[eminker]

Hi!

I was just wondering if anyone has done a comparison of the FA 77mm vs Sigma 70mm macro. I would expect the colors to be warmer with the FA 77mm vs the Sigma but was curious if
anyone has had the opportunity to test these head to head.

[stevebrot]

I only own one of the pair, but I would expect a direct comparison to be interesting. This much I would expect in advance:

• Sigma is much larger and weighs twice as much as the FA 77
• Sigma colors should be warmer than the FA 77 (typical of that vintage Sigma)*
• FA 77 gets the nod for build quality, though both are all metal construction
• Sigma should be sharper overall especially in the corners.
• FA 77 wins for handling, bokeh, low light utility, and pixie dust

Steve

* At least that is the case with my Sigma 50/2.8 EX DG Macro, the 70/2.8's stablemate.

[jddwoods]

I would be interested in expanding this comparison to include the DA 70 Limited. I have a K-3 and am not in a position to upgrade anytime soon. The DA 70 is one of my sharpest lenses and for those of us who use these lenses on APS-C this could be a good comparison.

[Paul the Sunman]

I would be interested in expanding this comparison to include the DA 70 Limited. I have a K-3 and am not in a position to upgrade anytime soon. The DA 70 is one of my sharpest lenses and for those of us who use these lenses on APS-C this could be a good comparison.

Everything I've seen so far suggests the DA70 is just fine on FF.

[Another dyemention]

I used to own the sigma and now own the 77. The sigma was a nice lens and I can't really pick anything specific about it that I didn't like but I just never really warmed up to that lens. This is just my opinion but I guess I could say it was just all around average. The focusing was slow (even with the limiter) it was hefty but not heavy enough to help the handeling (like the DA* 200) and my copy wasn't overly sharp. It did have very nice bokeh though. I bought it to double duty as a macro and kind of a walk around portrait lens or music festivals but it was just too slow to use in that situation. Maybe in a studio it would be much better though. Now that it own the FA-77, I honestly couldn't see a reason to own the sigma. Another thing to consider with that lens (at least my experience) since it's not that popular, it's kind of hard to find a buyer if you ever want to sell it.

[Dice]

I've had all 3. No longer owning the DA70 or Sigma 70 macro and only recently acquiring the FA 77 in the last week. Most the previous responses highlight the key differences. If you check the lens photo archive you can see some images and make your own decision. If you plan to dabble in portraits but enjoy macro more or if resolution is your goal the sigma is a great choice. It was amazing for what it could resolve. It will be heavier, focus noisier and be a little less refined (styling if that matters to you). If macro doesn't interest you and you want to explore more portraits then check out the images between the DA70 and FA77 to find which of the two are more desirable. In my mind there are subtle differences that may not be important to you. PF did a side by side comparison between the FA and DA. As you probably already know the used market favors the sigma or DA70 which are reasonably priced used.

[Billk]

I only own one of the pair, but I would expect a direct comparison to be interesting. This much I would expect in advance:

• Sigma is much larger and weighs twice as much as the FA 77
• Sigma colors should be warmer than the FA 77 (typical of that vintage Sigma)*
• FA 77 gets the nod for build quality, though both are all metal construction
• Sigma should be sharper overall especially in the corners.
• FA 77 wins for handling, bokeh, low light utility, and pixie dust

Steve

* At least that is the case with my Sigma 50/2.8 EX DG Macro, the 70/2.8's stablemate.

I have both the FA77mm F1.8 and the Sigma 70mm F2.8 DG macro (though mine has a plastic barrel).

I concur with Stevebrot on all those points. Sigma lenses are warmer and slightly less contrasty.

I do use the Sigma for more than just macros but it is hard to go past the FA77. I feel my Sigma 35mm F1.4 Art has more of that special quality that the FA77 has but I would certainly still recommend the Sigma macros.

[Bob from Aus]

Other than for macro, the sigma is to sharp. It is so sharp it is crazy. After pixel peeping a portrait of my adult daughter, I had to check her hair for mites. It was only a speck of dust. I prefer the overall affect from the 77mm much more.

[Na Horuk]

Yeah, I don't have those two lenses, but isn't the main difference that one is a fast portrait prime, with nice lens character and rendering qualities; while the other is a brutally sharp macro lens, more suited for macro and product photography?
People photos generally need to have a nice way of rendering skin tones, bokeh, shallow DoF, things like that. But macro lenses are the exact opposite - super sharp, highly corrected, brutally honest, clinical. Now, sure, you can use the macro lens for portraits. And you can use extension tubes to get some macro out of the non-macro prime. But still, get the lens that most fits you needs. Just because they are both primes around 70mm does not mean they are similar lenses. They only have a similar FoV (measured when focused to infinity)