[Sandy Hancock]

The DA70 is my all-time favorite lens. Granted, I've never tried the 77, but I enjoy the 70 so much I'm not even tempted by the 77. The price difference isn't worth it to me.

Ignorance is bliss

[Michaelina2]

There was a time when I owned the 70 and the 77. I bought them together due to some very good 2007-08 price offerings.

Anyway, I used them in ways that fit my impression of their strengths. When I wanted precision, I picked the 70 and "Wow", it delivered. When I felt the setting called for something more atmospheric, out came the 77. I worked between the lenses this way for about five years. Also, during this time, I decided to fine tune my post processing skills. As I wandered around the pp vineyard, I discovered it is just more pleasing to extract precision from the atmospheric than add atmosphere to precision. As a result, last year, it was "Bye... bye 70..." a great lens, I loved it, but I just outgrew it and I have no regrets.

Cheers... M

[Mikesul]

There was a time when I owned the 70 and the 77. I bought them together due to some very good 2007-08 price offerings.

Anyway, I used them in ways that fit my impression of their strengths. When I wanted precision, I picked the 70 and "Wow", it delivered. When I felt the setting called for something more atmospheric, out came the 77. I worked between the lenses this way for about five years. Also, during this time, I decided to fine tune my post processing skills. As I wandered around the pp vineyard, I discovered it is just more pleasing to extract precision from the atmospheric than add atmosphere to precision. As a result, last year, it was "Bye... bye 70..." a great lens, I loved it, but I just outgrew it and I have no regrets.

Cheers... M

This is very helpful. I have long suspected that the difference in not in clarity, sharpness etc but in the subjective but very real sense of beauty delivered by many of the film lenses. I love my FA 31 and can see the difference but the DA 70 and DA40 continue to serve most of my uses very well.

[MPrince]

Ignorance is bliss

No ignorance at all, and I take offense at your comment. You live your life your way. I'll live my life my way.

[interested_observer]

There was a time when I owned the 70 and the 77. I bought them together due to some very good 2007-08 price offerings.

Anyway, I used them in ways that fit my impression of their strengths. When I wanted precision, I picked the 70 and "Wow", it delivered. When I felt the setting called for something more atmospheric, out came the 77. I worked between the lenses this way for about five years. Also, during this time, I decided to fine tune my post processing skills. As I wandered around the pp vineyard, I discovered it is just more pleasing to extract precision from the atmospheric than add atmosphere to precision. As a result, last year, it was "Bye... bye 70..." a great lens, I loved it, but I just outgrew it and I have no regrets.

Cheers... M

The FA Limiteds were designed to present the best overall images, I have read. I am thinking of moving from the 85 I have, and into a 70's. This helps a lot.

[Saltwater Images]

I have both the FA 50 f/1.4 and FA 35 f/2 as well as the HD DA 21 f/3.2 and HD DA 40 f/2.8. I love the warm rendering of the FA lenses. While the Nifty Fifty and Tack Sharp 35 aren't Limiteds they are both stellar.

This year I started acquiring Limiteds and went with two HD DA's to start. I have recently ordered the 70 to complete the "gang of three".The FA's aren't optimized for digital - I believe it's time to move past film technology. The HD DA's give true to life rendering which you can always adjust to personal preference in post-processing. The two HD DA's are in my bag all the time. The FA's have been handed down to my son as he is just starting to learn photography. I'll attach a night shot taken with the 40 for you decide….

[Omestes]

The FA's aren't optimized for digital - I believe it's time to move past film technology.

I agree and disagree with this. I do love my DA lenses, but I also love my F and FA lenses. I can't really tell if my "nifty fifty" is optimized for film of not, its tack sharp, and has excellent contrast and bokeh. Technically, I would easily say that my FA50 1.7 is better in some ways (many ways) than either of my DA limiteds. My FA100 2.8 macro is pretty awesome, and outside of quick shift and WR, I can't see any reason that the DFA 100 is better. The F35-70 is a strange beast, but its hard to find any optical faults with it (outside of its often bizarre bokeh) when shooting on my digital K-5 or IR converted K-x.

Further, the film lenses have a major up on the DA lenses... Aperture rings. A DA50 1.8 would be almost useless to me, since I couldn't reverse it, or use bellows, or tubes. Or use it on my micro four thirds system. Or use it on the mythical Pentax FF camera in the future.

[clackers]

Or use it on the mythical Pentax FF camera in the future.

You will be able to use it on FF. It has been tested on film cameras.

[Rondec]

I agree and disagree with this. I do love my DA lenses, but I also love my F and FA lenses. I can't really tell if my "nifty fifty" is optimized for film of not, its tack sharp, and has excellent contrast and bokeh. Technically, I would easily say that my FA50 1.7 is better in some ways (many ways) than either of my DA limiteds. My FA100 2.8 macro is pretty awesome, and outside of quick shift and WR, I can't see any reason that the DFA 100 is better. The F35-70 is a strange beast, but its hard to find any optical faults with it (outside of its often bizarre bokeh) when shooting on my digital K-5 or IR converted K-x.

Further, the film lenses have a major up on the DA lenses... Aperture rings. A DA50 1.8 would be almost useless to me, since I couldn't reverse it, or use bellows, or tubes. Or use it on my micro four thirds system. Or use it on the mythical Pentax FF camera in the future.

As long as Pentax keeps the k mount ( I expect they will), you would be able to mount and use all of your lenses on the mythical full frame camera. Some of the DA lenses will have weak corners and require a crop (most of the zooms, the DA 35 limited, DA 14 and DA 15), but many will work just fine. I have a * ist film camera that I have been shooting my lenses on and all of my primes, except the DA 15 work well.

[arv]

I have both lenses (FA 77mm and SMC DA 70mm). My take is that FA is better for people photography; it has something that Michaelina2 called "atmospheric", and I do agree with that. DA 70mm is excellent travel lens, that I usually pair with DA21mm. I like 70mm better for landscapes, maybe because it is a bit shorter and easier to compose. The main gripe for DA70mm is use of cpl filters - you have to unscrew the hood, put on a cpl and screw the hood back, while with FA77mm you just pull the hood. I am not going to sell any of them - for me they are different enough to keep them both .

A.

[Nimble]

Thank you all for answers, especially, stevebrot, LeRolls, JibbaJab, drypenn, Sandy Hancock. Rondec's comments and example shots were very useful. Thoughtful definitions of Michaelina2 were the key point for me.

I have been ill for a couple of days and, unfortunately, couldn't answer to everyone.

I initially thought about FA 77/1.8, but trembled about it's potential issues (like night shots and so on). Your post dispel my doubts - I've chosen FA 77/1.8. Thanks for your support!

[stevebrot]

I deliberately avoided using that term, but there *is* something special about the focal transition and quality of bokeh from the FA77....

Unfortunately there are also Soviet pixies. My Helios 44M shares many of the characteristics of the FA 77, though the pixies were suffering a bit from too much vodka.


Steve

---------- Post added 11-10-14 at 03:54 PM ----------

The FA's aren't optimized for digital

I would ask you to fully explain what that means, but the subject has been thoroughly discussed (and debunked...to a certain extent) elsewhere and going down that very deep rat-hole would derail the thread.


Steve

[JibbaJab]

Thank you all for answers, especially, stevebrot, LeRolls, JibbaJab, drypenn, Sandy Hancock. Rondec's comments and example shots were very useful. Thoughtful definitions of Michaelina2 were the key point for me.

I have been ill for a couple of days and, unfortunately, couldn't answer to everyone.

I initially thought about FA 77/1.8, but trembled about it's potential issues (like night shots and so on). Your post dispel my doubts - I've chosen FA 77/1.8. Thanks for your support!

Congratulations and welcome to the club!

[Omestes]

I initially thought about FA 77/1.8, but trembled about it's potential issues (like night shots and so on). Your post dispel my doubts - I've chosen FA 77/1.8. Thanks for your support!

After going through the same discussion/qualms, I'm 90% certain that I came to the exact same conclusion that you did.

After you grab it, update us with your impressions!

[Trudger1272]

I'm not sure this has been mentioned but, for the low light situations you speak of, 1.8 will be a little handier than 2.4. I would go with faster. That little extra aperture could make a difference someday/night. Especially if you prefer low key shooting.


I should add, I do have the FA77 and love it so much, I can't remember ever wondering how the DA70 would compare to it.