[Marc Sabatella]

Marc, apparently everything is "subjective" to you... even obviously measurable things like how big the focus ring on a lens is.

I didn't say the *size* of the focus ring was subjective; I said the *usability* of quick shift is. You find it hard to use because the focus ring small; I don't. And while the size is of course objectively measurable, one person might say bigger is better, and another might say smaller is better, so merely being bigger doesn't count as an advantage.

Even the distinctive FA Limited rendering is not subjective but can be shown to be a direct product of different decisions made during the optical design process.

I'm sure whatever the effect itself is would be objectively measure. But *preference* for this is subjective.

[selar]

This is just another example of a useless bunfight over a topic that has been discussed to death. It has been said countless times that neither is clearly superior to the other.

[Emacs]

DA Ltds are about compactness at first, so they essentially lose to FA ones optically. I wonder how many people are trying to argue with such a simple fact.

[Ash]

If you think you are being ignored, you more than likely are, and it is because I don't think you have anything useful to say

Robin, c'mon - no need for this. There is no trolling going on here.

But as we can see there is a lot of conjecture because the objective measures seem not to be significant enough to sway differences *practically* one way or the other, other than slightly different rendering (a subjective preference), f/1.8 (almost a full stop faster than f/2.4) and build. Corollary arguments exist when discussing the DA* 16-50 and the cheaper DA 16-45.

I think this discussion has worn out its welcome.

---

Last edited by Ash; 05-08-2011 at 06:29 PM.

[Marc Sabatella]

Short Version
Marc, why not simply use manual focus?

Because both AF and MF have value, and sometimes the best results are had by *quickly* making the call between them. I understand that *you* don't shoot in such a way that this matters. But *I* do.

I can't think of a single situation in which I think "I trust the AF to nail the focus... oh no, wait I now must change my mind and over-ride it."

Actually, this isn't all that uncommon in my experience. You let AF take a crack at it, and if you find it hunting, or see in the viewfinder that it isn't locking where you want, you override. Quickly, or the moment is gone.

But that's not actually the main way I use quick shift. It's more about letting AF succeed for the first shot, but realizing that if you then take a bunch of shots in succession while still in AF mode, you risk losing some to hunting or to focus on something else (instrument, microphone, etc). Sure, you can quickly cancel AF even for FA lenses using the button on the back of the camera, but that isn't enough if the subject is moving - you need to also be able to turn the focus ring to follow the subject. So I use AF to get a lock for an initial shot, then cancel AF with the rear button and use MF from then on to track the motion for the rest of the sequence. At any point when I think it prudent I can take my thumb off the rear button and let the camera refocus.

In concert photography, we're talking split second timing. Having to use the front switch every time I wish to change between AF and MF would guarantee me lost shots, period. As would having to use AF exclusively or having to use MF exclusively. I have a pretty good idea when each is most likely to be effective, but this changes on a second-to-second basis. That's why quick shift is so valuable to me.

one might consider that changing aperture takes time and so might make one miss a shot.

True. But there is basically no timing-critical situation in which I ever need to finesse aperture the way I constantly do for focus. In my concert photography, I generally shoot at f/2.8 the whole night. If I ever go up or down from there, it is because of a change in the lighting that demands/permits it, but lightingisn't changing moment to moment.

And finally what about the Quick Shift Focus bug? I don't have a DA70 here right now but I recall it is the same. Quick Shift Focus always shows the hexagon even when you are no longer in focus.

Interesting; I hadn't noticed that. I'm sure you're right, but when I'm using quick shift in the ways I've described, I don't tend to be looking at the hexagon - I'm truly focusing manually. After all, even without this bug, the hexagon is going to confused by the exact same things that made me want to switch to MF mode in the first place (an instrument or microphone in the way).

P.S. My domain of experience is similar to yours, since I too get paid mostly for event photography. 95% of the time I am in MF.

Indeed, if I didn't have quick shift, I'd reluctantly turn off AF on my DA70 95% of the time, too. Luckily, because of quick shift, I don't have to make that choice.

I suspect quick shift is one of those things like graphical user interfaces were back in the early 1980's. I can't tell you how many times I heard someone say, "why would I ever want a mouse", or "who cares if you can have more than program open at once - you can still only work on thing one at time". I was even among them. But it didn't take long for most people to become convinced. I still use my keyboard a lot more than most people do, but you don't see me pining for the days of command-line interfaces.

Bottom line: you can't make me not value quick shift any more than I could make you not value the "FA Limited rendering". What I don't get is why you think it important to try. I'm not trying to get your to change your mind about *your* subjective preferences. Can't we each just have our subjective preferences and let it go at that? We agree on far more than we disagree; who needs the kind of bad will these sorts of discussions can engender?

[Wheatfield]

I wouldn't even need to know these lens existed, let alone use either of them, to recognise the fallacious arguments you employ. According to you, improved light capture doesn't matter. Improved rendering doesn't matter. If you believed that was true then you'd use the kit lens and be happy. But you don't, because you prefer to troll and insult. How boring!

I take it then that you have used perhaps one or the other and don't know what you are talking about, otherwise you would have actually answered the question rather than sidestepping it with a ad hominem attack.
You do realize that a bigger maximum aperture does not guarantee an optically superior lens don't you?
I own and use both.
The 77 does not have "better" rendering than the 70, and in fact is barely distinguishable from the 70 in real world shooting.
In this instance, I have first hand experience and do know what I am talking about.
Which appears to be more than you have going for you.

[selar]

While Quickshift is undeniably an useful feature, the absence of it on older AF lenses is easily worked around by a quick press and hold on the lens release button. This action temporarily decouples the AF screw drive and allows you to adjust the focus manually without having to switch the AF/MF switch. On releasing the button, the screw drive recouples and AF is restored.

[Wheatfield]

DA Ltds are about compactness at first, so they essentially lose to FA ones optically. I wonder how many people are trying to argue with such a simple fact.

This is just so not true.
There is no "simple fact" at play here.
The FA Limiteds were designed for a different era, when a lens had to cover a 45mm or so image circle.
The DA Limiteds are designed for the APs-C format, and only need to cover ~35mm of image circle, and with the slightly smaller maximum aperture, it's no surprise the 70 is slightly smaller than the 77.

[Pentaxor]

I'm not so sure what the numbers are with regards to how many people own the DA70 and FA77, but for what is apparent, the FA77 seems to get more nod around the forum. not saying that the DA70 is bad at all. and I believe it is pure horseshit that the only reason to get the FA77 is aperture speed. does the DA70 give the same rendering that the FA77 does at similar apertures? definitely NOT ! otherwise it's no different from saying that people are stupid for buying a lens that is more expensive due to speed and build difference.

the DA70 is great in it's own right, but to justify itself to be equal to that of a certain lens doesn't give it real justice but becomes the losing recipient. in other words, don't make comparisons that makes the lens look bad.

[Wheatfield]

I'm not so sure what the numbers are with regards to how many people own the DA70 and FA77, but for what is apparent, the FA77 seems to get more nod around the forum. not saying that the DA70 is bad at all. and I believe it is pure horseshit that the only reason to get the FA77 is aperture speed. does the DA70 give the same rendering that the FA77 does at similar apertures? definitely NOT ! otherwise it's no different from saying that people are stupid for buying a lens that is more expensive due to speed and build difference.

the DA70 is great in it's own right, but to justify itself to be equal to that of a certain lens doesn't give it real justice but becomes the losing recipient. in other words, don't make comparisons that makes the lens look bad.

A lot of people seem to buy into the pixie dust nonsense when they should be looking at pictures.

[paperbag846]

A lot of people seem to buy into the pixie dust nonsense when they should be looking at pictures.

+1.

FA 77 is a good lens, so is DA 70. I can't tell much difference between them at similar apertures (although some do exist), but importantly, I don't prefer one look over the other on a consistent basis. I think the pixie dust placebo effect if often at play (unless you lust for f1.8).

[twitch]

I own the DA70 & the FA77, but I've only had the FA77 for a few weeks. My impressions are that the IQ of the DA70 is to my eyes as good as the FA77. If the FA77 has pixie dust the DA70 does too.

The FA77 definitely displays more PF than the DA70, I switched between both shooting the same scene and the PF in the FA77 images was noticable, yet not even there for the DA70. I think the 2/3 stop is handy to have, but anyone looking for an improvement in IQ by upgrading from the DA70 to a FA77 is going to be disappointed.

Maybe I need more time with the FA77 but at this stage I'm not buying the conventional wisdom about the FA77 IQ superiority to the DA70.

[Class A]

I take it then that you have used perhaps one or the other and don't know what you are talking about, ...

While first hand experience is invaluable I'm not convinced that one cannot form opinions about lenses without owning them.

I knew pretty much nothing about lenses, let alone of the legendary status of the FA 31/1.8, when I noticed an image made with the latter that stood out. Simply by looking at it, I knew that this was a special lens. I checked which lens it was and only then started reading about the FA 31/1.8.

Same with the FA 77/1.8. No one needed to tell me that this is an out of the ordinary lens. You can tell simply by looking at images made with it. Incidentally, Keitha McCall (massively talented forum member) got into the Pentax system because of one image made with the FA 77/1.8 she had seen. If it hadn't been for the image, she would have gone Canikon. Could the DA 70/2.4 have had that effect? I doubt it.

Of course a lot depends on what the photographer did with the subject, lighting, etc. but overall you get a feel for how a lens renders simply by looking at the results of other people.

If you or anyone else feels that the DA 70/2.4 is just as good, that's fine with me. I personally see differences that would be more than worth the difference in price.

P.S.: You shouldn't really hold a FA 77 hostage you don't love. I'm offering it a good home where it will be cherished and used.

[Ash]

For the purposes of this thread, we haven't seen the OP post for a while (in fact, he's only posted here twice, including the original post, the second one being very soon after the first...) and it looked like from his last post that he'd already decided on the 70.

Whilst the 77 may not be my most used lens, it would have to be one of my favourite, among the 43 ltd and FA 100 macro...

[Abbazz]

The FA77 definitely displays more PF than the DA70, I switched between both shooting the same scene and the PF in the FA77 images was noticable, yet not even there for the DA70.

I agree. The FA77 does indeed exhibit a lot of purple fringing. I have also found the longitudinal chromatic aberration quite annoying at times (those green fringes can certainly be ugly).

I think the 2/3 stop is handy to have, but anyone looking for an improvement in IQ by upgrading from the DA70 to a FA77 is going to be disappointed.

I don't want to nitpick but going from F/1.7 to F/2.4 is closer to one full stop...

Maybe I need more time with the FA77 but at this stage I'm not buying the conventional wisdom about the FA77 IQ superiority to the DA70.

It depends on your priorities. The FA77 is a great lens on film, but I find it much less usable on crop format DSLRs, especially wide open, because of the purple fringing and LCA.

Of course, it delivers superb results at F/3.5 - F/4.0 but then, why pay for an F/1.8 lens to use it at F/4.0? The DA70 or the Voigtländer 90/3.5 are lighter and cheaper lenses that are at least as much competent as the FA77 (I find the Voigtländer noticeably better).

Cheers!

Abbazz