[Simen1]

Please forgive me my lack of knowledge about the FA77 and for the blasphemy of comparing lenses in totally different leagues! I want to learn about the magic that can't be shown through specs, and need your help for that.

I have a DA50 and have read a lot of recommendations for the FA77. But I still think I don’t understand all of the magic. Can somebody please explain?

The easy part is the specs: The FA77 offers longer focal length, metal mount, beautiful metal build, a small built in hood, "style", aperture ring, 9 (vs 7) aperture blades, and a little more length and weight. It does not offer WR, modern coating, notably more magnification or internal focus (the DA50 does the latter). As I said, that is the easy part and in my opinion this don’t tell me why its worth 7 times as much (8 when I bought my DA50). So, what am I missing? I feel that both colour rendition and bokeh is quite attractive on the DA50. Is really the FA77 doing 7 times as much worth in these departments? Or in vignetting or corner sharpness? Many of the reviews even point out that the FA77 does have some purple fringing problems and flare problems.

Edit: A quote from one of the reviews:

Yes, it is pricey, and it does have a few limitations but if you compare it to Leica and Zeiss pricing it is a good value.

This is ridiculous. Anything is good value compared to Leica and Zeiss. This could be said about an overpriced station-wagon compared to a super sports car too. It tells me that one needs to do ridiculous comparisons to justify it. Rather counter productive in terms of recommendation power.

---

Last edited by Simen1; 05-04-2016 at 06:37 AM.

[jatrax]

Pixie dust.

[UncleVanya]

The only thing I can say is that the delta between a great lens and a good lens is a matter of diminishing returns. The cost for a little improvement gets higher with each step.

I own the fa 77. It is one of my few lenses purchased new. I bought it to replace my A* 85 f1.4, and I don't regret it. But my DA 70 and F50 f1.7 get me results that are close. The same can be said about the fa 31 and the fa 35 f2, they render quite similarly in many circumstances. I think lighting, technique, etc make a larger difference. Masters of these things will see more differences perhaps, but even so these are a pleasure to own.

[robthebloke]

The 77 is bitingly sharp from f1.8 (the DA50 doesn't really start to get good until f2.5). Yes it has some fringing wide open, but the DA50 f1.8 is much worse in this regard. Now the bokeh on the DA50 isn't bad, but as soon as you compare the FA77 and DA50 side by side, you'll instantly understand why it's so much more expensive. The 3D pop, the sharpness, the rendering, the bokeh, and the nice compact size, that's why people love it. With the caveat 'for a budget lens', the DA50 is very good, and certainly punches above its weight. If the 77 is a gold standard, then the DA50 gets you to about 88% of the performance for a fraction of the price. That extra 12% will cost you though....

[UncleVanya]

The 77 is bitingly sharp from f1.8 (the DA50 doesn't really start to get good until f2.5). Yes it has some fringing wide open, but the DA50 f1.8 is much worse in this regard. Now the bokeh on the DA50 isn't bad, but as soon as you compare the FA77 and DA50 side by side, you'll instantly understand why it's so much more expensive. The 3D pop, the sharpness, the rendering, the bokeh, and the nice compact size, that's why people love it. With the caveat 'for a budget lens', the DA50 is very good, and certainly punches above its weight. If the 77 is a gold standard, then the DA50 gets you to about 88% of the performance for a fraction of the price. That extra 12% will cost you though....

Excellent points and illustrated nicely.

[jatrax]

Pixie Dust = "A substance or influence with an apparently magical effect that brings great success or luck". - Oxford Dictionary

[stevebrot]

Pixie dust.

I own both lenses and concur with John. The pixie dust wins. Given the choice of the FA 77/1.8 on a film camera (or K-1) vs. the DA 50/1.8 on APS-C (similar FOV) with the same subject, my vote goes with the FA 77. Here is my pocket summary without a detailed critique of either lenses optical performance.

• The DA 50/1.8 is a fun lens to shoot with. Small and light and quick to focus and just plain fun.
• The FA 77/1.8 is also fun to shoot with despite weighing more
• Manual focus with either lens is nice
• Pixie dust is real. Enough said. Can one put a price on the output of pixies?*
• The DA is definitely the better value and perhaps provides the best performance to cost ratio of any K-mount lens currently available new. If you need high value new at the 70-85mm focal length range, buy a Samyang 85mm.
• In full consideration of build, user experience, and performance (and pixie dust), the FA 77/1.8 is a stand-out at its price point across brands
• Despite the fun factor, unless I need AF, the DA 50 is not my go-to lens at that focal length. I have quite a few fast 50s and most suit my needs better than the DA. That being said, if asked which AF 50 I recommend from current offerings, the DA 50/1.8 is my strong recommendation overall (no caveat regarding budget price), unless you really need macro or an aperture ring or enjoy spending lots of extra money for 2/3 stop extra maximum aperture.
• If you have the funds and find a good deal on a FA 77/1.8, buy it. Unless you hate the focal length, you will not regret the purchase.

Steve

* I don't know what the Russians call their pixies, but they were working at KMZ the day my Helios 44M 58/2 was assembled. $15 USD courtesy of eBay...

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 05-04-2016 at 10:16 AM.

[builttospill]

The only problem with the 77 is once you own it, you'll be drawn toward the 43 and 31. Don't resist, it's pointless. You'll end up buying more Limited lenses.

I haven't experienced any purple fringing with my 77. It's an outstanding lens. I use it with film and digital, so the aperture ring is a huge advantage. I really don't think there's a difference in coatings, unless you have an HD lens. Both the DA 50 and FA 77 have the same SMC coating. The FA 77 isn't that old of a lens (1999), considering some of the others demonstrated in this Forum.

K10D and FA 77:

[pepperberry farm]

* I don't know what the Russians call their pixies, but they were working at KMZ the day my Helios 44M 58/2 was assembled. $15 USD courtesy of eBay...

apparently, the Russian for pixie is:




эльф

[stevebrot]

I haven't experienced any purple fringing with my 77.

It can be prodded into fringing, but is rare in general use on digital and completely absent on film (duh).


Steve

[stillshot2]

Size comparison of the DA 50mm 1.8 and FA 77mm 1.8. Note the 77mm isn't all the way at infinity so it would actually be a little shorter in height such that the lens markings would sit flush with the focus ring, making them nearly equal in size with caps on. My FA 77mm is sharper than my DA 50mm at all comparable apertures, but my FA 77mm does fringe noticably more at or near wide open apertures.

[robjmitchell]

They call the da 50 a plastic fantastic. Cheap and simple but very good IQ. Mind you is it any better than a 40 year old used SMC 55/1.8 Tak that costs a quarter of the price?
The FA77ltd is a premium lens with fantastic build, handling, and image quality. A comparable lens in another system would be the 85/1.8g from nikon that costs just under $500. Of course it is not metal, is not stabilised, and doesn't have the same quality of coatings as the pentax. It is also 1/3rd the price of the their 85/1.4g!
Simply put Increase performance comes at a premium. No difference to cars.

[Conqueror]

77mm - anything else is a compromise... you will end up with it one day (LBA)

[robthebloke]

They call the da 50 a plastic fantastic. Cheap and simple but very good IQ. Mind you is it any better than a 40 year old used SMC 55/1.8 Tak that costs a quarter of the price?

Yes, it's better.

[savoche]

apparently, the Russian for pixie is:




эльф

And the pronunciation would be fairly close to elf