[normhead]

Or you can sell it and buy another expensive lens to see if that one impresses you.

Or you can just keep some of them and use them once in a while because you didn’t have things growing up and now you can.

The opportunities are endless.

[UncleVanya]

Yep.

I have been using the FA*85 daily this month, and one thing the process has done is made me realise how wonderful the FA77 is. At f/1.8 the output is almost indistinguishable, and at wider apertures I'm not really warming to the 85. I am also an admirer of Chris' glamour photography, but his earlier work with the 77 on crop was already excellent. Who's to say any improvement since he got the FA*85 has not been due to developing skills with lighting, model interaction and post processing (and the K-1) rather than the new lens?

I've had a number of conversations with Chris and he says that the post processing needed with the FA 77 to get what he wanted from it was extensive. The switch to the FA* 85 has required considerably less post processing to get the results he wants @lerolls. But that's just my take on it - I imagine he could add more color to this discussion. That doesn't mean the lens is better for all things. From what I have read about that lens (I've only used the A* 85 not the FA*) the lens is designed to be a little soft wide open for portraits - the same cannot be said for the A* 85 which is a very revealing lens in my opinion. In any case, I stand by the fact that the move to the FA 77 was not a loss for me. I needed autofocus. I also don't love large size lenses as much as I once did - I will use them when needed but I find I love the FA 77 for the size. But I'm still shooting just cropped so my experience may not be reflected by those using a K-1. I suspect the FA 31 would be a larger factor in my photography if I had a K-1.

---------- Post added 10-12-17 at 12:00 PM ----------

The biggest things I notice are that the colors on the FA 31 seem to pop a little more and the transitions from in focus to out of focus seem smoother with the the limited versus other lenses in that focal length. Overall the differences are small and if you are stopped down much probably they look good.

I thought about this. I haven't really looked at it that way in the past. Here's a tale of two lenses in photos. I'm still not sure what to think. In my photography I see subtle differences - the FA 31 is a great lens, but the FA 35 is a very high fraction of that lens in my opinion. The DA 35 which I also owned in the past never excited me like these. And I am aware that the DA 35 is supposedly the same optical formula as the FA 35.

FA 31 Limited

(K3, FA 31 Limited,ƒ/2.5, 1/320s, ISO 100, This shot may have been processed from JPG on my Chromebook.)


(K3, FA 31 Limited, f/1.8, 1/500s, ISO 200)


FA 35

(K3, FA 35, f/2.0, 1/500s, ISO 200)


(K3, FA 35, f/2.0, 1/1000s, ISO 200)

[Rondec]

Yep.

I have been using the FA*85 daily this month, and one thing the process has done is made me realise how wonderful the FA77 is. At f/1.8 the output is almost indistinguishable, and at wider apertures I'm not really warming to the 85. I am also an admirer of Chris' glamour photography, but his earlier work with the 77 on crop was already excellent. Who's to say any improvement since he got the FA*85 has not been due to developing skills with lighting, model interaction and post processing (and the K-1) rather than the new lens?

My guess is that the 85 is optimized more for portraits and that he also likes the slightly longer focal length.

[pres589]

I've sometimes wondered if the DA35 f2.4 wasn't fast enough to "feel special". Depth of field is never shallow enough for my liking. I've wondered what Nikon folks think of the ~$200USD 35mm f1.8 lens that they have available to them but not enough to actually go looking.

35mm also never really did it for me on crop but that's even harder to describe as to why.

[angerdan]

The greatest Pentax lens of all time has choosen to be the FA 77mm 1.8:
The Greatest Pentax Lens Of All Time - Pentax Lens Tournament | PentaxForums.com

Anyway, "Average User Rating" for AF lenses shows following order:
Rating Lens
10..FA* 250-600mm F5.6 ED [IF]
10..FA* 200mm F4 Macro ED [IF]
10..Venus Optics Laowa 12mm F2.8 Zero-D
9,9 FA* 300mm F2.8 ED [IF]
9,9 F* 300mm F4.5 ED [IF]
9,9 HD DA 35mm F2.8 Limited Macro
9,8 Carl Zeiss 100mm F2 ZK Makro-Planar T*
9,8 Samyang 135mm F2.0 ED UMC
9,8 Sigma 500mm F4.5 EX DG APO
9,8 F* 600mm F4 ED [IF]
9,8 Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX APO DG
9,7 FA* 85mm F1.4 [IF]
9,7 FA 77mm F1.8 Limited
9,7 FA* 200mm F2.8 ED [IF]
9,7 FA* 300mm F4.5 ED [IF]
9,7 DA* 300mm F4 ED [IF] SDM
9,7 HD D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 ED DC AW
9,7 F 50mm F2.8 Macro

[Digitalis]

Minolta AF 400mm f/4.5 APO G HS

How did that get there?

[Sandy Hancock]

My guess is that the 85 is optimized more for portraits and that he also likes the slightly longer focal length.

I think he shot the FA77 on crop mainly, so it was actually longer
Anyway, he prefers the FA*85 and uses it to great effect. It's all good.

[leekil]

I want citations on this. There may be a grain of truth to this the FA77 wasn't exactly designed with the express purpose of it being an apochromatic-800lp/mm-Lens-from-the-Gods. Jun Hirakawa had some very clear design goals he set out with and he accomplished them...and the resulting lens just happened to have very good MTF characteristics when stopped down, Jun didn't design the FA77 to produce good results on 2D MTF tests** he designed the FA77 to render 3D objects in a very specific way**.

I believe as much was said in the design notes on the FA limiteds:

The Limited lenses have achieved a level of aberration correction unattainable by earlier concepts. That is to say, without giving priority to resolving power, MTF values and other numerical evaluations, they attain a level of correction in actual photo capture that remains in your mind. This is because currently the subject plane is the target of this numerical evaluation, and thought not to be a suitable evaluation of the depiction of solid objects. Certainly, we think evaluation of object depiction by the numerical value method should be established urgently, but for the time being, that comes after the design.

http://www.northcoastphotographer.net/resources/Files/Pentax_Limiteds_Explained.pdf

[angerdan]

How did that get there?

It's my favourite 400mm lens, so i'd include it for myself as comparision

[Rondec]

Looks like Venus Optics 12mm f2.8 is definitely the way to go. And the nice thing is with it being so wide you can crop down to match any focal length you want. Who needs a 400mm lens when you have a 12 mm lens?

[pres589]

It's my favourite 400mm lens, so i'd include it for myself as comparision

That's.... not how this is supposed to work.

And I don't see anyone mentioning the Super-Wide II AF. It's almost like people aren't taking this seriously.

---------- Post added 10-13-17 at 11:15 AM ----------

Looks like Venus Optics 12mm f2.8 is definitely the way to go. And the nice thing is with it being so wide you can crop down to match any focal length you want. Who needs a 400mm lens when you have a 12 mm lens?

Oh totally. And if you just set it to F8 or so, you won't even miss the fact that it doesn't have AF, even though that was supposed to be a qualifier for making it onto this newest list of lenses.

[normhead]

That's.... not how this is supposed to work.

And I don't see anyone mentioning the Super-Wide II AF. It's almost like people aren't taking this seriously.

---------- Post added 10-13-17 at 11:15 AM ----------


Oh totally. And if you just set it to F8 or so, you won't even miss the fact that it doesn't have AF, even though that was supposed to be a qualifier for making it onto this newest list of lenses.

Why doesn't every one own one?

There's only one review.

Someone PM beholder3 and point out the havoc his review has caused.This is all his fault.

[Alex645]

It's almost like people aren't taking this seriously.

I understand the spirit of the post, but the "best" or "highest rated" question from the OP is still very subjective and undefined. APS-C, FF, MF, auto or manual focus? Pure resolving power? And if so, at one f/stop or a mean of all apertures? For what type of photography? The sharpest lens wonʻt be the best for portraiture or may not render nice bokeh or color or contrast. Or is the "best" and "highest rated" the lens with least artifacts such as vignetting, transmission loss, chromatic aberration, etc? To a collector, rarity and condition is best. But to a user, availability and price are higher values.

Or is this meant to be a purely subjective of what the individual thinks is their best from what theyʻve owned or shot with?

When I lived in Europe for 4 years, one thing I realized when I returned to the US is how obsessed we are with rating and ranking everything numerically (or at school with grades). I think evaluation and assessment has value, but I think it is often over-rated, inflated, over-valued. And by rating a lens highly, it will probably:

a) Increase the cost and demand for that lens.
b) Give some photographers a false sense of superiority and higher expectations.
c) Perpetuate the notion that great images cannot be made on inferior optics.
d) Perpetuate the belief that technical quality is correlated to creative, artistic, and aesthetic potential.

I may be playing the ʻdevilʻs advocateʻ today because it is Friday 13th, but if you asked my 100 photography students this semester, what has been their best "lens", the majority would nominate the one they made; a 0/0 elements/groups f/256 pinhole.

[Ascencio]

Sigma 35mm 1.4

[normhead]

The answers have been somewhat ridiculous because the question is so preposterous.

Yesterday I took my FA 35-80, my DFA 100 macro, my Sigma 8-16 and my DA*200,
Everyone of those lenses was the best lens of the lenses I brought, when I chose to use it. Walk down a street with a bunch of primes and what your best lens is will change with each footstep. A best lens has to do something best.
My 100 macro is my best macro.
I can't think of another lens that is "best" at anything. All kinds of primes could be my "best" landscape lens at a given moment. Many of my lenses could be my best portrait lens at a given moment. many lenses could be my best wildlife lens at give moment, although based on actual image numbers, most of mine are taken with the DA*60-250 which is definitely my best all purpose lens, "best" is defined by categories.

This is a very light hearted topic. If you want to get serious, it's going to be a lot more complicated and parameters are going to have to be defined.

Right now my "best prime lens" is my DFA 100 macro because it's new, I'm still full of enthusiasm for it, I can use it as a walk around lens and it does close up images, which I seem to always want to take. Last month it was my FA 50 macro, for exactly the same reasons. The OP asked for the "best" but he didn't even specify "best this month" or "best last month." Hows a person supposed to deal with that?

And if he's talking about best next month, I won't even hazard a guess. It could be any lens in my bag.