How is the 77 "difficult"?

yorik · 11-02-2014, 09:14 PM

It's not... it's wonderful!

simon6z · 11-02-2014, 11:55 PM

Da 70 or the fa 77 still makes pentax standout. You have difficulty finding 70 to 80mm the size,aperture,weight outside pentax lol

**Digitalis** · 11-03-2014, 12:08 AM

I can see how some people can find the FA77 hard to work with. It is a rather odd focal length on APS-C format - 112mm. The shorter cousin to the FA77: the DA70mm f/2.4 Limited is equivalent to a 105mm - which is much more common especially for people with are familiar with nikkor lenses. On full frame the FA77 is much more comfortable for me.

Pentax K5IIs - SMCP-FA77mm f/1.8 Limited @ f/5.6

Pentax K5IIs - SMCP-FA77mm f/1.8 Limited @ f/1.8

robjmitchell · 11-03-2014, 12:35 AM

I used to have the sigma 70 macro, I very slightly prefered the rendering to the 70ltd, but the sigma was massive. Both are great lenses. The 77 on the other hand is from a different planet. But If you are immune to pixie dust then you can get a great deal on second hand 70ltds.

mikeSF · 11-03-2014, 12:41 AM

the only thing difficult is paying for it, lol.
Definitely more interesting than the DA70 and a bit more CA, but that is my first edit in post with an automatic CA removal checkbox and I never really notice it.
If you like shallow DOF and portraits, the FA77 is sure to be a treat.
It is my favorite of the K-mount lenses for sure!

Sandy Hancock · 11-03-2014, 12:59 AM

Nothing difficult about it.
Stand back a bit further. Unless you want paper-thin depth of field, stop it down a couple of clicks and let the magic happen.

Omestes · 11-03-2014, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by jac

The 'best lens' contest was completely flawed. Some of the best lenses ever made (the 200 macro's, A 50mm f:1.2, A*85 & 135mm, etc.) couldn't compete because so few have ever seen them, much less used them.

Agreed, this is why I really didn't vote... How can I say what the "best lens" is when I've never even touched it. Of the contenders I could really only vote on 2, the A 501.7, and the DA15, but that really doesn't say that they are the best of everything Pentax has made, only the best of whats sitting in my cabinet. I'm sure there is either a $1000+ lens or some really rare legacy glass out there that beats the pants out of anything available to me, much less that I'm lucky enough to own.

Outis: How slow? Is it slow comparable to anything in my signature (for reference; slower than a macro?), or just "dog slow"?

Originally posted by stevebrot

The recipe? Flash 2 stops overexposed of a crumpled wad of aluminum foil at apertures wider than f/2. PF will be evident in a full resolution crop as will some LoCA.

HA! Thats the one problem with reviews, I found, and why I annoy these forums before I spend money. Reviews are subjective, and based on expectations. Some people pixel peep, some people worry about corners, some people don't. You can never really tell. I've used some decently reviewed glass (DA35 2.4), and was completely underwhelmed, and I've shot some glass with mixed reviews (F35-70, Sigma 24 2.8) and have been positively enamored.

Digitalis: You have a decent point here. I've been slowly trying to sink my teeth into film, and having a FF lens with an aperture ring would be be benefit. A small one, but one nonetheless. I haven't bought a decent K-mount SLR yet, but it isn't out of the question, especially since I've cut my teeth on a rangefinder and enjoy it, I've been waiting for my mom to rediscover her old Spotmatic in her closet, but I've had my eye on a couple in thrift shops. That and there have been more than a few occasions when I wished I had more lenses with aperture rings (adapting to micro 4/3, using bellows/tubes).

I'm actually pretty much sold, right now... Its probably doable if I actually wait more than a month. I'm not too scared of a learning curve. The only things that still really get me is CA, the lack of quick shift, and the focusing speed. And, of course, the fact that I never really shoot portraits, just random stuff that takes my fancy. Everyone I know just gets annoyed when I have a camera on me.

LensBeginner · 11-03-2014, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by Omestes

I've been pondering my yearly photographic Xmas present to myself (last year was the DA15), and had it down to either the 35 Ltd or the 70 Ltd. The 35 for its macro capabilities (though I really can't get into the DA L 35...), and the 70 to complete my limited range (15, 40, ...). Or get something to fill the gap in my micro four thirds kit (either the Panny-Leica 25, or the Oly 25 1.8)... Which I'm probably not going to do, since, while more practical it is far less exciting than a shiny new Limited. Thanks too some discussions here, someone told me to just save up and grab the FA77, which kindled some research, even if it is well above my price range, and in a FL that I'm not really comfortable with (neither was the 15, but that thing barely leaves my camera).

So I've been researching the 77, and its difference with the more affordable 70... I'm a bit at a loss, one thing I've seen over and over again about the 77 is that it difficult lens compared to the 70. I'm not exactly sure what this means; is it difficult like the 15 (which I've yet to feel that I have mastered), or difficult as in controlling aberration, or just because of its length on ASP-C? Aberration also comes up a lot, and it is hard to for me to judge looking at photos, since people generally delete photos that go bad.

Comparing these lenses I start to get the feeling that the 70 is boring, which isn't a feeling I had before looking at the lens clubs here. And I'm not sure how much "prestige" effect is going on with the 77 (it costs more, it has a reputation, so it must be magical!). I worry about cachet; people here love the 35 2.4, and I seem to be the only person that just doesn't get it. I worry if this is a trap I'll fall into with the 77, what if I'm immune to pixie dust?

Is the 77 really worth the premium over the 70? Is it better to just wait a bit longer, scrounge a bit more (and risk the ire and pitty of my S.O.) for the 77? Just how "difficult" is the 77 to use?

Well, there's still the giveaway!
Participate and maybe it will be you to win it!

Omestes · 11-03-2014, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by LensBeginner

Well, there's still the giveaway!
Participate and maybe it will be you to win it!

I'm not going to hold my breath. I wouldn't complain if I did, though... I always want to contribute here, but generally I have nothing to say. I'm a complete novice compared to most of the people here, so I'm best just listening.

One more quick question... On the official review here, the comparison with the 70; is the CA on the sharpness test representative? On the picture of the fountain there is a huge amount of fringing on the water highlights, even at 5.6. But the review goes on to say that CA disappears on the 77 past 3.5. But on the actual CA comparison, it does seem that the CA is minimal, or at least at the point where it wouldn't bother me.

Happyman · 11-03-2014, 03:06 AM

I can't compare the two; I don't own a FA 77. I can only tell you my story with the DA70 Ltd. I bought it, together with another lens and a camera, merely with the intent to re-sell with some small profit. I didn't intend to keep it at all; I thought I didn't need it. But when I found out what a piece of glass it was, I couldn't let go of it. It's small, it's light, but most of all, it nails the focus every time and is incredibly sharp. At f2.4, it's excellent for separating your subject from the background. I can't imagine the reason that would make me sell it.

LensBeginner · 11-03-2014, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by Omestes

I'm not going to hold my breath. I wouldn't complain if I did, though... I always want to contribute here, but generally I have nothing to say. I'm a complete novice compared to most of the people here, so I'm best just listening.

One more quick question... On the official review here, the comparison with the 70; is the CA on the sharpness test representative? On the picture of the fountain there is a huge amount of fringing on the water highlights, even at 5.6. But the review goes on to say that CA disappears on the 77 past 3.5. But on the actual CA comparison, it does seem that the CA is minimal, or at least at the point where it wouldn't bother me.

FYI there's a comparison between the 77 and the Sigma 18-35 regarding purple fringing in the new review posted today by Heie...
...ouch!

**Rondec** · 11-03-2014, 04:17 AM - **1 Like**

I think the two things that are negative about the FA 77 are that it is pretty long for APS-C (55 is an easier portrait length) and it has quite a bit of purple fringing (fixable in post, but still). Otherwise, it just has great rendering, great transitions and great colors. A couple of photos of my kids (sorry about that, but they're who I try my lenses out on)...

Outis · 11-03-2014, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Omestes

Outis: How slow? Is it slow comparable to anything in my signature (for reference; slower than a macro?), or just "dog slow"?

I have no basis for comparison-- just that sometimes it makes me think, "Oh, come on, now..."

starjedi · 11-03-2014, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I think the two things that are negative about the FA 77 are that it is pretty long for APS-C (55 is an easier portrait length) and it has quite a bit of purple fringing (fixable in post, but still). Otherwise, it just has great rendering, great transitions and great colors. A couple of photos of my kids (sorry about that, but they're who I try my lenses out on)...

Yeah. Wonderful bokeh. Pixie dust... It consolidates my thought to own this lens in this Thanksgiving if my wife approves :-)

redcat · 11-03-2014, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by starjedi

Using Live view and 4x magnification, it should not so hard under manual focus. In most of cases, it is more reliable than autofocus for getting tackle sharp photos.

totally true, at f2 I can't use my viewfinder to focus anymore @_@ for MF this technique is very very useful !

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens mystery: Why is "Asahi" and "Takumar" blacked out?	Edgar_in_Indy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	08-01-2014 05:15 AM
How Do You Know How "Fish-Eye" A Lens Is?	reivax	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	03-07-2013 11:15 AM
How "slow" is the DA * 50 -135 auto focus?	slip	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	01-01-2013 11:20 PM
How is the "Tokina 28-80mm"?	D0ri	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	06-05-2009 05:42 PM
"How much is that doggy in the window"	maxamillion	Post Your Photos!	3	04-28-2008 12:52 PM

11-02-2014, 09:14 PM	#16
yorik Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Scotts Valley, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 991	It's not... it's wonderful!

11-02-2014, 11:55 PM	#17
simon6z Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 84	Da 70 or the fa 77 still makes pentax standout. You have difficulty finding 70 to 80mm the size,aperture,weight outside pentax lol

11-03-2014, 12:08 AM	#18
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	I can see how some people can find the FA77 hard to work with. It is a rather odd focal length on APS-C format - 112mm. The shorter cousin to the FA77: the DA70mm f/2.4 Limited is equivalent to a 105mm - which is much more common especially for people with are familiar with nikkor lenses. On full frame the FA77 is much more comfortable for me. Pentax K5IIs - SMCP-FA77mm f/1.8 Limited @ f/5.6 Pentax K5IIs - SMCP-FA77mm f/1.8 Limited @ f/1.8

11-03-2014, 12:35 AM	#19
robjmitchell Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne Aus Posts: 1,776	I used to have the sigma 70 macro, I very slightly prefered the rendering to the 70ltd, but the sigma was massive. Both are great lenses. The 77 on the other hand is from a different planet. But If you are immune to pixie dust then you can get a great deal on second hand 70ltds.

11-03-2014, 12:41 AM	#20
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,622	the only thing difficult is paying for it, lol. Definitely more interesting than the DA70 and a bit more CA, but that is my first edit in post with an automatic CA removal checkbox and I never really notice it. If you like shallow DOF and portraits, the FA77 is sure to be a treat. It is my favorite of the K-mount lenses for sure!

11-03-2014, 12:59 AM	#21
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	Nothing difficult about it. Stand back a bit further. Unless you want paper-thin depth of field, stop it down a couple of clicks and let the magic happen.

11-03-2014, 01:29 AM	#22
Omestes Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Phoenix, AZ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 207 Original Poster	Originally posted by jac The 'best lens' contest was completely flawed. Some of the best lenses ever made (the 200 macro's, A 50mm f:1.2, A*85 & 135mm, etc.) couldn't compete because so few have ever seen them, much less used them. Agreed, this is why I really didn't vote... How can I say what the "best lens" is when I've never even touched it. Of the contenders I could really only vote on 2, the A 501.7, and the DA15, but that really doesn't say that they are the best of everything Pentax has made, only the best of whats sitting in my cabinet. I'm sure there is either a $1000+ lens or some really rare legacy glass out there that beats the pants out of anything available to me, much less that I'm lucky enough to own. Outis: How slow? Is it slow comparable to anything in my signature (for reference; slower than a macro?), or just "dog slow"? Originally posted by stevebrot The recipe? Flash 2 stops overexposed of a crumpled wad of aluminum foil at apertures wider than f/2. PF will be evident in a full resolution crop as will some LoCA. HA! Thats the one problem with reviews, I found, and why I annoy these forums before I spend money. Reviews are subjective, and based on expectations. Some people pixel peep, some people worry about corners, some people don't. You can never really tell. I've used some decently reviewed glass (DA35 2.4), and was completely underwhelmed, and I've shot some glass with mixed reviews (F35-70, Sigma 24 2.8) and have been positively enamored. Digitalis: You have a decent point here. I've been slowly trying to sink my teeth into film, and having a FF lens with an aperture ring would be be benefit. A small one, but one nonetheless. I haven't bought a decent K-mount SLR yet, but it isn't out of the question, especially since I've cut my teeth on a rangefinder and enjoy it, I've been waiting for my mom to rediscover her old Spotmatic in her closet, but I've had my eye on a couple in thrift shops. That and there have been more than a few occasions when I wished I had more lenses with aperture rings (adapting to micro 4/3, using bellows/tubes). I'm actually pretty much sold, right now... Its probably doable if I actually wait more than a month. I'm not too scared of a learning curve. The only things that still really get me is CA, the lack of quick shift, and the focusing speed. And, of course, the fact that I never really shoot portraits, just random stuff that takes my fancy. Everyone I know just gets annoyed when I have a camera on me.

11-03-2014, 01:34 AM	#23
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by Omestes I've been pondering my yearly photographic Xmas present to myself (last year was the DA15), and had it down to either the 35 Ltd or the 70 Ltd. The 35 for its macro capabilities (though I really can't get into the DA L 35...), and the 70 to complete my limited range (15, 40, ...). Or get something to fill the gap in my micro four thirds kit (either the Panny-Leica 25, or the Oly 25 1.8)... Which I'm probably not going to do, since, while more practical it is far less exciting than a shiny new Limited. Thanks too some discussions here, someone told me to just save up and grab the FA77, which kindled some research, even if it is well above my price range, and in a FL that I'm not really comfortable with (neither was the 15, but that thing barely leaves my camera). So I've been researching the 77, and its difference with the more affordable 70... I'm a bit at a loss, one thing I've seen over and over again about the 77 is that it difficult lens compared to the 70. I'm not exactly sure what this means; is it difficult like the 15 (which I've yet to feel that I have mastered), or difficult as in controlling aberration, or just because of its length on ASP-C? Aberration also comes up a lot, and it is hard to for me to judge looking at photos, since people generally delete photos that go bad. Comparing these lenses I start to get the feeling that the 70 is boring, which isn't a feeling I had before looking at the lens clubs here. And I'm not sure how much "prestige" effect is going on with the 77 (it costs more, it has a reputation, so it must be magical!). I worry about cachet; people here love the 35 2.4, and I seem to be the only person that just doesn't get it. I worry if this is a trap I'll fall into with the 77, what if I'm immune to pixie dust? Is the 77 really worth the premium over the 70? Is it better to just wait a bit longer, scrounge a bit more (and risk the ire and pitty of my S.O.) for the 77? Just how "difficult" is the 77 to use? Well, there's still the giveaway! Participate and maybe it will be you to win it!

11-03-2014, 01:57 AM	#24
Omestes Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Phoenix, AZ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 207 Original Poster	Originally posted by LensBeginner Well, there's still the giveaway! Participate and maybe it will be you to win it! I'm not going to hold my breath. I wouldn't complain if I did, though... I always want to contribute here, but generally I have nothing to say. I'm a complete novice compared to most of the people here, so I'm best just listening. One more quick question... On the official review here, the comparison with the 70; is the CA on the sharpness test representative? On the picture of the fountain there is a huge amount of fringing on the water highlights, even at 5.6. But the review goes on to say that CA disappears on the 77 past 3.5. But on the actual CA comparison, it does seem that the CA is minimal, or at least at the point where it wouldn't bother me.

11-03-2014, 03:06 AM	#25
Happyman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 68	I can't compare the two; I don't own a FA 77. I can only tell you my story with the DA70 Ltd. I bought it, together with another lens and a camera, merely with the intent to re-sell with some small profit. I didn't intend to keep it at all; I thought I didn't need it. But when I found out what a piece of glass it was, I couldn't let go of it. It's small, it's light, but most of all, it nails the focus every time and is incredibly sharp. At f2.4, it's excellent for separating your subject from the background. I can't imagine the reason that would make me sell it.

11-03-2014, 03:32 AM	#26
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by Omestes I'm not going to hold my breath. I wouldn't complain if I did, though... I always want to contribute here, but generally I have nothing to say. I'm a complete novice compared to most of the people here, so I'm best just listening. One more quick question... On the official review here, the comparison with the 70; is the CA on the sharpness test representative? On the picture of the fountain there is a huge amount of fringing on the water highlights, even at 5.6. But the review goes on to say that CA disappears on the 77 past 3.5. But on the actual CA comparison, it does seem that the CA is minimal, or at least at the point where it wouldn't bother me. FYI there's a comparison between the 77 and the Sigma 18-35 regarding purple fringing in the new review posted today by Heie... ...ouch!

11-03-2014, 04:17 AM - 1 Like	#27
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	I think the two things that are negative about the FA 77 are that it is pretty long for APS-C (55 is an easier portrait length) and it has quite a bit of purple fringing (fixable in post, but still). Otherwise, it just has great rendering, great transitions and great colors. A couple of photos of my kids (sorry about that, but they're who I try my lenses out on)...

11-03-2014, 05:47 AM	#28
Outis Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Cambridge, MA Posts: 935	Originally posted by Omestes Outis: How slow? Is it slow comparable to anything in my signature (for reference; slower than a macro?), or just "dog slow"? I have no basis for comparison-- just that sometimes it makes me think, "Oh, come on, now..."

11-03-2014, 05:56 AM	#29
starjedi Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Location: New Jersey Posts: 932	Originally posted by Rondec I think the two things that are negative about the FA 77 are that it is pretty long for APS-C (55 is an easier portrait length) and it has quite a bit of purple fringing (fixable in post, but still). Otherwise, it just has great rendering, great transitions and great colors. A couple of photos of my kids (sorry about that, but they're who I try my lenses out on)... Yeah. Wonderful bokeh. Pixie dust... It consolidates my thought to own this lens in this Thanksgiving if my wife approves :-)

11-03-2014, 06:08 AM	#30
redcat Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: Paris Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,939	Originally posted by starjedi Using Live view and 4x magnification, it should not so hard under manual focus. In most of cases, it is more reliable than autofocus for getting tackle sharp photos. totally true, at f2 I can't use my viewfinder to focus anymore @_@ for MF this technique is very very useful !