[yozza]

Good points. Comparing the 77 to the 50 1.4, the shots do have more of a pop to them with all portraits i have viewed so far as well. thanks

[MadMathMind]

How would you compare the 43 to the 50, or if anyone has tried the 55?

I've tried all these. Here's my thoughts. First, the standard is the FA77. It is the alpha, the omega, and everything in between.

I had the 43 and found it....well, I had a thread about that. Let's put it this way: I got a lot of people riled up because my opinion, in a nutshell, is that it's garbage on the the K-1. The field curvature is terrible on that lens so you have to be dead on or you'll see horrible distortion--like, you can watch the image warp in the viewfinder like it were a UWA. The curvature also means that you don't get strong focus because the focal plane only intersects part of the image. Bleagh.

I've used the FA50 f/1.7 and it was my go-to normal lens after I bailed on the FA43. It's acceptable and can do some nice things but the rendering is rather pedestrian if you're above f/3.2. The f/1.4 variant is not nearly as sharp and is a bit soft at all apertures. Just lacks that special detail. Both are adequate but just feel so...ordinary.

So now I have the DA*55. It's basically a shorter version of the FA77 with slightly less interesting bokeh. It matches the 77 in resolution and sharpness. It's marvelous!!

Here's the 55 in action:








Meanwhile, here's the 77 doing its thing:

[UncleVanya]

Click on the 2nd picture in Ranchy's post. Follow that to Flickr. Then click on the picture info and see the albums. The Verna model shoot is the one you want. Browse it. You will see full body shots made at 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm. Notice that the background changes in relation to the focal length as well as some features of the model. But shooting ful body distorts the model less with the wider lenses than head shots would.

So not only do we need to know that you plan to do full body shots, we need to know at what distance and what type of background you want.

[yozza]

Yes i think im going to have to go with the 77mm. All the shots i have seen are ridiculiously sharp and it's more affordable than the 85mm

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Yes i think im going to have to go with the 77mm. All the shots i have seen are ridiculiously sharp and it's more affordable than the 85mm

Seems like a great choice. And if for some reason you don't love working with it, it shouldn't be hard to find a buyer since it's a pretty popular lens.

[markcphoto]

F1.4

That last one is a little too RANCHY

[MadMathMind]

Yes i think im going to have to go with the 77mm. All the shots i have seen are ridiculiously sharp and it's more affordable than the 85mm

You won't be disappointed.

[Des]

Thanks to Ranchy and MMM for sharing the images and experiences with these lenses.

I must admit I'm having trouble concentrating on the bokeh.

[ranchy]

That last one is a little too RANCHY

opps.. lol

@yozza , i agree with MadMathMind, you won't be disappointed with FA77

[mgoblue]

Another vote for 77. 50 1.4 is great for portraits on APSC, but not as flattering on full frame.
Of course 50 is versatile in other ways. Back in the film days 77-135 were portrait lengths. 135 is very flattering, especially outdoors were you can have the working distance, but 77 is more useful: First lens I would buy with a K1.

[Driline]

I've tried all these. Here's my thoughts. First, the standard is the FA77. It is the alpha, the omega, and everything in between.

Why not purchase the DA*50-135? It's like a stack of primes. That way you get your 55 and 77 in the same lens!

[UncleVanya]

I am looking at buying my first portrait lense for a k1...

This is why.

---------- Post added 10-29-16 at 06:49 PM ----------

Why not purchase the DA*50-135? It's like a stack of primes. That way you get your 55 and 77 in the same lens!

I love mine but I shoot on k-3.

[yozza]

I've tried all these. Here's my thoughts. First, the standard is the FA77. It is the alpha, the omega, and everything in between.

I had the 43 and found it....well, I had a thread about that. Let's put it this way: I got a lot of people riled up because my opinion, in a nutshell, is that it's garbage on the the K-1. The field curvature is terrible on that lens so you have to be dead on or you'll see horrible distortion--like, you can watch the image warp in the viewfinder like it were a UWA. The curvature also means that you don't get strong focus because the focal plane only intersects part of the image. Bleagh.

I've used the FA50 f/1.7 and it was my go-to normal lens after I bailed on the FA43. It's acceptable and can do some nice things but the rendering is rather pedestrian if you're above f/3.2. The f/1.4 variant is not nearly as sharp and is a bit soft at all apertures. Just lacks that special detail. Both are adequate but just feel so...ordinary.

So now I have the DA*55. It's basically a shorter version of the FA77 with slightly less interesting bokeh. It matches the 77 in resolution and sharpness. It's marvelous!!

Here's the 55 in action:








Meanwhile, here's the 77 doing its thing:

these are great shots madmath, does the 55mm give you any af problems at all?

[Driline]

This is why.

---------- Post added 10-29-16 at 06:49 PM ----------



I love mine but I shoot on k-3.

Oops

[MadMathMind]

these are great shots madmath, does the 55mm give you any af problems at all?

So far, no. It's not quite as fast as the 77 simply because the SDM motor isn't as speedy as the screw-drive motor in the K-1 now, but so far, so good. It doesn't hunt or anything and is more than fine for portrait/model work. I've only had it for about a month (bought second hand) and only taken it to three shoots but it's been great for me so far. I didn't even have to calibrate it, something not true of my FA Limited lenses, although I think I'll take a look at it for sure.