[bdery]

Both lenses will work very well. It depends.

If you ONLY want to do single-person portraits, then the 77 is smallerm, has a faster aperture and is less expensive.

If you want a versatile lens that can perform quite well for portraits, don't mind the cost and the size, then go with the 24-70. It also focuses a bit faster and is silent.

I've tested the latter for Pentaxforums and was impressed. Strongly. But the one I own is the 77. I use the 16-85 as a walkaround, versatile lens (yes, even on the K-1) and pop on the 77 when I want that special rendering.

[Rondec]

Some who have these 2 have stated theres not a lot of difference,i own the cheaper version and its GOOD.At around half the cost or better i think what i saved will go towards the DFA 85mm f1.4,its worth waiting 4.That 1.4!

I suppose the question comes down to how much you want/need f2.8. Then too, you could get the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 which is pretty cheap and save money in that regard. I just know that for me, the DFA 24-70 is probably my most used lens on my K-1, mainly because of the focal lengths it covers. It certainly isn't a perfect lens, but it is in the "very good" category.

The OP did ask for input between the DFA 24-70 and the FA 77 and that is a pretty simple question for me for someone who doesn't already own a walk around lens that covers the normal range.

[leekil]

That said, if you are looking at full frame, you need a standard lens. The only two that Pentax offers are the DFA 24-70 and DFA 28-105. I got the 24-70 because it goes to f2.8. I like it a lot. It would be my standard walk around lens and works well on APS-C too.

It depends what you mean by a "standard lens". There are also the FA50 and DA*55 or even the DA35 or FA31 for a standard lens on full frame. I'm not knocking zooms, but i usually have a prime on my camera most of the time -- for several reasons, but the size & weight is an important one.

[Rondec]

It depends what you mean by a "standard lens". There are also the FA50 and DA*55 or even the DA35 or FA31 for a standard lens on full frame. I'm not knocking zooms, but i usually have a prime on my camera most of the time -- for several reasons, but the size & weight is an important one.

I would have a hard time calling the FA 77 a "standard lens." People are throwing out all kinds of different lenses here, but as far as I can tell, the opening poster asked about the FA 77 versus the DFA 24-70, but I guess I could be wrong.

Personally I have no trouble with the size and weight of the DFA 24-70 but opinions vary on that.

[giselag]

Both lenses will work very well. It depends.

If you ONLY want to do single-person portraits, then the 77 is smallerm, has a faster aperture and is less expensive.

If you want a versatile lens that can perform quite well for portraits, don't mind the cost and the size, then go with the 24-70. It also focuses a bit faster and is silent.

I've tested the latter for Pentaxforums and was impressed. Strongly. But the one I own is the 77. I use the 16-85 as a walkaround, versatile lens (yes, even on the K-1) and pop on the 77 when I want that special rendering.

I have a 16 -85 mm lens for my k3 . You mentioned you use it on the K1.
I wasn't sure if I could use that lens on a k1. Does it work well with the K1?

[bdery]

I have a 16 -85 mm lens for my k3 . You mentioned you use it on the K1.
I wasn't sure if I could use that lens on a k1. Does it work well with the K1?

It works just as well as on the K-3. The only caveat is that the K-1 must be in "crop mode" (where it crops to APS-C size) or in auto crop mode (where it detects DA lenses and crops those). The 16-85 does not fill the FF image circle. So when you use the 16-85, you get a 16 MP APS-C camera with the K-1's ergonomics and features.

[BarryE]

How can you compare the two ? Personally I find the 24-70, only an average lens at the edges. It's heavy and I find that restrictive, but it is flexible and WR so it does have it's use. The 77 is a much more creative lens. The 3d effects are outstanding, but I don't use it that much, mostly as it's not WR and I don't like changing lenses in poor weather, but when I do, it shines. Is the OP going to use the chosen lens for studio work rather than outside ? I suppose the outside is likely to be in good weather, so for portrait get the 77 and the DFA 24-105 instead.

[Rondec]

I'm probably one of the bigger proponents of the DFA 24-70. It is just a pretty versatile lens. Nothing against the FA 77, but if I could only shoot with that for a month, I think I would feel frustrated.

[mikesbike]

Most photographers would choose both. They are really in two different lens-use categories, though there can be some overlap. The DFA 24-70mm f/2.8 can't get to 77mm, nor can it offer a larger aperture than f/2.8, while the FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited is limited to 77mm, and does not offer WR. It is the old excellent prime lens compared to excellent zoom lens, but here there really is no comparison. Each has its advantages. There are some zoom lenses that compare favorably to fine prime lenses in the same focal length, like the DA 20-40mm Limited, but this is not the usual case, and it is not the case here.

As to which is best for portraits- it is the 77mm Limited, hands down. Its focal length is definitely better than 70mm, especially when used full-frame. Its available aperture is definitely better. It is a great low-light lens for many situations. Many or even most 85mm prime lenses, when tested, actually fall somewhat short of their stated focal length, which is allowable by a certain percent. The Pentax FA 77mm Limited was tested by POP Photo being right on the money, hence its odd-ball 77mm rating. That was Pentax reflecting precision in their FA Limited line. It is indeed a great lens, and for many other uses in addition to portraits.

[giselag]

It works just as well as on the K-3. The only caveat is that the K-1 must be in "crop mode" (where it crops to APS-C size) or in auto crop mode (where it detects DA lenses and crops those). The 16-85 does not fill the FF image circle. So when you use the 16-85, you get a 16 MP APS-C camera with the K-1's ergonomics and features.

Thank you for the info.

[giselag]

Both lenses will work very well. It depends.

If you ONLY want to do single-person portraits, then the 77 is smallerm, has a faster aperture and is less expensive.

If you want a versatile lens that can perform quite well for portraits, don't mind the cost and the size, then go with the 24-70. It also focuses a bit faster and is silent.

I've tested the latter for Pentaxforums and was impressed. Strongly. But the one I own is the 77. I use the 16-85 as a walkaround, versatile lens (yes, even on the K-1) and pop on the 77 when I want that special rendering.

Sounds like the 77mm is the way to go for nice portraits and bokeh.

If I buy one soon, I would be using it on my k3 until I can purchase a k1. I'm not familiar with FA lenses and their compatibilities with
crop sensor cameras. I know that the focal length changes to 115mm. Will all the features on my k3 work with that lens? Are there any limitations?
Also, do you find that the lens is super sharp on the k3 even though you have to shoot from a longer distance?
Just out of curiosity. Can you upload a picture taken with the k3 / 77mm and k1 /77mm. Same picture with the same f stop.

Just want to see the difference.

[bdery]

If I buy one soon, I would be using it on my k3 until I can purchase a k1. I'm not familiar with FA lenses and their compatibilities with crop sensor cameras.

Fully compatible. Crop sensors only crop, after all

I know that the focal length changes to 115mm.

It does not. The field of view changes and looks like that of a 115 on FF.

Will all the features on my k3 work with that lens? Are there any limitations?

None.

Also, do you find that the lens is super sharp on the k3 even though you have to shoot from a longer distance?

the sensor size does not influence sharpness. The K-3's pixels are smaller than that of the K-1, so sharpness limitations would be more visible, but in this case, the lens is sharp, period.

Can you upload a picture taken with the k3 / 77mm and k1 /77mm. Same picture with the same f stop.

I'm currently working on the review of the 77 (and other FA limiteds) for pentaxforums. As such I've shot many comparative images on the K-3 and K-1. I can offer a test chart comparison, cropped in the center, at F2 for the moment (for the rest you'll have to be patient . The textures you see weer caused by the printer.

K-3


K-1

[redcat]

Fully compatible. Crop sensors only crop, after all



It does not. The field of view changes and looks like that of a 115 on FF.



None.



the sensor size does not influence sharpness. The K-3's pixels are smaller than that of the K-1, so sharpness limitations would be more visible, but in this case, the lens is sharp, period.



I'm currently working on the review of the 77 (and other FA limiteds) for pentaxforums. As such I've shot many comparative images on the K-3 and K-1. I can offer a test chart comparison, cropped in the center, at F2 for the moment (for the rest you'll have to be patient . The textures you see weer caused by the printer.

K-3


K-1

awesome, I'll wait for your official review, I have a 77 on a k3 and never disappointed by them, and still looking for k1 discount someday

[Sandy Hancock]

If you want general photographic versatility, I think the 28-105 wins. It is also a dead-set BARGAIN.
If you want pure, unadulterated portrait pixie dust, the 77 wins handsomely. Unless you hold out for an 85/1.4
If you shoot events, especially indoors, I'd go for the 24-70/2.8

That's why I have all three of them.

[edit]all four actually [/edit]

[giselag]

Both lenses will work very well. It depends.

If you ONLY want to do single-person portraits, then the 77 is smallerm, has a faster aperture and is less expensive.

If you want a versatile lens that can perform quite well for portraits, don't mind the cost and the size, then go with the 24-70. It also focuses a bit faster and is silent.

I've tested the latter for Pentaxforums and was impressed. Strongly. But the one I own is the 77. I use the 16-85 as a walkaround, versatile lens (yes, even on the K-1) and pop on the 77 when I want that special rendering.

How good is the bokeh with the 24-70 when doing single person portraits or families compared to the 77mm?

Is the bokeh decent enough at f2.8 with the 24-70mm?

I currently have a K3 with a 50mm f1.8 and 15 -85 mm but seriously thinking about upgrading to full frame very soon.