[IgorZ]

I have done comparisons between the FA 77 and Helios 44M and it is pretty much even money which will deliver the better image for many subjects. OTOH, there are some compositions or light where the Helios is not the better tool of the two and vice versa.


Steve

I'd be very interested in seeing some comparisons between FA 77 and Helios 44...

[Cyber Neb]

That question is Blasphemous! LOL,... just kidding. One of MANY MANY reasons that the FA77 Limited is so special to me is these kinds of magical shots I always get with this lens.. This shot was one of many from my Pentax K-x last year for a client. That's right my 6 year old trusty 12mp Pentax K-x. Absolutely no PP at all except re-sizing then saving as jpeg from original 9.9mb RAW file to put on this forum.

Pentax K-x
FA77 Limited
no flash
F/3.5
1/160s
ISO 200

[stevebrot]

I'd be very interested in seeing some comparisons between FA 77 and Helios 44...

I did several, but this pair is up on Flickr:





Both are in an album with a few other "unfair parings".

https://www.flickr.com/photos/28796087@N02/sets/72157621968243010/


Steve

[IgorZ]

I did several, but this pair is up on Flickr:





Both are in an album with a few other "unfair parings".

https://www.flickr.com/photos/28796087@N02/sets/72157621968243010/


Steve

Is Helios the first one? Helios 44M is 58mm f2, right? The good thing about Soviet-ancestry lenses is that resolution information is widely available, although they just provide a number, without explaining whether it is highest resolution, or lowest or at what f stop. Having said that, Helios resolution ranges from 32 to 50 lines per mm, depending on the model. That's pretty low, compared to Pentax lens resolution. I was wondering, is it noticeable, compared to the 77mm?

[vrrattko]

And now you have seen this image from the FA77mm f/1.8 Limited:

great photo...and the 'tree stump' is amazing too - but i believe it is more in eye of photographer. I believe YOU will be able to achieve same wow effect with lets say DA*55 for example. It is after all in the eye of photographer....

now from my experience: throughout the years i owned several 55-85mm lenses, including two copies of FA77, then Carl Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8 (converted for Pentax), two copies of DA70, DA*50-135, K85/1.8 and finally few days ago i bought DA*55.....basically nobody will make a mistake with any of those lenses

for example DA70 is special because of its small size - perfect street lens and nice also for landscapes, but its bokeh is bit worse than FA77.
FA77 is beautifully crafted lens, nicely designed with things like retractable hood. It looks very classy....probably best looking lens from all mentiones above. Its lightweight and it renders pictures nicely.
But when i threw K85/1.8 into the mix things started to be little more interesting - my copy seems to be sharper than both DA70 and FA77, renders deeper blue tones than FA77 and has little better bokeh (i believe because having +8mm focal lenght advantage). Now there is DA*55 which amazes me - but then it is new lens to me, so I need more time to evaluate it properly.
So my personal view on FA77 - it is great lens, but has a tough competition even within other Pentax lenses. But i wouldn't say it stands apart from the other Pentax lenses of similar focal lenght - but this is just my opinion

[Rondec]

great photo...and the 'tree stump' is amazing too - but i believe it is more in eye of photographer. I believe YOU will be able to achieve same wow effect with lets say DA*55 for example. It is after all in the eye of photographer....

now from my experience: throughout the years i owned several 55-85mm lenses, including two copies of FA77, then Carl Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8 (converted for Pentax), two copies of DA70, DA*50-135, K85/1.8 and finally few days ago i bought DA*55.....basically nobody will make a mistake with any of those lenses

for example DA70 is special because of its small size - perfect street lens and nice also for landscapes, but its bokeh is bit worse than FA77.
FA77 is beautifully crafted lens, nicely designed with things like retractable hood. It looks very classy....probably best looking lens from all mentiones above. Its lightweight and it renders pictures nicely.
But when i threw K85/1.8 into the mix things started to be little more interesting - my copy seems to be sharper than both DA70 and FA77, renders deeper blue tones than FA77 and has little better bokeh (i believe because having +8mm focal lenght advantage). Now there is DA*55 which amazes me - but then it is new lens to me, so I need more time to evaluate it properly.
So my personal view on FA77 - it is great lens, but has a tough competition even within other Pentax lenses. But i wouldn't say it stands apart from the other Pentax lenses of similar focal lenght - but this is just my opinion

I, personally, like the DA *55 a little better on APS-C than the FA 77 -- the reason being that the working distance is a little better. Both are quite sharp and have nice bokeh (the FA 77 is a little better). I am looking forward to shooting the FA 77 on a K1, where I think it will feel a little more comfortable.

DA *55 at f2.2

[Sandy Hancock]

Alright a knock down drag out show me the pictures that "show me why I should buy this lens" square off. Where's the pop corn?

The answer is always... you need both.

Aye, that is my approach....

[stevebrot]

Is Helios the first one?

No, Helios is the second one. The published values for FSU lenses are rather problematic in that they seem to be consistently low. I don't know what the Russian word for "pixie dust" is, but my Helios 44M got a good dose.


Steve

[Nicolas06]

Well, I just ordered a 77 from bh. It'll be here Wednesday. I really had a hard time deciding to buy it because it was never a lens I even considered. I was going to get the da 300 today and next was going to be the 15 ltd. followed by a k3 and then a 43 ltd. and the worse part is, I honestly can say I don't need any of that stuff I just mentioned. I especially didn't need a 77mm prime. I use a da35 and a siggy 50-150 and it covers 90% of my needs. Which, ultimately, is why I decided to get the 77. It's a versatile fl and seems to be an excellent lens. I mostly shoot music festivals so it should be a welcome addition to my bag.

Well you know at least and objectively the lens has a few things for itself:
- it is small and quite light.
- it has a max large apperture (f/1.8) so on the occasion can be usefull to go after quite shallow deph of field or low light.
- it is very very sharp.
- it is very constrasty.
- its bokeh is really great for most shots.

You'll find that no many lenses combine all of this together. Usually the lens either bigger or has slower max apperture or softime is softer (almost all tele are sharp, but old 50mm need to be closed down to be sharp). The macro lenses will have harsher bokeh at non macro distance, slower max apperture and bigger/heavier. DA70, while great still limited to f/2.4. The FA50 don't really match because it is not the same focal length but need to be closed dow at least one stop more to match the quality.

All of this is objective and likely justify at least 70-80% of the FA77 price, objectively.

Now the thing is, the lens has more an FA rendering of colors. A bit warmer, a bit more subtle, with soft transitions. That a rendering that some will like, some will dislike, but that's a rendering that tend to be quite appreciated for portraiture. FA and DA don't render the same. I don't know why but this is like that. DA tend to have more harsh contrast, more neutral colors and can capture more dynamic range. They flare less. For landscape this is great asset. For portraiture, not.

Finally, the picture tend to pop more with the FA77, FA31 and FA43 than with most lenses. It look a bit like the subject is in 3D and pop out of the screen. It is a combination of lighting, apperture, in focus / out of focus transitions as well as micro contrast. The effect exist on many lenses but the FA77 has it much more often and much more easily than most. It will not show if you look a too small picture, or if your screen is quite crap, but this is quite pleasant.

As if people like the FA ltd more, there one thing I can say, my friend discuss of my photography skills. For them I take good picture but for most picture they don't care much. But they say the portraiture picture I take. They are really fantastic. They really love them. What I did for a few weddings.

I think contrary to many features valued only by photographer like ultimate sharpness at 100% or other results people rave about from test chart, the FA77 is able to give actual photographs that people appreciate a lot. In Pratice. Not as numbers.

And all theses thing they justify the premium price.

Sure non one has to buy it if doesn't want, not convinced... Nobody has issue with that and if you fail to see anything to love out of it, resell it. There no shame to have. This is not just for you.

I just can tell you I never liked my FA50 f/1.4... I had to close it down at least to f/2.8 to get good results. AF was more miss than it and alike. I had a 50-135 after. Very sharp, great lens. But it lacked a bit of character. When I finally acquired the FA77, I sold the FA50 and 50-135 a few month after. There was no point to keep lenses that didn't give me the same quality, subjectively.

[atiratha]

I used to crave FA 77, then got a good deal on DA 70. Had it for five years but never really warmed up to it. Eventually bought CZJ Pancolar 80/1.8 which wide open seemed sharper and overall better than DA 70. In the end, I found a great bargain on FA 77 and bought it, figuring, I can always sell it with minimal loss, Immediately, I saw the magic. Every second image looked beautiful on the camera's screen. Tried to shoot side by side with DA 70 but in a controlled scene I couldn't see much difference. Still, FA 77 gives me consistently more pleasing images than DA 70 ever did, which doesn't mean DA 70 is a bad lens, just not really for me.

[clackers]

. Tried to shoot side by side with DA 70 but in a controlled scene I couldn't see much difference.

That's why it's such good value! ☺

[micromacro]

Still, FA 77 gives me consistently more pleasing images than DA 70 ever did, which doesn't mean DA 70 is a bad lens, just not really for me.

Interesting. I oped out FA 77 and bought DA 70 instead, and love that lens. However, I got a great deal for 77, it did not arrive yet. I'm very curious now if I will get the same conclusion.

[pdo]

The FA Limited was design for Film..let's see how it stack up on the 36MP sensors..

[normhead]

The FA Limited was design for Film..let's see how it stack up on the 36MP sensors..

Does anyone actually know of any lenses that were really good on film but didn't work on digital?

Back in the day when all the Nikon supporters used to try and sell everyone on D800, they used to say your worst glass on a D800 will perform better than your best glass on APS-c, so what's your worry? Even if you have cheap glass, it will still be better. if you have good glass, it will certainly be better.

I really think this "good glass won't perform as well on a better sensor" is a wives tale.

[clackers]

The FA Limited was design for Film..let's see how it stack up on the 36MP sensors..

Did you know the pixel density on the K-3 is higher than on the K-1, Pdo?