Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-17-2011, 02:34 PM   #61
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
Since you say you are looking specifically for a portrait lens, I think I would lean towards the 77. There's not a thing in the world wrong with the 100 and choosing it would not be a mistake, but the 77 is one of the most unique portrait lenses in the world, and one of the blessings of being a Pentaxian. Rendering is so important with portraits and this is where the 77 really shines. Yes, it will exhibit some PF sometimes, but this shouldn't be much of a problem when shooting portraits unless your light-source is directly behind your subject. It's faster AF would definitely be appreciated when shooting your kids, too. BTW, that's also why I wouldn't recommend the 50-135. It's IQ is top-notch, but it's AF may not be able to keep up with kids. I use it to shoot playing puppies sometimes and it can't always keep up.

02-17-2011, 02:35 PM   #62
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Kenmore, WA
Posts: 154
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
honestly speaking, you need to add some other parameters inorder to make it easy for you to decide. price-wise, the macro is significantly cheaper compared to the 77 as long as it's not the WR version, otherwise they are pretty close. secondly, focal range can work either way. for closer shots, the 77mm gives you more flexibility indoors however can be a tough focal length to use on something with significant distance (outdoors). size-wise, the 77 is much more portable and handy. rendering, the 77 is great for portraits but is a CA/PF monster, while the macro handles CA/PF very well.

Thank you Pentaxor. I appreciate the direct comparisons between the two. I understand the decision will come down to my preferences and there's no right or wrong. However, I do realize I didn't provide many parameters.

Price: yeah where I am there's not a huge difference in price as I am looking at the WR version.

Size: I almost didn't consider the 100 because of the intimidation factor, but then I found people referring to how compact it is (although it looks monstrous with the hood). But yes, this is a huge consideration.

Rendering: Seems like people debate about how problematic the CA/PF is with the FA 77, but it seems relatively non-existent with the 100mm (from what I've read).

as far as AF is concerned, do you really need something that is very fast? the FA77 is fast but not as fast as the DA40, the macro has decent fast AF.

I really appreciate this because perhaps both lenses would be just fine in terms of AF speed. I think the fact that the 100mm is a macro (I've never shot with a macro) is what I'm concerned with when primarily only using it for portraits.

again, there is no right or wrong answer but rather what you decide to be of priority or preference.
Again, thanks for your feedback.
02-17-2011, 02:37 PM   #63
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Kenmore, WA
Posts: 154
sorry, I accidently responded within Pentaxor's e-mail. I'm still learning this website much less my own camera gear...
02-17-2011, 02:42 PM   #64
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Kenmore, WA
Posts: 154
QuoteOriginally posted by DogLover Quote
Since you say you are looking specifically for a portrait lens, I think I would lean towards the 77. There's not a thing in the world wrong with the 100 and choosing it would not be a mistake, but the 77 is one of the most unique portrait lenses in the world, and one of the blessings of being a Pentaxian. Rendering is so important with portraits and this is where the 77 really shines. Yes, it will exhibit some PF sometimes, but this shouldn't be much of a problem when shooting portraits unless your light-source is directly behind your subject. It's faster AF would definitely be appreciated when shooting your kids, too. BTW, that's also why I wouldn't recommend the 50-135. It's IQ is top-notch, but it's AF may not be able to keep up with kids. I use it to shoot playing puppies sometimes and it can't always keep up.

Thanks DogLover. You know, I was so very sold on the FA77 to the point of literally dreaming about it - haha! For the reasons you mentioned, it just made a lot of sense, and I'll certainly strongly consider it before purchasing.

Really the only thing that got me leaning toward the 100mm was when I realized that a lot of my portraits (even indoor) are closer to 100mm. I actually don't shoot much in the 70 range. But with the 77 as special as it is, maybe I'll learn to...

Thanks again.

02-17-2011, 02:47 PM   #65
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
anyway, as far as the difference between focal lengths is concerned, here are two samples taken with a 70mm and a 100mm. both are macros though.

70mm




100mm



both are approximately shot at the same distance.
02-19-2011, 06:51 PM   #66
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by sewebster Quote
Well, sure, I see the difference when you use a wide angle, but at basically 50 up there seems to be little or no difference. Look at all those photos in the other linked thread, they're practically all the same. And in the wide angle photos the woman has a different pose that exaggerates the effect.
Differences may seem subtle, but they are noticeable (at least to me). Sometimes capturing our vision of the shot is about subtlety. Depending upon the face, the 50 or even the 40 might be a better choice.
02-19-2011, 08:48 PM   #67
Veteran Member
OrenMc's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,902
I've heard a lot of different FLs mentioned and some things about distortion or flattening.
May I ask then why is one of the prefered professional portrait lenses a 300/2.8. Of course the reason is working distance to subject and DOF however....

As G-Diesel showed FL can vary greatly. I just think to not to put too much importance on focal lenght but subject isolation, color, and the OOF area.

BTW, I do own the DFA WR 100 and love the color and bokeh. Its a good tool, but so are many others.
Sorry to confuse.
02-19-2011, 09:36 PM   #68
pdo
Senior Member
pdo's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Westminster CA
Posts: 264
I usually shoot beauty headshot and I prefer to use my DFA 100mm Macro more then my FA 77mm..

DFA 100mm Macro


02-19-2011, 10:19 PM   #69
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 150
QuoteOriginally posted by G-Diesel Quote
Not a fantastic bokeh but hey...still looks good I think:
Not to mention your girl friend. Very nice photo.

Michael
02-19-2011, 10:20 PM   #70
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 150
QuoteOriginally posted by pdo Quote
I usually shoot beauty headshot and I prefer to use my DFA 100mm Macro more then my FA 77mm..

DFA 100mm Macro
Beautiful shot. Do you mind revealing why you like the 100 over the 77?

Michael
02-19-2011, 10:55 PM   #71
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 150
The problem here ---

is that one has at least three excellent lenses to choose from that will do the same task.

The 100mm is a wonderful lens with great color rendition and sharpness. It can be used as a macro or as a short tele. It was my very first lens and still my be my favorite.

The 77mm is a classic and no one would ever argue against picking it. I don't have one, but I do have the:

70mm, which as good as any lens for portraits. And sharp? My word it is sharp. I just recently did portraits of an older women. I shot at f/11 to get consistent sharpness, but I'm beginning to think that may have been a mistake. Every nuance of skin tone is visible, and that requires major PP. Fortunately, I have a pretty good soft filter plug in, but still I can't jack it up enough to hide what needs hiding without getting fluffy looking. A soft filter lens seems like a good idea. Here are a couple of examples from the DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited:

(The first image was taken at f/2.4, ISO 1600.)






And a couple from the 100mm. The first is a bit jacked up contrast wise for effect. The second is an old favorite.



02-19-2011, 11:09 PM   #72
Veteran Member
OrenMc's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,902
Example, I hope you don"t mind ! Sam (SLRPhotography) Tamrom 70-300 an example;

Not Work Safe

Does it really matter! Light, composition, of course subject

Last edited by OrenMc; 02-21-2011 at 08:05 PM.
05-12-2011, 01:12 PM   #73
Forum Member
AKum8's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Milan
Posts: 89
Sorry for grave digging the thread again.

I'm looking for an outdoor portrait AF lens with a focal length between 90mm and 130mm.
The Sigma 85mm is too expensive and 100mm can be a good solution.

I'm just a little concerned about the MACRO side, I really don't like shooting macro pictures. Don't you think I'm going to make a bad choice?
05-12-2011, 01:56 PM   #74
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by AKum8 Quote
Sorry for grave digging the thread again.

I'm looking for an outdoor portrait AF lens with a focal length between 90mm and 130mm.
The Sigma 85mm is too expensive and 100mm can be a good solution.

I'm just a little concerned about the MACRO side, I really don't like shooting macro pictures. Don't you think I'm going to make a bad choice?
As I said above, the 100WR is an excellent choice and excels at portraits. Put the "macro" in it's name out of your mind. Just think of it as a top-notch 100, which is exactly what it is. My personal preference is for the 77, but you want something longer, so the 100WR is my recommendation. You'll love the build-quality and all-metal construction, too!
05-12-2011, 02:53 PM   #75
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by AKum8 Quote
Sorry for grave digging the thread again.

I'm looking for an outdoor portrait AF lens with a focal length between 90mm and 130mm.
The Sigma 85mm is too expensive and 100mm can be a good solution.

I'm just a little concerned about the MACRO side, I really don't like shooting macro pictures. Don't you think I'm going to make a bad choice?
I would assume you don't know what macro really means, per se. I would suggest you read the posts in this thread inorder for you to get a real picture of what you are so worried about. otherwise it would be pointless on trying to convince yourself or others to convince you. I don't mean to be rude, but the answers are practically here and you just need to read them.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
100mm, 100mm macro wr, 77mm, fa, k-mount, lens, macro, pentax lens, portrait, portraits, slr lens, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SMC MACRO-TAKUMAR 100mm F4 Macro Stuck Auto/Manual Switch Ombre2 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 11-07-2010 07:33 AM
100mm f2.8 macro FA vs new 100mm mavro f2.8 DA stemked Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 08-23-2010 01:34 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax SMC M 100mm f4 Macro (M100/4 Macro) (Worldwide) C2H4 Sold Items 1 05-02-2010 09:06 PM
Voigtlander 125mm apo macro or Zeiss 100mm macro amati Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 03-06-2008 11:53 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:24 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top