Better Portrait Lens? FA 77 1.8 vs DA 55* 1.4

reivax · 12-12-2014, 03:13 PM

I'm seriously considering buying either the FA 77 1.8 or the DA* 55 1.4 for portraiture work. (I've also considered the Sigma 85, but I'm more drawn to the Pentax lenses). I currently own the FA 50 1.4 and the Sigma 70-200 2.8 (I also own the DFA 100 mm but have never used it for portraiture, should I?) that I have previously used for for portraiture work. Should I even be looking into buying those other lenses? Will they give me better results than what I currently own? If they do (which I suspect they would) which would you recommend?

I'm really looking into getting them soon to get some Christmas portraits done. Thank you in advance for any help and/or recommendations.

Rimfiredude · 12-12-2014, 03:19 PM

I don't shoot any portrait work since I closed the studio. But when I used a 35mm camera I used an 85 f1.9 and 2.25" was a 105mm. It looks like you have it covered with a couple of lenses you already have or do you just have the urge to buy another?

Conqueror · 12-12-2014, 03:26 PM

I don't own the FA 77mm but clearly it is an exceptional lens.

I do have the 55mm DA* which is also an exceptional lens.

I don't think you can go wrong with either.

Assuming you could afford either somehow ... I'd probably base the decision on (in this order):

-Focal length, do you prefer the 77 or 55 FL
-WR, if you need it then the DA* wins
-Cost (if its massively different it might swing it?)

Since you have the 100mm which can be used for portraits, the DA* 55mm might be quite attractive... so that's thinking about focal length in that list above, but then you might also love 77mm as a FL

JinDesu · 12-12-2014, 03:27 PM - **1 Like**

Someone send me a FA*77 and I'll make the comparison for you

I don't do much portraiture, but these two images could help in considering using the DA*55 as a half body or full body portrait lens. I'll assure you that it's even more fantastic as a headshot lens. It's sharp enough to show skin features at F1.8 on a half body portrait.

abmj · 12-12-2014, 03:29 PM

I'd definitely say the 77. IMHO, the 55 is just a tad too short for a dedicated portrait lens. The 77 will give nicer compression.

Conqueror · 12-12-2014, 03:31 PM

You could let LBA consume you and own both... then of course add the 31mm

31
55
77

that's the dream? oh and the 15

15
31
55
77

reivax · 12-12-2014, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Conqueror

You could let LBA consume you and own both... then of course add the 31mm

31
55
77

that's the dream? oh and the 15

15
31
55
77

I both love and hate the way you think. haha. LBA strikes me every so often and as a result, I've got so many lenses that I have to sell but can't bring myself to...

They are both incredible lenses and I'm sure that if I could get equally amazing results from both, but I guess the question I'd really like answered is, "If you could only have one of those lenses for portrait work, which would you have and why?"

Conqueror · 12-12-2014, 03:40 PM

I got the 55mm as I already had a 100mm DFA and I saw an exceptional deal on it...

The WR was a massive plus for me too... as I use it for a bit of everything... in an ideal world I'd have a WR 35 or WR 31... I like the idea of a full WR setup

The 77mm still proves hard to resist, just because for exclusively/out-and-out portrait work it seems a slightly nicer FL (to me)

waterfall · 12-12-2014, 03:41 PM

I think you should explore PF member Don Tomaso's portraits with the FA77. The portraits are exceptional, IMHO. Maybe the lens choice is irrelevant with such a skilled portraiture tog, but worth looking at to ease your mind and help your decision making.

The DA*200 has also been featured in portraits recently here on PF. Dynamite!

K David · 12-12-2014, 03:44 PM

77mm. Better subject isolation. It's unforgiving so your subjects who are self-conscious about their flaws will be unhappy.

Vantage-Point · 12-12-2014, 04:02 PM

Where are you going to be shooting most of your portraits indoors (in smaller spaces) or outdoors or a combination of both. Your answer to that question should be a determining factor in which lens you should get.

robjmitchell · 12-12-2014, 04:10 PM - **1 Like**

Since you already have the fa50/1.4 the logical choice would be the 77 since it gives you something significantly different!

loco · 12-12-2014, 04:18 PM

I have both and, for whatever reason, when I'm asked to take a portrait at work, I grab the FA 77. I rarely even think of the DA* 55. I don't know why. It's a fantastic lens. Next time I may try it. But the FA 77 has never let me down.

**jrpower10** · 12-12-2014, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by robjmitchell

Since you already have the fa50/1.4 the logical choice would be the 77 since it gives you something significantly different!

Kinda what I was thinking as well. But if you're shooting indoors the 77 might be a little tight. If you like the FL of hte 50 but just want an upgrade, then the 55. I have the 77 and love it, but switch to the 31 if I'm in confined space (which, btw, can capture a pretty decent portrait).

drypenn · 12-12-2014, 05:50 PM

When you have a lens as wonderful as 77, you begin to think and see the world in 77's FOV. Heck, I'm even trying to do urban landscape with the lens. It's magic. But yes, indoor portraits are sometimes too tight.

I have just received the 55. It's really sharp, almost like a macro lens with regards to sharpness. It seems sharper than the 77, and the 77 is already unforgivingly sharp, as someone has put it. For OOF rendering? I think that the 77 is still head and shoulders above it, and shows its pedigree.

12-12-2014, 03:13 PM	#1
reivax Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 826	*Better Portrait Lens? FA 77 1.8 vs DA 55 1.4** I'm seriously considering buying either the FA 77 1.8 or the DA* 55 1.4 for portraiture work. (I've also considered the Sigma 85, but I'm more drawn to the Pentax lenses). I currently own the FA 50 1.4 and the Sigma 70-200 2.8 (I also own the DFA 100 mm but have never used it for portraiture, should I?) that I have previously used for for portraiture work. Should I even be looking into buying those other lenses? Will they give me better results than what I currently own? If they do (which I suspect they would) which would you recommend? I'm really looking into getting them soon to get some Christmas portraits done. Thank you in advance for any help and/or recommendations.

12-12-2014, 03:41 PM	#9
waterfall Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Northern Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,812	I think you should explore PF member Don Tomaso's portraits with the FA77. The portraits are exceptional, IMHO. Maybe the lens choice is irrelevant with such a skilled portraiture tog, but worth looking at to ease your mind and help your decision making. The DA200 has also been featured in portraits recently here on PF. Dynamite! Last edited by waterfall; 12-12-2014 at 03:45 PM. Reason: Forgot 200*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens tournament: FA 31/1.8 Limited vs DA* 55/1.4	Adam	Pentax Forums Giveaways	34	08-01-2015 07:04 PM
FA 77/1.8 vs HD DA 70/2.4	Nimble	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	114	05-24-2015 01:03 PM
Sigma 50/1.4 EX vs. Pentax FA 50/1.4 and DA 55/1.4	DonovanDwyer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	01-24-2014 12:54 PM
FA 1.4/50 vs DA* 1.4/55	Grokh	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	07-19-2013 02:38 AM

12-12-2014, 03:19 PM	#2
Rimfiredude Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: Washington Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,176	I don't shoot any portrait work since I closed the studio. But when I used a 35mm camera I used an 85 f1.9 and 2.25" was a 105mm. It looks like you have it covered with a couple of lenses you already have or do you just have the urge to buy another?

12-12-2014, 03:26 PM	#3
Conqueror Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: UK Posts: 440	I don't own the FA 77mm but clearly it is an exceptional lens. I do have the 55mm DA* which is also an exceptional lens. I don't think you can go wrong with either. Assuming you could afford either somehow ... I'd probably base the decision on (in this order): -Focal length, do you prefer the 77 or 55 FL -WR, if you need it then the DA* wins -Cost (if its massively different it might swing it?) Since you have the 100mm which can be used for portraits, the DA* 55mm might be quite attractive... so that's thinking about focal length in that list above, but then you might also love 77mm as a FL

12-12-2014, 03:27 PM - 1 Like	#4
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Someone send me a FA77 and I'll make the comparison for you I don't do much portraiture, but these two images could help in considering using the DA55 as a half body or full body portrait lens. I'll assure you that it's even more fantastic as a headshot lens. It's sharp enough to show skin features at F1.8 on a half body portrait.

12-12-2014, 03:29 PM	#5
abmj Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Central California Posts: 600	I'd definitely say the 77. IMHO, the 55 is just a tad too short for a dedicated portrait lens. The 77 will give nicer compression.

12-12-2014, 03:31 PM	#6
Conqueror Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: UK Posts: 440	You could let LBA consume you and own both... then of course add the 31mm 31 55 77 that's the dream? oh and the 15 15 31 55 77

12-12-2014, 03:35 PM	#7
reivax Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 826 Original Poster	Originally posted by Conqueror You could let LBA consume you and own both... then of course add the 31mm 31 55 77 that's the dream? oh and the 15 15 31 55 77 I both love and hate the way you think. haha. LBA strikes me every so often and as a result, I've got so many lenses that I have to sell but can't bring myself to... They are both incredible lenses and I'm sure that if I could get equally amazing results from both, but I guess the question I'd really like answered is, "If you could only have one of those lenses for portrait work, which would you have and why?"

12-12-2014, 03:40 PM	#8
Conqueror Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: UK Posts: 440	I got the 55mm as I already had a 100mm DFA and I saw an exceptional deal on it... The WR was a massive plus for me too... as I use it for a bit of everything... in an ideal world I'd have a WR 35 or WR 31... I like the idea of a full WR setup The 77mm still proves hard to resist, just because for exclusively/out-and-out portrait work it seems a slightly nicer FL (to me)

12-12-2014, 03:44 PM	#10
K David Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Colorado Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,437	77mm. Better subject isolation. It's unforgiving so your subjects who are self-conscious about their flaws will be unhappy.

12-12-2014, 04:02 PM	#11
Vantage-Point Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: New York Posts: 516	Where are you going to be shooting most of your portraits indoors (in smaller spaces) or outdoors or a combination of both. Your answer to that question should be a determining factor in which lens you should get.

12-12-2014, 04:10 PM - 1 Like	#12
robjmitchell Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne Aus Posts: 1,776	Since you already have the fa50/1.4 the logical choice would be the 77 since it gives you something significantly different!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-12-2014, 04:18 PM	#13
loco Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,846	I have both and, for whatever reason, when I'm asked to take a portrait at work, I grab the FA 77. I rarely even think of the DA* 55. I don't know why. It's a fantastic lens. Next time I may try it. But the FA 77 has never let me down.

12-12-2014, 04:20 PM	#14
jrpower10 Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Richland, Washington, USA Posts: 935	Originally posted by robjmitchell Since you already have the fa50/1.4 the logical choice would be the 77 since it gives you something significantly different! Kinda what I was thinking as well. But if you're shooting indoors the 77 might be a little tight. If you like the FL of hte 50 but just want an upgrade, then the 55. I have the 77 and love it, but switch to the 31 if I'm in confined space (which, btw, can capture a pretty decent portrait).

12-12-2014, 05:50 PM	#15
drypenn Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 963	When you have a lens as wonderful as 77, you begin to think and see the world in 77's FOV. Heck, I'm even trying to do urban landscape with the lens. It's magic. But yes, indoor portraits are sometimes too tight. I have just received the 55. It's really sharp, almost like a macro lens with regards to sharpness. It seems sharper than the 77, and the 77 is already unforgivingly sharp, as someone has put it. For OOF rendering? I think that the 77 is still head and shoulders above it, and shows its pedigree.