[yorik]

Just to be `helpful' : I have read (not experienced personally), that in the FL range you are considering, the DA*50-135 is also amazing...

[Mikesul]

Just to be `helpful' : I have read (not experienced personally), that in the FL range you are considering, the DA*50-135 is also amazing...

I own and frequently use the DA*50-135. It is, as you say, amazing. I love it.

[Nimble]

Today I have tested FA 77/1.8 for nightscapes for the first. Some asymmetric halos are visible on not-centerer lights at F4.0 (8sec, ISO200). On the other hand I was impressed with the sharpness at infinity and contrast of the lens. Imho, it is slightly sharper than DA* 60-250/4.0 at F4.0!

Here's one of the original images, and final stacking of 40 shots with PP.

[Nimble]

Recently made several test images at apertures from 1.8 to 4.0. Hope they will be useful.

F1.8


F2.0


F2.8


F4.0

[atiratha]

I currently own both. About seven years ago, I found a great deal for DA 70 and DA 21, so even though I really wanted the FA 77, I bought those two instead. And though I liked the DA70, it never got much use. This got even worse as I obtained Pancolar 80 and found it was sharper at F/1.8 than DA70 at F/2.4. Then I would usually stay with the Pancolar which I really loved at the time.

Now, living in Asia, I was able to score the venerable FA77 at what I consider a very good price. Unfortunately, there was backfocus with my K-5, so after adjusting through the debug menu, I can say WOW. This lens just makes pictures pretty, no matter what subject matter. Then I tried shooting the same scene with both at same aperture and couldn't distinguish between them. And yet, I keep reaching for the FA all the time instead of the DA or even my trusted Pancolar and I keep marvelling at what it can do even just looking at the display.

Anyway, what I kinda disliked about DA70 - bokeh fringing was somehow not nice, and the rendering of greens. Also, never really amazed me by sharpness. I mean, it wasn't soft but it somehow felt lacking.

[Nicolas06]

There is a fair amount of noise, I think it may be due to split toning. One thing is certain, it is not pollen or cracked make-up.

It is good to note that image #1 is mildly overexposed in the whites allowing for the kind of LoCA (perhaps some purple fringing) that I am familiar with on the FA 77.


Steve

To me it look like a noise grain simulation of some software like DxOFilm pack.

[Nicolas06]

Draw-flaws - portraits need post-proccessing due to superb sharpness, slow AF, contrast reduction in some conditions

You can make the lense more or less sharp and contrasty by changing the apperture, this also set less of the picture fully in focus and this blur out the details your may want to hide.

The DA70 might be slightly sharper at f/2.4 but both are really sharp overall. Even at f/2.4. Both are really sharp enough and at f/4 they are extremely sharp but also really constrasty. Outside the overall more interresting rendering that goes for FA77(*), the possibility to go to f/1.8 or f/2, outside of getting a bit more light is to get more control over the rendering and get a softer rendering when you want it through theses appertures.


See the difference between f/2 and f/4.5:

FA77 f/2



FA77 f/2



FA77 f/4.5

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 05-23-2015 at 03:42 PM.

[Nicolas06]

I own and frequently use the DA*50-135. It is, as you say, amazing. I love it.

I had it. It render really nicelly. This is really a great lense. But it is a bit less sharp/constrasty at f/2.8 than the 2 primes and also can't really puch the character and rendering FA77 provide. It also miss a wider apperture that comes handy at time.

Since I brought FA77, I decided to sell the 50-135... The FA77 just render better, much smaller/lighter, no more expensive and it cover a good share of the range by cropping. I latter added an F135 f/2.8 to be coverred for the long end. This one may have more CA but the rendering is great and even F135 + FA77 is still smaller/lighter.

The 50-135 would win on events where you'd may want to switch the framing really fast and may not have much choice for the place you are given. I have used on sport and closed down in great light it work very well... The AF is a bit slow through (but FA77 or DA70 are not made for action/sport neither).

[chrisfer]

I own DA70 and FA77mm.
I have kept DA70mm, AF is more reliable and fast for sport. It complements well my DA*200mm. These are my two fastest AF lens.

[Nimble]

You can make the lense more or less sharp and contrasty by changing the apperture, this also set less of the picture fully in focus and this blur out the details your may want to hide.

The DA70 might be slightly sharper at f/2.4 but both are really sharp overall. Even at f/2.4. Both are really sharp enough and at f/4 they are extremely sharp but also really constrasty. Outside the overall more interresting rendering that goes for FA77(*), the possibility to go to f/1.8 or f/2, outside of getting a bit more light is to get more control over the rendering and get a softer rendering when you want it through theses appertures.

Nicolas, I got your idea, but I ment it's too sharp for head shots even at f/1.8, imho.

After a several months of shooting, it became one of my three favorite and most usable lenses for family and art shooting, as well as SMC Pentax DA 10-17/3.5-3.5 fish-eye and Lensbaby edge80.