[monochrome]

Wow, that quote will sure make the heads of certain members here explode.

That also forms the basis for my opinion the Princesses should be left unmolested.

[leekil]

The reason I want evenness across the frame is that especially with the K-1 a crop to, say 24mp, is then achievable across the frame at 2:3 or 1:1 - this opens up many opportunities to recover a weak composition. At 24mp I can print to almost A2 without interpolation. With smudgey edges, I'm defeated from the start - kind of losses one of the extra usefulness of the K-1 for me.

What is your subject matter? Even with weak composition, isn't your main subject usually relatively centered, or at least not as extremely placed for the edges to be that significant?

[mattb123]

Matt...I don't think this is the right photo. Flickr says "TAMRON SP AF 28-75mm F2.8 XR Di"


Steve

Oops, I messed that post up. Here's a different K-1 & FA 77 photo but it's not stopped down enough to show corner sharpness.
I guess I don't use it for non-people shots much!

[normhead]

Advantages of the 77...

Virtually no CA. It goes from .11 pixel to .25 pixel , best wide open... the CA correction will ensure better contrast and sharpness.

Stopped won to 5.6 or F8 it is sharp edge to edge. There are very few lenses, that are this sharp on the edges.


The lens is a typical Hirakawa design, in that it's soft wide open for portrait work. But for exposures from ƒ4 to ƒ8 I doubt you can find more than a handful of lenses that will match it's centre sharpness at ƒ4 or overall sharpness at ƒ5.6 ƒ8.

HIrakawa said he had other design concepts in mind when he designed this lens, yet he produced a lens that is sharper than 99% of the lenses on the market. A portrait lens from ƒ1,8 to ƒ2.8 and a great landscape lens from ƒ4 to ƒ8 9and on a K-1 probably ƒ11.

I am constantly amazed at how many people read the above description and assume the lens isn't sharp. Any one who has gotten used to the Hiakawa philosophy with the 18-135 is going to love this lens.


This is the lens the camera store clerk out on the Nikon D810 to try and sell the camera.

The 77 makes it look like a complete dud.
I hate seeing discussions like this... folks do a little basic research. If you're going to claim the 77 isn't or you, fine, but show us what you think is better. Given it's performance at photozone, one has to ask, how much better could this lens even have been if he'd decided to go for across the charts MTF?

The only way this lens doesn't meet your needs is if you are shooting brick walls wide open. Otherwise it's going to make a mockery of whatever you decide is better. At least that's what my exploration of the charts has led me to believe.

YOU heard it right here on the forum....
" That 77 ltd. isn't good enough for me."

It takes all types.

---

Last edited by normhead; 03-01-2017 at 11:11 AM.

[clackers]

. Any one who has gotten used to the Hiakawa philosophy with the 18-135 is going to love this lens.

That's a Saori lens, but we know what you mean!

[normhead]

That's a Saori lens, but we know what you mean!

Still designed under the old philosophy though. "Lenses for the way people take pictures, not for the test charts."

The DA 70 isn't as good, but it's a more clinical lens and sharper wide open if you want clinical.


https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/324973-my-da-limiteds-k1.html

Anyone can make lenses like the DA 70, you don't need to shop Pentax for that.

[BarryE]

Well that sure rattled a few cages, in the nicest possible way. There's some useful advice and references there look at. Genuine thanks for taking the time.

Ref my composition post ... here goes why ... Landscapes only. I see a composition/light etc and I spend a long time working the location. From this I will bracket dof and vary compositions slightly. The light changes. If I'm in woodland, which is frequent, the light may just lift the scene on the side of a tree, say. Not the composition I first saw, but when back in post I "see" the possibilities of a 1:1 crop. I then notice that the centre focus is fine, but as I crop out from the centre, the edges become weaker and potentially unusable. It happens, especially in rapidly changing light in the woods, where I ply my 'trade'. Imagine my frustration with the D-FA 24-70 ! So back to primes. Love the D-FA 50 macro, my best and most trusted lens ...

Maybe the 77 would be a creative lens that I could work with. As Normhead mentions stopped down it will probably be fine, but as reliable as the 50 in practice ? I also, work on what I call more intimate landscapes, this is where the characteristics of a 'portrait' lens may be ideal, highlighting the subject and giving a great background, but then I shoot a lot into the sun and here the CA may be a problem. To be fair to the 24-70 it is very good into the sun ...

Little problems like this keep us shuffling our lenses around and around and around ...

[normhead]

What you might be looking for would be the Sigma 70 macro.

Look at these numbers right from ƒ 2.8


I shoot very few portraits, but not being able to afford the 77, this is what I bought, and it's also the reason I will probably never buy a 77. I love it for everything but it's size, and for that I've replaced it as a hiking lens with the FA 50 macro, but around the house and gardens, this is what I use.. It's also the lens Imaging Resources uses as the cross platform reference lens because it's been made to work natively with almost every platform out there. SO when Imagine Resources says a K-1 produces about 3500 lw/ph, this is the lens they tested with.

Sadly I can't find a landscape taken with it. I have a DA*60-250 which I just love as a landscape lens and that is really a stack of primes.

For a slideshow click here.

I'm in for a couple of days of rain here, or I'd go snap a couple for you on the K-1. Despite being an edge to edge lens, I really like it for portraits as well.

[stevebrot]

Maybe the 77 would be a creative lens that I could work with. As Normhead mentions stopped down it will probably be fine, but as reliable as the 50 in practice ? I also, work on what I call more intimate landscapes, this is where the characteristics of a 'portrait' lens may be ideal, highlighting the subject and giving a great background, but then I shoot a lot into the sun and here the CA may be a problem.

What would be ideal is if an FA 77 owner in the UK would agree to a meet-up to let you shoot a little with the FA 77. I have done this in the past with other photographers in my area and the experience is both fun and informative.

As for CA...that is difficult to predict. The lens does exhibit very mild LoCA at larger apertures that is fairly easy to demonstrate on 35mm film, but is not a significant quality factor for that medium. Whether that LoCA is expressed as full-on Purple Fringing (PF) depends on the sensor, the subject, and where exposure is placed by the photographer.*


Steve

* I did a direct comparison study with Ektar 100 vs. the K-3 under controlled conditions. Actually, it was more of a torture test. How does electronic flash, crinkled aluminum foil, and 2-3 stops extra exposure sound? Under those conditions, the K-3/FA 77 combo reliably produced PF, while there was none with Ektar 100. In general shooting, I am hard-put to remember PF being a problem with either my K-3 or K10D, though I am aware of a few images in my archives where it may have been present.

[stevebrot]

What you might be looking for would be the Sigma 70 macro.

My thoughts as well, though that lens is hard to find in K-mount. I would love to have a copy.


Steve

[BarryE]

What you might be looking for would be the Sigma 70 macro.

Look at these numbers right from ƒ 2.8


I shoot very few portraits, but not being able to afford the 77, this is what I bought, and it's also the reason I will probably never buy a 77. I love it for everything but it's size, and for that I've replaced it as a hiking lens with the FA 50 macro, but around the house and gardens, this is what I use.. It's also the lens Imaging Resources uses as the cross platform reference lens because it's been made to work natively with almost every platform out there. SO when Imagine Resources says a K-1 produces about 3500 lw/ph, this is the lens they tested with.

Sadly I can't find a landscape taken with it. I have a DA*60-250 which I just love as a landscape lens and that is really a stack of primes.

For a slideshow click here.

I'm in for a couple of days of rain here, or I'd go snap a couple for you on the K-1. Despite being an edge to edge lens, I really like it for portraits as well.

Thanks Norm. Again helpful. I hadn't really looked at the Sigma as it seemed larger than I wanted. Taking a quick look at the reviews it does seem to have the uniformity I'm looking for, but maybe a little heavy. I'll think on it ... I see you rate the FA 50 ... If I'm prepared to lug two bodies around on a hike, I default to the 50 on a K-1 and DA* 50-135 on a K3. It's a combination that works nicely for me.

Some nice examples in the slideshow. Thanks, I see the lens (and photographer) work well ...

---------- Post added 03-01-17 at 07:52 PM ----------

What would be ideal is if an FA 77 owner in the UK would agree to a meet-up to let you shoot a little with the FA 77. I have done this in the past with other photographers in my area and the experience is both fun and informative.

As for CA...that is difficult to predict. The lens does exhibit very mild LoCA at larger apertures that is fairly easy to demonstrate on 35mm film, but is not a significant quality factor for that medium. Whether that LoCA is expressed as full-on Purple Fringing (PF) depends on the sensor, the subject, and where exposure is placed by the photographer.*

.

Good idea, Steve ...

[Smolk]

Are the Sigma numbers taken with the same sensor as the 77mm ? If not, how comparable are those data?

[normhead]

The Sigma numbers are taken on a different sensor, as far as I know it was never tested APS-c Pentax cameras. But, you can make rough guesses from the curves. Don't try and use hard numbers, but it does give you a pretty accurate assessment of the lens, or at least IR and photozone's copies of the lens. As a general rule, it's not information to buy on, but it might give you some clues as to where to look. We also have a Tamon 90 which is pretty spectacular. We seem to prefer the rendering of Macro lenses. We have many landscapes taken with the Tamron 90, which is also highly rated on whatever platform it's on. I believe DxO has tested it on everything but Pentax, and it's always up there.

[stevebrot]

Are the Sigma numbers taken with the same sensor as the 77mm ? If not, how comparable are those data?

No. The FA 77/1.4 was tested by photozone.de on the K10D (10 Mpx APS-C). They have not tested the Sigma 70/2.8 EX DG Macro on Pentax. I believe the graph posted above is from their test of the Sigma on the Canon EOS 5DII (20 Mpx 24x36 FF).


Steve

[Sandy Hancock]

Letting the lens guide me with its own character is possibly a luxury at present - not so much in cost, but rather the time to 'learn' it.

There's not much to learn; just point it at someone's face, and focus on the eye. But if you don't shoot portraits, you're probably right.

Full frame @ f/2.0



APS-C @ f/1.8