[Rondec]

It is a pretty sweet lens. Sharp from wide open, great colors, awesome transitions and out of focus rendering.

Still, there are a lot of great lenses out there and I would be hard pressed to make a top ten list of them. Makes me happy when I am shooting with it....

[SteveM]

I do like the 77 for general outdoor use but find the K85/1.8 better for portraits....

[civiletti]

DA*55 (so much sharper than FA50/1.4 for the first two stops)

Not according to PZ tests:

[DSims]

Not according to PZ tests:

I was trying to keep my statement simple; what I really should have said was that is has much better IQ. It's more than just numbers, and it's easy to tell the difference when you use the lens.

Furthermore, how can you contradict my statement with numbers that don't stand up (even assuming they're accurate and meaningful)? At f/1.4 and f/2 there's about a 1-2% variance, but at f/2.8 the DA*55 is a clear winner by over 10% at the boarders.

I'm guessing that you haven't used both these lenses. Higher quality lenses perform well within the first stop; the F or FA50/1.4 is positively useless in this regard. It has its charms, but I wouldn't shoot mine at faster than f/2.2. My FA43 beat it at every fast aperture, so I sold it, along with my FA50/1.7 and F50/1.7.

[Rondec]

Contrast is a lot better on the DA *55 giving much better photos at f2. My FA 50 didn't sharpen up till after f2.8, while I get good results from my DA 55 at f1.8. Wide open is a little soft.

[DSims]

Contrast is a lot better on the DA *55 giving much better photos at f2. My FA 50 didn't sharpen up till after f2.8, while I get good results from my DA 55 at f1.8. Wide open is a little soft.

Exactly - much better said in fewer words! You can even get away with f/1.6 sometimes. It's the cheapest Pentax AF lens that can perform so superbly.

[vrrattko]

I read an article online today that compared a bunch of prime lenses, and to make a long story short, the end conclusion was him saying the 77 limited was the greatest prime lens EVER. Not just Pentax, but all manufacturers. (forgive me for not having the link readily available to share. It's extremely deep in my web history.) I wish I was more of a prime shooter, and could actually justify the $800 for this lens, just to try it out. I guess I'm just lazy, but I love my zooms. I tried liking prime lenses, but it was an inconvenience to have to swap lenses so much. I had the FA 50 f/1.4 , mitakon 85 f/2.0 , and Tamron 90 f/2.8 di sp macro. I've since sold every one of them. I know some people who swear by primes and that's all they prefer to shoot. I wish I had the discipline for a prime lens. The 77 limited is really tempting me to give primes another chance. Any body been in this situation before ? How did you handle it ? Any 77 owners out there that care to help me in either direction ? To buy or not to buy ? I'd hate to spend $800 on a lens and it merely collect dust in my bag. Thanks in advance for all your input & advice.

Nice lens but certainly not greatest prime....perhaps none lens can objectively achieve this title, but even in Pentax own lens portfolio there are lenses which are more than adequate to challenge FA77.
If the prime lenses doesn't suite your shooting style, than just don't force yourself

[vrrattko]

I would agree with Mike Johnston and say that the FA 77mm is the best AUTOFOCUS prime lens I ever tried. But the best prime lenses come from no other than Leica with it's
current range of M lenses.

But if you would to take into account a price / performance / size / weight ratio, Pentax with it's FA Limited lenses comes on top, thus my reason to switch back to Pentax from Leica M.

Let's just hope that Mike Johnston have tested thoroughly all the AUTOFOCUS PRIMES before he claimed FA77 is the best

[stevebrot]

I can probably add that my dirt cheap KMZ Helios 44M gives the 77 Limited a run for its money for certain subjects:

Click through to see which is which:







Steve

[tuco]

...
But the best prime lenses come from no other than Leica with it's current range of M lenses.

I can't argue that. But like all lens manufactures, not every lens they make is the sharpest knife in the drawer. This slrgear.com test of the Leica 50mm ƒ/1.4 Summilux does not look too impressive, number wise, for the price.

[cali92rs]

Take this with a grain of salt...I have never owned a FA 77, but i did own a DA 70mm. The DA was very sharp, even wide open, and was capable of taking great pictures. However, I just never found a consistant use for it. For me, the focal length was just all wrong. Too short for most outdoor applications, too long for most indoor shots. I bet for FF, it would be the bees knees because i find myself drawn to the ~50mm focal range on my crop sensor K-5.

[kenafein]

I doubt the lens will turn you into a prime shooter. Just buy the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and the Pentax DA 55-300 and be thankful you haven't caught the prime bug.

[jeffshaddix]

Hey FA77 lovers: how well does Lightroom 4 handle FA77's purple fringing? I've had poor results with other lenses in LR3, but I hear 4 is "magical".

BTW, you guys aren't helping my LBA.

Right now my "perfect" prime is the Zeiss 35/2 ZK...it's ridiculous, but I'd like to give this one a try.

[selar]

Hey FA77 lovers: how well does Lightroom 4 handle FA77's purple fringing?

You actually want LR 4.1 for one click PF removal. It works very well for the FA77

[civiletti]

I was trying to keep my statement simple; what I really should have said was that is has much better IQ. It's more than just numbers, and it's easy to tell the difference when you use the lens.

Furthermore, how can you contradict my statement with numbers that don't stand up (even assuming they're accurate and meaningful)? At f/1.4 and f/2 there's about a 1-2% variance, but at f/2.8 the DA*55 is a clear winner by over 10% at the boarders.

I'm guessing that you haven't used both these lenses. Higher quality lenses perform well within the first stop; the F or FA50/1.4 is positively useless in this regard. It has its charms, but I wouldn't shoot mine at faster than f/2.2. My FA43 beat it at every fast aperture, so I sold it, along with my FA50/1.7 and F50/1.7.

Your statement is the total opposite of what PZ found: the FA50 has better resolution at the two widest stops, and the DA*55 is better at mid-aperture. We can always claim non-measurable IQ advantage in whatever lenses we like. To that, I say, "OK, I hear you, but I do not put much weight on it." I have not used the DA*55, it is true.