and I don't feel quite so bad.

[Blue]

I was in a similar dilemma between the 70 and 77. I jumped on the 77 before the prices went up on it which was right at the time they had just increased the prices on the 70. I think at the time there was a momentary price of $139 between them.

$400 actually isn't a bad deal on a 70 IF it is in very good shape with the lens cap etc. given that they are currently $549 shipped from BH & Adorama.

I really don't take that much issue with the manufacturer pricing of the Ltd lenses. They are great performers, metal and beautifully made. When one looks at what a lens like the FA77 sold for 30 years ago, inflation adjusted, I wonder if it was really much cheaper even in the old days. I don't recall the price, but I do recall that an M85/2 was enough of a stretch for me in 1980 that I passed.

Very good point. Canon isn't exactly giving their L glass away and some of the top Nikon glass has a price as well.

[paperbag846]

Yes. I suppose realistically, my major issue is whether I really NEED the DA 70, or if the K55 is going to tide me over in portrait land. This is truly a lens I do not need right now, although a zippy portrait lens would be nice to have to make sure I never miss the moment. I suppose I have nothing to worry about - the DA 70 won't be going anywhere any time soon, and I can keep my ear to the ground about the macro as well. Realistically though, I should be buying this stuff in a year's time, not right now.