[TOUGEFC]

I havent used the Sigma 85
But i do have the 77 and I adore it, it is such a consistent lens. Very sharp, excellent colours and rendering, and on my K-5 it focus's pretty darn quick.
I just shot a wedding and I ended up using it for almost everything, detail shots, close portraits couple portraits group shots you name it. It is by far my most used lens.

Almost every pic here was shot with the 77-
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/141746-people-first-wedding.html

[yyyzzz]

Samyang 85 should also be in the contest if money is a concern and MF is not.

[Lowell Goudge]

I actually like longer lenses for ouot door portraits, in the 100-135mm range, and even some at 200mm. After all if you have space, why not use it.

As for F1.4, I am not sure how useable this is in many outdoor instances. I have both the vivitar (aka Samyang) 85F1.4 as well as a Super Tak 85 F1.9, and unless it is really really cloudy, wide open pushes the shutter speed up to the maximum. This is especially true of my *istD which is limited to 200ISO and 1/4000 shutter. (where is 25 ISO when you need it!)

Newer bodies like the K7 with 1/8000 shutter and 100 iso gain you some additional leway, but not that much so the "creative" use of F1.4 is lost outside. You gain isolation of the subject with distance, not big apertures.

As a result ANY lens between 70-135 mm would suit the needs for outdoor portraits, until the light starts failing.

[dgaies]

I actually like longer lenses for ouot door portraits, in the 100-135mm range, and even some at 200mm. After all if you have space, why not use it.

As for F1.4, I am not sure how useable this is in many outdoor instances. I have both the vivitar (aka Samyang) 85F1.4 as well as a Super Tak 85 F1.9, and unless it is really really cloudy, wide open pushes the shutter speed up to the maximum. This is especially true of my *istD which is limited to 200ISO and 1/4000 shutter. (where is 25 ISO when you need it!)

Newer bodies like the K7 with 1/8000 shutter and 100 iso gain you some additional leway, but not that much so the "creative" use of F1.4 is lost outside. You gain isolation of the subject with distance, not big apertures.

As a result ANY lens between 70-135 mm would suit the needs for outdoor portraits, until the light starts failing.

And for these reasons, I think the DA*50-135 makes an excellent outdoor portrait lens

[Winder]

I actually like longer lenses for ouot door portraits, in the 100-135mm range, and even some at 200mm. After all if you have space, why not use it.

As for F1.4, I am not sure how useable this is in many outdoor instances. I have both the vivitar (aka Samyang) 85F1.4 as well as a Super Tak 85 F1.9, and unless it is really really cloudy, wide open pushes the shutter speed up to the maximum. This is especially true of my *istD which is limited to 200ISO and 1/4000 shutter. (where is 25 ISO when you need it!)
.

I usually don't shoot outdoor portraits in the noon day sun. late evening with the sun fading or even events that run well after dark. There are a lot of events where I find myself shooting at f/1.4 or f/2 just to keep ISO down as low as possible and shutter speed up as high as possible. I shoot 200+ images with my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 at an indoor/outdoor evening event and f/2.2 was the most I had stopped down. A lens that is sharp wide open is golden. F/2.8 is slow as far as I'm concerned.

[Lowell Goudge]

I usually don't shoot outdoor portraits in the noon day sun. late evening with the sun fading or even events that run well after dark. There are a lot of events where I find myself shooting at f/1.4 or f/2 just to keep ISO down as low as possible and shutter speed up as high as possible. I shoot 200+ images with my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 at an indoor/outdoor evening event and f/2.2 was the most I had stopped down. A lens that is sharp wide open is golden. F/2.8 is slow as far as I'm concerned.

I don't disagree here, and somewhere in another thread I do discuss the use of my fast primes as low light lenses,

This will be a question of what the OP really wants to achieve, but for true outdoor portraits many use the advantage of space to shoot longer. As I said, personally I like the impact you get with 100-135mm lenses for portraits, even with an ASP-C sensor.

The 85's I use as a candid walk around lens because when shooting candids, too much distance leaves you with an additional problem, people in between you and the subject.

Again, this is part of a discussion of how to use the focal length more than F1.4 vs F1.8

[DogLover]

personally I like the impact you get with 100-135mm lenses for portraits, even with an ASP-C sensor.

Yeah, but for me at least, using something that long for anything more than one individual means that a tripod is a must.

[Lowell Goudge]

Yeah, but for me at least, using something that long for anything more than one individual means that a tripod is a must.

usually portraits are 1/2 people, group shots I would pick something a little shorter.

[Class A]

Can someone with access to the FA 77/1.8 and the Sigma 85/1.4 please shoot the same scenes with both lenses?

I'm still not sure whether the FA 77/1.8 has a "pixie dust" advantage. I've seen some pedestrian shots from the Sigma 85/1.4 but am sure the same exist from the FA 77/1.8.

This series of shots from the Sigma 85/1.4 leave very little to be desired, but I'd still love to see a good comparison to the FA 77/1/.8.

[Pentaxor]

Can someone with access to the FA 77/1.8 and the Sigma 85/1.4 please shoot the same scenes with both lenses?

I'm still not sure whether the FA 77/1.8 has a "pixie dust" advantage. I've seen some pedestrian shots from the Sigma 85/1.4 but am sure the same exist from the FA 77/1.8.

This series of shots from the Sigma 85/1.4 leave very little to be desired, but I'd still love to see a good comparison to the FA 77/1/.8.

I'm not sure about pixie dust advantage is, but personally to each his own. I had handled and it's a fantastic lens. personally, basing from my experience of the FA77 and the samples the I have seen on the Sigma 85, the blur is definitely better (not subjective) on the Sigma lens. we can attribute this to the aperture opening and optical formula of the lens. colors however is subjective where I prefer the FA77 (this is a personal taste). better sharpness is definitely Sigma but what is really noticeable is the contrast. I prefer the size and weight of the FA77 although I could live with the bigga lens Sigma with HSM or for those who want balanced handling. also PF should also taken notice on the FA77 although it is a major improvement over the M85.

as far as FA77 pixie dust discussion is concerned, I'm not sure how to equate it this time around. both lenses display their moments and it would be unwise to say this lens is better because it has pixie dust over the other. I'm not sure if you get what I mean.

[Lowell Goudge]

as far as FA77 pixie dust discussion is concerned, I'm not sure how to equate it this time around. both lenses display their moments and it would be unwise to say this lens is better because it has pixie dust over the other. I'm not sure if you get what I mean.

I often wonder if pixie dust is a term to defend the pentax "snobbery" that I see occasionally where other makers lenses are deemed inferior because , while, just because they are not pentax

[dgaies]

I often wonder if pixie dust is a term to defend the pentax "snobbery" that I see occasionally where other makers lenses are deemed inferior because , while, just because they are not pentax

You know, you risk offending the pixies when you downplay the greatness of their dust

[jsherman999]

I often wonder if pixie dust is a term to defend the pentax "snobbery" that I see occasionally where other makers lenses are deemed inferior because , while, just because they are not pentax

An understandable thing to wonder about. It's very subjective, and like pixies themselves, sometimes goes away when you look too closely - or when you try to show someone else.

I can tell you that I love the Nikon 85 1.8, a very sharp, not-too-large, fast mid-telephoto with FA-like contrast and rendering - but it doesn't have the scintillating pop the 77ltd has. The bokeh on the 77 isn't butter-smooth, but it has a certain sweetness, and the Nikon 85's bokeh is just..... serviceable. The 77 has a transition to OOF that can often 'float' the subject in the mind for that extra fraction of a second as the image forms, bringing that moment of pleasing surprise... The Nikon 85 gives you acceptable, nice subject isolation.

On FF, the Nikon is a more interesting lens and might pull ahead of the 77 in some ways - but all that really makes me pine for is a small, FF body from Pentax to shoot that 77ltd on.

So, I hear you about the pixie-dust thing, but.... I wish I could stop experiencing it. My analytical mind is making fun of my aesthetic/artistic mind.




.

[jsherman999]

While I agree that 77 & 85 feel long for portraiture in general, I don't feel this way at all about outdoor portraiture. The idea being that outdoors, you have more room to work than most indoors setting. Of course, one reason why the 55-70 ranges tends to be more popular for portraits indoors isn't just the working distance itself, but rather the perspective that is created. But I generally *like* the perspective provided when using longer lenses at longer distances. Or at least, I don't *dislike* it, and I *do* like how backgrounds render using longer lenses at longer distances. I think the 85-120 range works pretty well for this purpose. If I were trying to pick an outdoor portrait lens and were OK with the cost and weight of the Sigma, I'd probably be choosing between that and the DA50-135, with one of the 100-ish macros also in consideration (I don't care if "they" say macro lenses shouldn't be used for portraits). But if you really feel like taking a lot of portraits with only one nostril in focus, the 85/1.4 would be the way to go, I guess.

+2 to this.

I was going to write that the ultimate 'outdoor' portrait lens might be the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. Exceptional bokeh, superb sharpness, enough speed for outdoor DOF play and isolation at the longer FLs, and very, very versatile in the FL range.

.

[Class A]

... it would be unwise to say this lens is better because it has pixie dust over the other.

Sure. However, the truly great lenses go beyond "smooth bokeh" and "tack sharp"; they have a certain rendering that is hard to describe but definitely adds something to a good image.

I often wonder if pixie dust is a term to defend the pentax "snobbery" that I see occasionally where other makers lenses are deemed inferior because , while, just because they are not pentax

"Pentax snobbery" certainly exists but I don't think that "pixie dust" is a term that Pentax snobs invented. To me "pixie dust" describes a certain "je ne sais quoi" about a lens' rendering. It is the opposite of "clinical" and adds an ever so slight touch of dreaminess, lending the subject a 3D appeal, and letting it float above the background. It is not an automatic effect in that the scene has to have certain quality to allow it to be seen but if the scene has the potential, some lenses produce "magical" results and others don't.