[UncleVanya]

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



Crop @ f/1.8

I have always been a fan of the second shot. I love the background and the great smile on your daughter's face. The B&W treatment is excellent as well. But I think I've said all that before.

[clackers]

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 ......

Nothing wrong with using a macro lens to take portraits or landscapes, Barry, if you want edge-to-edge sharpness. I have 50mm and 90mm ones that don't just take pics of flowers and insects. The design constraint of f2.8 to achieve that is something you'll cope with.

Many landscapers will do an ultrawide by multiple overlapping shots of a 'normal' lens and combining in Photoshop.

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 ...

Well, the 77 is an excellent portrait lens, and of course, stopped down will do landscapes too. This is on the K-1, since you were wondering.

[DDoram]

I can find APSC reviews of this lens, but none on full frame. There's many helpful, subjective comment, but there's a shortage of hard test data. Of course test data does not show the full story and I know I could hire one, but I'm trying at this stage to get a better feel for this lens and how it compares on FF sensors.

I'd like to try and understand how sharp the 77 is across the frame on a FF sensor. My measure so far is the D-FA 50 macro which is excellent across the entire frame - something I value. I'm not especially interested in wide aperture performance as I tend to work from between around f5.6 to f13, though of course this may change if I ever get my hands on this treasured lens ...

I've recently picked up a FA 35 f2 which is good, but is not quite up to the 50 at maintaining its edges & corner definition. So I'd like to try and understand how the 77 compares at its edges, perhaps comparing with these two lenses.

The recently announced 85 is likely to be too big and heavy. Of course if the 77 was to updated to HD and WR that would be nice, but there does not seem to much likelyhood of that happening, and anyway it would not change the peripheral characteristics of the lens I'm interested in.

Just a thought, how might the new 85 and the 77 differ ? Yes the 85 will be WR and have HD coating, and yes the FL will be marginally different. It appears that it will also be larger and heavier. Maybe as a modern lens the 85 will be designed to be flatter across the frame. Maybe this will be the big difference ? The bokeh will be different, but I never really found this bothers me too much for my style. So is being produced because Pentax feel they need to be seen to producing an 85mm ? A HD WR 77 would rather negate the new 85 I suspect ...

Many thanks

The FA 77mm is sharp on K1 and really comes into its own in FF. It is still my best overall lens for IQ and I have other greats like the DFA 50 macro, DFA 70-200. The only issue I have with the FA 77 is its tendency for flare, which is higher than the modern HD coated lenses.

[pinholecam]

I can find APSC reviews of this lens, but none on full frame. There's many helpful, subjective comment, but there's a shortage of hard test data. Of course test data does not show the full story and I know I could hire one, but I'm trying at this stage to get a better feel for this lens and how it compares on FF sensors.

I'd like to try and understand how sharp the 77 is across the frame on a FF sensor. My measure so far is the D-FA 50 macro which is excellent across the entire frame - something I value. I'm not especially interested in wide aperture performance as I tend to work from between around f5.6 to f13, though of course this may change if I ever get my hands on this treasured lens ...
........................
..............

........................
Just a thought, how might the new 85 and the 77 differ ? Yes the 85 will be WR and have HD coating, and yes the FL will be marginally different. It appears that it will also be larger and heavier. Maybe as a modern lens the 85 will be designed to be flatter across the frame. Maybe this will be the big difference ? The bokeh will be different, but I never really found this bothers me too much for my style. So is being produced because Pentax feel they need to be seen to producing an 85mm ? A HD WR 77 would rather negate the new 85 I suspect ...

Many thanks

I left full sized samples here :
Bali Reverie - A Pentax K1 real World review - Page 2


To me, the 77ltd is excellent.
Feels and uses (eg. working distance and portability) like a longish 50mm than a 85mm.
Its a unique offering which I feel is what makes Pentax different.


85mm is different to 77mm imo.
A bit shallow DOF for the same FOV, which can count if you are out looking for it.
Also that shallow DOF 'effect' extends better to half body shots and portrait orientation full body shots and seated shots (even with a bit of stopping down on both lenses).


That said, I combi the 77mm with the 35mm (and either a 14mm or 20mm)
If I used the 85mm, its usually paired with a 50mm or 43ltd. (and UWA options or a 24mm)

[BarryE]

I left full sized samples here :
Bali Reverie - A Pentax K1 real World review - Page 2


To me, the 77ltd is excellent.
Feels and uses (eg. working distance and portability) like a longish 50mm than a 85mm.
Its a unique offering which I feel is what makes Pentax different.


85mm is different to 77mm imo.
A bit shallow DOF for the same FOV, which can count if you are out looking for it.
Also that shallow DOF 'effect' extends better to half body shots and portrait orientation full body shots and seated shots (even with a bit of stopping down on both lenses).


That said, I combi the 77mm with the 35mm (and either a 14mm or 20mm)
If I used the 85mm, its usually paired with a 50mm or 43ltd. (and UWA options or a 24mm)

Nice review of the K1 features, by the way. More helpful info to confuse me - thank you. I wish someone would just say 'buy it', it would be so simple then...Did I really encourage that !!

[pepperberry farm]

dude, buy it....


if you don't like it, flip it - you'll get your money back....

[normhead]

I don't own one, but I love seeing images taken with it. You should buy it.

I would but, I love macro so much, I know I'll be happier with my Sigma.

[Na Horuk]

Haha well a lot of us dream of getting the FA 77mm. The main issue of course is that they are not always easy to find and they are not exactly cheap. I doubt it will disappoint you. If you buy used, you can still sell it after a few months at a minimal loss (possibly no loss at all).

[stevebrot]

I left full sized samples here :
Bali Reverie - A Pentax K1 real World review - Page 2

Well! I guess those answer the corner sharpness questions


Steve

[pinholecam]

Nice review of the K1 features, by the way. More helpful info to confuse me - thank you. I wish someone would just say 'buy it', it would be so simple then...Did I really encourage that !!

Ok...


"Buy it"

Well! I guess those answer the corner sharpness questions


Steve

indeed

In fact I find that the 77ltd is 50mm like sharp stopped down more than 85mm sharp

[Kozlok]

I have both the Sigma 70 and the 77. They are both just insanely sharp. You are definitely over thinking this. At f4, the "weak" borders on the 77 are sharper than the center of 99% of lenses out there. Also, it is literally free for you to buy a used one because you can sell it for what you paid. Just sell it if it's not right for you.

I got the 77 because the Sigma 70 is too heavy to carry around.

[UncleVanya]

This. ^^^^^^^^

[ChatMechant]

I just completed a month with the 77 on the K-1. You really can't go wrong with that combo. Here's a couple shots, click thru if you want to see the rest of the month on my flickr.
stopped down:


wide open:

[Smolk]

Just for comparison, the Sigma 2.8/70mm numbers above were tested on a FF Canon; the more equivalent test on an APS-C Canon result in numbers more comparable to those of the 1.8/77mm Pentax Limited:



Compared to the 1.8/77mm, the Sigma only outdoes the Pentax at 2.8 at the borders (it does not have 1.8 of course), from f4 onwards the Pentax betters the Sigma (even though the test does not show all apertures of the Pentax for some reason).
Still, the numbers are not truly comparable, as the sensors differ, and the far more even numbers of the Sigma still stand out. But whether the Sigma beats the Pentax given the same sensor must remain open.

[normhead]

Just for comparison, the Sigma 2.8/70mm numbers above were tested on a FF Canon; the more equivalent test on an APS-C Canon result in numbers more comparable to those of the 1.8/77mm Pentax Limited:



Compared to the 1.8/77mm, the Sigma only outdoes the Pentax at 2.8 at the borders (it does not have 1.8 of course), from f4 onwards the Pentax betters the Sigma (even though the test does not show all apertures of the Pentax for some reason).
Still, the numbers are not truly comparable, as the sensors differ, and the more even numbers of the Sigma still stand out. But whether the Sigma beats the Pentax given the same sensor must remain open.

All you can say from the numbers is, other factors than the numbers, like rendering, bokeh, 3D spacial representation etc. should probably be the factors that guide the decision. The one that guided me was one is macro, one isn't. And one weighs more and is bigger, but, I bit the bullet and went for the macro.

And once you take into account sample variation... these numbers tell you very little, except they are both very good lenses.