[alan_smithee_photos]

That is also a phenomenal lens, if you don't mind manually focusing it. It's a joy to use, and more versatile than the FA77.

Wish I had a 77 to compare but I'm with you, it's a joy.

I'll say again, Nokton:













(And I think you can still get a new SLII version at Camera Quest)

---

Last edited by MRRiley; 06-03-2011 at 02:22 PM. Reason: edited to fix width issue

[mhaws]

Working distance is one of the most important factors in selecting a lens and from that stand point 50mm is going to get you to 75mm.

As far as how a 50mm renders compared to a 77mm..... there is very little difference as far as distortion and compression.

This is interesting to know. The main reason I want a longer lens than the 50 I already have is for more compression. But if you think it doesn't make too much difference.....I can't seem to get a decent full body shot of someone with a ton of bokeh....even stopped down to 1.4 I don't get it as blurred as the ones I'm trying to do. are you saying a 77 wouldn't give me that either? That it's basically the same except my distance from my subject?

[mhaws]

alan those are amazing photos! I am so bad at manual focus and didn't plan on getting one since I take a lot of pics of kids.....But your pics make me think I could be doing a LOT with my FA 50mm1.4 anyway. I just need WAY more practice....at focusing with a wide aperture especially. Even with AF I have a hard time in my viewfinder seeing if the spot I need in focus is actually in focus.

[jstevewhite]

This is interesting to know. The main reason I want a longer lens than the 50 I already have is for more compression. But if you think it doesn't make too much difference.....I can't seem to get a decent full body shot of someone with a ton of bokeh....even stopped down to 1.4 I don't get it as blurred as the ones I'm trying to do. are you saying a 77 wouldn't give me that either? That it's basically the same except my distance from my subject?

No, he meant a 50mm on APS-c is about equivalent to a 77mm on FF, except the 77 will have less DOF at the same subject size and FOV. Yes, going to a 77mm will give you lower DOF (at the same aperture), but you'll have to increase your distance to get the same subject framing, and you won't have the same FOV.

[Todd Adamson]

With all the talk of FF vs. APS-C, and what changes and what doesn't, just keep in mind that working distance is the important factor, for a few reasons:

1. Will there be enough room for you to get far enough away to frame things how you want? Shooting in smaller spaces, you might find yourself backed up against a wall from time to time with the 77.

2. Can you communicate easily with your subject, and are they comfortable with how close/far you are. This is maybe a subtle thing, but I shoot a lot of portraits, and good rapport with the subject is critical to getting them relaxed, and getting natural expressions. This distance will be different for different people and styles, but I find most often for how I frame and how I communicate, that 100mm on FF is perfect. When I shoot portraits at 58mm on FF, it feels a little like I am invading space, and I honestly get more relaxed people if I can stand a bit further away. Maybe it's because I'm scary-looking, I don't know.

3. Perspective distortion. For the same size sensor, assuming similar framing, there IS a difference between 50 and 77. It's not a glaring, obvious difference that will scream at everyone, but it's a real difference, and if you shoot a lot of portraits, you'll begin to feel it. I shoot so much at 100+ that when I look at stuff I've shot with my 58 on FF, or my 35 on the K-5, it almost looks fisheye to me now. Again, this is all personal.

[alan_smithee_photos]

alan those are amazing photos! I am so bad at manual focus and didn't plan on getting one since I take a lot of pics of kids.....

Thanks very much! It definitely takes practice but I think it's (a little) easier with lenses like the Voigtlanders and their well damped, long focus throw. Just feels better/easier to manipulate and get on target.

But as someone with a 2 1/2 yr old, I hear you about catching kids with MF. Can be done but requires some "skating to the puck", as our Canadian forum members might say.

[alan_smithee_photos]

...This is maybe a subtle thing, but I shoot a lot of portraits, and good rapport with the subject is critical to getting them relaxed, and getting natural expressions...

Couldn't agree more. Inside the 58 usually works well, imo. As you can tell, I like to shoot be able to shoot pretty tight, at least some of the time. The FL helps, but nothing helps more than a good rapport and relaxed vibe with the subject.

3. Perspective distortion...It's not a glaring...but it's a real difference, and if you shoot a lot of portraits, you'll begin to feel it.

Again, totally concur. If I could only have one portrait lens it'd be my 58mm Nokton. If I could have two I'd add my 135 2.5 for outdoors. I'm mad for that lens:

[Winder]

This is interesting to know. The main reason I want a longer lens than the 50 I already have is for more compression. But if you think it doesn't make too much difference.....I can't seem to get a decent full body shot of someone with a ton of bokeh....even stopped down to 1.4 I don't get it as blurred as the ones I'm trying to do. are you saying a 77 wouldn't give me that either? That it's basically the same except my distance from my subject?

To me the 77mm is not sharp enough wide open. If you want full body shots then I would recommend the 43mm LTD or the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (as it is actually closer to 47mm and is very sharp wide open). I really like the bokeh of the Sigma.

I think the 77mm is too long for full body shots. You have to move back farther and when you do you loose the DoF advantage you get with a longer lens.

[Todd Adamson]

I think the 77mm is too long for full body shots. You have to move back farther and when you do you loose the DoF advantage you get with a longer lens.

You can always slap it on an old film body, of course.

[mhaws]

how far would you have to stand from someone with that 135mm to get a head and shoulder shot like that? What about full body? (I'm on a K-x I don't know how much different the sensor is from your K-7)

[Eagle_Friends]

for a pure portrait lens, i say go with a DA* 55mm f1.4. The FA 77mm Limited looks incredible, but the 55mm is about 85mm on a FF, which is typically the sweet spot.

For something more versatile, you cannot go wrong with the 50-135mm! It is a beautiful lens.

[paperbag846]

This is interesting to know. The main reason I want a longer lens than the 50 I already have is for more compression. But if you think it doesn't make too much difference.....I can't seem to get a decent full body shot of someone with a ton of bokeh....even stopped down to 1.4 I don't get it as blurred as the ones I'm trying to do. are you saying a 77 wouldn't give me that either? That it's basically the same except my distance from my subject?

On film, the 77 is a perfect focal length for portraits (for me). On digital I do struggle with the length even though I do like how it renders.

The FA 50 on digital is pretty much the exact same beast. Compared at f2.5, the only differences in sharpness are going to be at pixel-peeper levels. Bokeh rendering is very different, the FA 77 wins here, however, the 50 is still very good, and this is about as subjective a measure as you can find. Both have bokeh which does not distract (and this is the most important thing that bokeh can be) and for portraits, the FOV of the 50 is better in my eyes (which beats bokeh IMHO).

In other words, the FA 50 is a fantastic replacement for the FA 77 if you are comparing digital to film. The FA 77 wins in some areas, but overall the 50mm is just a nice stand-in on a crop sensor.

Don't listen to confusing "focal length on different formats are different / similar / etc." For portraits, all that matters is your distance to the subject, which will be greater with a crop sensor.

(My fav focal length would be 55, although that 58 looks mighty tempting too...)

[TOUGEFC]

If I could chose only one Portrait lens?

It would be the FA77 of course,its a real joy to use, I get along with it really well, I almost shot a entire wedding with just the FA77!

Some examples-
















Ive probably posted to many

[axl]

To me the 77mm is not sharp enough wide open. If you want full body shots then I would recommend the 43mm LTD or the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (as it is actually closer to 47mm and is very sharp wide open). I really like the bokeh of the Sigma.

I think the 77mm is too long for full body shots. You have to move back farther and when you do you loose the DoF advantage you get with a longer lens.

Contrary to the first part I'd say 77 is one of the sharpest lenses wide open.

But I totally agree on the 2nd part. Even to me 77 felt just too long. I liked how it rendered but couldn't get used to the fact I constantly had to flinch to get the framing I wanted.

[robgo2]

Perhaps so, but angle of view is the one and only reason why specific focal lengths have particular uses for portraiture. Any particular 50mmk lens might not replace the other aspects of any particular 77mm lens (yes, I know, there is only one), but as focal lengths go, 50 does indeed stand in for 77 perfectly. No 77mm lens gains any special qualities by mere virtue of being a 77mm lens that would cause a 50 cropped to not duplicate it.

This is not quite true. A lens's DOF remains the same whether it is mounted on a FF or an APS-C sensor, even though its angle of view does change. This means that a 50mm lens on APS-C is not quite equivalent to a 75mm lens on FF, despite its having the same angle of view. Most people would never notice the difference, but others would prefer the shallower DOF for portraits. Of course, you may be able to compensate by opening the aperture, if you are using a fast 50mm lens.

Rob