Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-20-2008, 06:12 AM   #1
Veteran Member
OrenMc's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,902
Takumar 85 1.8 vs 77 limited

I probably should have done this before my purchase but its done now. Just waiting on the parcel.

Does anyone have both of these lens that can do a comparison. I have the 1.9 and love how it preforms but the 1.8 is suppose to be superior. My 1.9 doesn't have the coating and I have noticed a little CA. But definately not bad.

I have looked at this comparison http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_tele.html

it show the K out resolves the 77. And some say there is virtually no CA.

I know I am going to get it as there are a lot of 77 limited lovers out there but remember this is a Pentax lens also so be kind.

08-20-2008, 08:44 AM   #2
Pentaxian
ryan s's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,370
I know lots of random facts about various things, but one thing I could care less about is resolution. I don't even know the unit its measured in, or what numbers are "good."

It doesn't really matter what others say. If you like it, cool. What if I had a bad experience with a 77 and called it a sucky lens? What if it was the best thing since the internal combustion engine? They're different lenses, it's not like they're both Pentax 50mm so they will act differently...
08-20-2008, 08:56 AM   #3
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by ryan s Quote
I know lots of random facts about various things, but one thing I could care less about is resolution. I don't even know the unit its measured in, or what numbers are "good."
thats really a shame that you havent a clue about resolution, what it is and how it impacts on bottom line image quality.

i would suggest reading into it.
08-20-2008, 09:01 AM   #4
Pentaxian
ryan s's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Madison, WI
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,370
I'm blissful on that subject

08-20-2008, 10:10 AM   #5
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,610
resolution isn't the be all and end all of lens quality

QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
thats really a shame that you havent a clue about resolution, what it is and how it impacts on bottom line image quality.

i would suggest reading into it.
Yes, it's important, but so is flare resistance, CA/PF issues, color rendition, distortion, ergonomics, bokeh, and probably a dozen other things I've forgotten. And yes, a few of the above can be corrected in PP, however, others cannot. And besides, I'd rather be taking pictures rather than trying to correct the ones already taken. I try to judge the lenses I use on a much much broader scale than just resolution.

NaCl(more than one criteria is needed to judge the worth of a lens to you)H2O
08-20-2008, 10:13 AM   #6
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by NaClH2O Quote
Yes, it's important, but so is flare resistance, CA/PF issues, color rendition, distortion, ergonomics, bokeh, and probably a dozen other things I've forgotten. And yes, a few of the above can be corrected in PP, however, others cannot. And besides, I'd rather be taking pictures rather than trying to correct the ones already taken. I try to judge the lenses I use on a much much broader scale than just resolution.

NaCl(more than one criteria is needed to judge the worth of a lens to you)H2O
i never denied any of the mentioned aspects.

however resolution as it relates to sharpnes, focus, and clarity, is something one should try to understand as much as the other parts.



My friend and I compared his Canon 50mm F1.4L on a 30D to my FA50 1.4 on my K20D, doing infinity shots of a brick building about 100 yards away, it was clear that i had much greater resolving power at 1x1 pixel because i could distinguish the lines between bricks, while he could not.

Last edited by Gooshin; 08-20-2008 at 10:19 AM.
08-20-2008, 02:36 PM   #7
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote

My friend and I compared his Canon 50mm F1.4L on a 30D to my FA50 1.4 on my K20D, doing infinity shots of a brick building about 100 yards away, it was clear that i had much greater resolving power at 1x1 pixel because i could distinguish the lines between bricks, while he could not.

Canon 50 f1.4 is not an L lens and it is one of the worst lenses I have owned (being charged close to 800 US dollars moer than 10 years ago). Its autofocus hunts a lot more than Fa 50mm f1.4 and inaccurate focusing is always an issue. It is not sharp below f2.8 either and this well known among the canon users. Again, good photographers would not mind what lenses are used as long as they could work around the weaknesses.

The rumour has it that canon 50 f1.8 is way better than 50 f1.4 at the same aperture f1.8 ...

Canon 30D sensor is really a slack sensor almost identical to 20d without much improvement. This combination is definite inferior to k10d in terms of resolving power not to even compare to k20d.
08-20-2008, 02:39 PM   #8
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
sorry my bad, his 35mm is the L, the 50 is not.

08-20-2008, 06:00 PM   #9
Veteran Member
OrenMc's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,902
Original Poster
Okay, maybe I asked the wrong question or didn't ask it right.

First of all I am fairly new to this so maybe the comparison isn't a proper one.
My thinking though was they are both primarily both designed for portrait. They both have a simular focal range ( I've heard most 85's are closer to 80mm ) with the same aperture.

I'm I really trying to compare that different of a lens that isn't fair to either?
Maybe I am just trying to get some really positive info so I don't feel so bad about going the way I did.

As it is though, I have heard that the Takumar is one of the best Pentax lenses ever. F stop for F stop it is equal to the * 85 1.4 up to 5.6 then the 1.4 takes it with an edge.

When it all boils down though I know I will be able to get some valuable use and enjoyment regardless.

Last edited by OrenMc; 08-20-2008 at 08:23 PM.
08-20-2008, 06:56 PM   #10
Veteran Member
Abbazz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Myanmar
Posts: 524
Oren, here are a few links that you might find useful:

Comparison between FA 77/1.8 Ltd & SMC-Takumar 85/1.8 (many pictures): Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/13931-k85mm-1-...lly-great.html

Hope this helps.

Cheers!

Abbazz
08-20-2008, 08:22 PM   #11
Veteran Member
OrenMc's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,902
Original Poster
Abbazz,
Thanks for the links. Thanks for taking the time. To tell you the truth I'm not sure what to think though. I mean in most of the close up photos the 77's are much sharper but I wonder if it isn't focusing related.
There are a couple distance shots that prove different where focusing isn't such a big factor.
I have to do about the same AV ( + 2/3 ) with my 1.9

I don't know how to do a good scientic test but folks have already done that so the niumbers are there. I know the Takumar is dated but if its better than my Super Tak 1.9 I will be a happy camper. And of course it is.

Conclusion: The lens is capable, but am I?
08-21-2008, 08:20 AM   #12
Veteran Member
Fritz's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Tillamook, OR
Posts: 1,168
QuoteOriginally posted by OrenMc Quote
Abbazz,

I have to do about the same AV ( + 2/3 ) with my 1.9

I sanded the paint off the part of the lens that contacts the points on the camera that communicates with the lens. This fixed the need for exposure compensation for me with my 85mm f1.9.

I can force PF by shooting chrome surfaces wide open. But otherwise I have had no bad behavior from the Super Takumar 85mm f1.9.
08-21-2008, 09:17 AM   #13
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
You're waiting on a parcel? Not sure what's in it from your post, but I'm sure it's a lens you can shoot great stuff with. I like my FA77, because it's small, fast, sharp and looks cool. I am sure there are other reasons to like/dislike it.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
ca, comparison, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Takumar: Super Takumar 135mm f3.5 includes case, hood and caps Peter Zack Sold Items 7 05-17-2010 07:12 PM
For Sale - Sold: 18-55mm AL II, DA 40 limited, -m 50, 200, takumar (bayonet) 135mm nupentaxian Sold Items 14 11-04-2008 10:53 AM
For Sale - Sold: FA limited 43mm/f1.9 (black), FA limited 77mm/f1.8 (silver), FA 28-105mm/f3.2- chemxaj Sold Items 24 10-16-2008 11:17 AM
shopping for a wide: 28mm SMC vs Takumar, or even a 21mm DA limited?! shoey Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 11-02-2006 07:11 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:15 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top