[UncleVanya]

There is the frog, who can help (top left of each image has focal length, aperture and format infos):



Kermit is the size of a human head. If you click on the image you can look at the bigger image version.

From what I see the 85mm f/1.4 has a more out of focus background than the FA 77 in this series of shots as I expected.

---------- Post added 01-11-18 at 04:01 PM ----------

There is a difference. @ 8 feet, 85mm f1.4 DOF = 1.68 inches; 77mm @ f1.8 DOF = 2.64 inches. So, if about one inch makes a difference, there is a difference. However it depends somewhat on how the calculator I used arbitrarily defines "in focus." It's obviously not a hard line and therefore subjective.

My suggestion was that the quality of the out of focus blur would be smoother on the 85mm f1.4. The shots given above of Kermit seem to show that. I don't know that the absolute depth of field was ever really in question. There may be times that the 1" difference may be a problem - making the 85mm at f/1.4 inappropriate for some shots over the 77 at 1.8 since a minimum depth of field is needed for some shots. In those cases the 85mm will need to be stopped down perhaps to 1.8 itself.

[WPRESTO]

From what I see the 85mm f/1.4 has a more out of focus background than the FA 77 in this series of shots as I expected.

---------- Post added 01-11-18 at 04:01 PM ----------




My suggestion was that the quality of the out of focus blur would be smoother on the 85mm f1.4. The shots given above of Kermit seem to show that. I don't know that the absolute depth of field was ever really in question. There may be times that the 1" difference may be a problem - making the 85mm at f/1.4 inappropriate for some shots over the 77 at 1.8 since a minimum depth of field is needed for some shots. In those cases the 85mm will need to be stopped down perhaps to 1.8 itself.

I realized you were also considering bokeh, which as with where does OOF begin, is subjective when comparing good lenses = those whose bokeh is "smooth." Some lenses are clearly poor (many zooms), but for SFL's with good bokeh, the differences may come to personal preference.

[mikesbike]

Thank you, Matt. If I knew that I could shoot close to open, and the skin tones are beautiful along with color that pops, I would get the 77 and be done with it. It's been mentioned too many times.
Terry

---------- Post added 01-10-18 at 04:33 PM ----------


Never heard of Samyang. Sounds great, though. I might just end up with the 77, and I am a little partial to 85 or 100 fl for portraits. Thank you.
Terry

Regarding the FA 77 Limited and your stated wishes- it is all of the above and more. I've had mine for numerous years, having bought it for FF use on my 35mm film bodies, and it was wonderful. On my APS-C bodies, including the KP, it is still wonderful. Its amazingly compact design with built-in lens hood makes it a pleasure to use, and that portability extends its usefulness. Many if not most lenses exaggerate their focal length. Pop Photography used to include this actual measurement in their lab tests, and it was surprising how many lenses, even expensive pro models, fell short of their stated FL. The FA 77mm LTD, however, came in right on the money- hence the odd 77mm designation, which I'm sure was Pentax's way of demonstrating precision as being a design and production goal for their FA Limited line. The build quality, rendering characteristics, including bokeh, are all superb.

[TerryL]

Oh my gosh, I really have some great recommendations. You all have been extremely helpful. I will continue to refer to this as I make my decision. Just starting to put my kit together, so it takes a while. So far I have the K1, 15-30, and 24-70. All within two weeks. I need to slow down and learn to use what I have. I'm new to Pentax, and just getting back into Photography. I'm sure I can get some nice portraits of my Sons with my 24-70 until I get a dedicated portrait lens, or two. So far, I love the Pentax K1 and two lenses. Very happy with everything!
Regards,
Terry

[mikesbike]

Welcome to Pentax, and please post some photos if you get a chance. If you get the FA 77 LTD, I would love to also see portraits of your son taken with it- and your reaction to the results! It is just fine even wide open, by the way.

Another thing that is really great about this lens is in getting some candid people shots. It is so small it doesn't call as much attention to itself. Its 77mm FL also allows a bit more distance to shoot back from.

You certainly have made some excellent decisions for very fine choices in your equipment.

[Na Horuk]

So far I have the K1, 15-30, and 24-70. All within two weeks. I need to slow down and learn to use what I have.

That's a really great kit and should cover pretty much all of your needs. Only thing its missing is super telephoto, macro, and super fast aperture, but all of those are very niche things and most photographers don't do all of those at once. I bet you can take great portraits with the 24-70, just use Av mode and select low f-number. Its not a dedicated portrait lens, but its far from terrible

[cyberjunkie]

If you're going to shoot wide open with razor thin DOF, I think manually focussing using live view in combination with focus peaking will yield the greatest percentage of keepers. I have the K-1 and 77 Limited which work great for portraits, but tend to be a bit hit and miss when using auto focus wide open (at least when looking at 100% and wanting eyes razor sharp).

Agreed. The best portrait lenses in Pentax mount are not AF (with the important exclusion of the FA* used by LeRolls... but he's doing full body/ambient portraits, 85mm is a perfect focal for such use).
For head, or head and shoulders portraits a longer focal is better. On full frame I prefer to use a 100/105mm, or even a fast 135mm.
Unfortunately there are no fast AF options in these focals. The fastest AF (short) tele i have is just 2.5/90mm, and it's a macro. It's great to evidence the wrinkles in B&W, for some old man portrait, but definitely not what I'd call a "portrait lens".
If the OP needs AF, the only two Pentax options are the 77mm Limited and the FA* 85mm.
I'd go for the latter, cause it's a very good portrait optic, with a slightly longer focal, and I guess it was designed with this specific use in mind. I don't know if it was advertised as such, but the pictures by LeRolls (and others) speak volumes... My A* 1.4/85mm is not as good for portraits. It's not a secret.
The 77mm is a great little lens, but IMHO it is too short, unless you can get quite close to the subject. It also hunts A LOT more than I expected in low light. I don't know how likely it is to take portraits in very low light, it depends on the context I suppose... so I'm not sure it's a deal breaker.
It hunts more than slower, much cheaper zooms, though. It is a fact.
The only other AF option is the Sigma EX DG 1.4/85mm, available only second-hand and almost as difficult to find as the FA*.
But I've seen one on Ebay lately, reasonably priced... maybe it is still unsold. I had to force myself into restraint mode, or at least redirect my LBA to cheaper targets I think I already have at least 20 primes from 77mm to 105mm, some quite fast. I need a modern wide, not another 85mm!

If the OP didn't limit his choices so severely, I would have given a completely different advice.
Leaving alone hyper expensive vintage lenses, leitaxed optics, etc, etc, there are two modern MF objectives that can be purchased at a reasonable price and should work great:
Samyang 2/135mm
Laowa Venus 2/105mm STM
Optically the Samyang has no rivals. Super sharp across the frame, great out of focus rendition. Works in all modes and with a P-TTL flash.
Though I'd choose the Laowa as my personal "dream portrait lens". I've seen some pictures online, and now I'm really impressed by both the technical specs and the images this lens produces.
Sharpness is almost on par with the Samyang, but the two diaphragms and the apodization group allow to control the way OOF areas are rendered.
It's not the first SmoothTransFocus objective, but it's the first ever in PK mount. Considering only portrait use, apparently this lens beats all the others. It offers creative control and great IQ in a more than decent mechanical package.
If I didn't have so many vintage lenses in the same focal range, some very fast and working great as portrait optics, the Laowa Venus would be a must have. Unfortunately it can be found only new, and I can't justify the expense, considering what I already have.
For the same reason I never allowed myself to buy the FA* or the similar Sigma lens. The ease of use of AF came too expensive for my pockets. Even more so at present times...

---

Last edited by cyberjunkie; 01-12-2018 at 02:10 AM.

[ivanvernon]

I am looking for the FA 85 1.4, but they are all overseas on eBay. That makes me a little nervous and the wait is so long. It's a beautiful lens.
Terry

I would say not to be afraid to order from ebay Japan. I have found theJapanese suppliers to be excellent sources of lovingly cared for lenses, and always an excellent, fast, and business-like transaction.

[Rondec]

I think FA 77 is probably what I would do and save for the DFA *85 for whenever it is released, maybe the end of 2018?

[UncleVanya]

There is always the FA 135 f2.8 as another alternative. Only available used but not terribly expensive. A bit rare but not an impossible find.

[mikesbike]

One can get too long for ideal portraiture. 135mm, even on FF is pushing it. As to the favored 85mm, as I mentioned, it is very common for lenses to test shorter than specified. Even Pentax lenses, except for the FA Limiteds. All three are right on. Even the DA 70mm LTD came in at about 65mm. So here one gets an 85mm portrait lens, which is really shorter- maybe 81 or 82mm, maybe even shorter. This is legal to a point. So in comparing it with the 77mm actual FL, one finds there is precious little difference. There is really not much difference between actual 85mm and 77mm in this FL range. I have used my FA 77 LTD in low lighting countless times, in fact that is one reason in mind for bringing it along. It is a favorite for me when on one of my many trips to Gettysburg. Right at and soon after sunset are favorite times for me in getting some beautiful lighting in the sky for my shots. I even use it when darkness sets in for moonlit shots. Even going back to 35mm film use, I've never had trouble with its AF. In fact, on my KP it is even quicker than ever. Of course, if shooting a darker subject in very dark conditions, which has very little contrast detail, AF will be slower.

In better lighting, I once used it for captures of bumble bees flitting from flower to flower. Got some very nice ones indeed, great with the FA 77's marvelous bokeh. The AF performed very well, and this was just with my old K-100D.

As to f/1.4, as someone else brought up, using such a wide aperture is often going to push reduced DOF past practical use- the eye can be in focus, while the nose, ear, shoulder, etc. are defocused. We all want a good, sharp lens. But a lens having super-duper etched-detail molecular sharpness may not be the most ideal lens for portraits. It would not present a natural "look" in this case, and not flattering for the subject. Every skin pore would be in bold relief.

FL also has to do with perspective, which is part of the "look" of a subject. Also, the word "rendering" is often used, a hard to pinpoint "look" and it is often used in association to the 3 FA Limiteds.

The more tele the lens, the more perspective will be flattened. The more wide-angle, the more perspective will be unnaturally exaggerated. I have the FA* 200mm f/2.8 which is a great lens, but I'd only use it for portrait if I was forced to work at a distance where it would be necessary.

I call attention to the portraits of two attractive young ladies posted by BILLK on P.2- the first taken with the FA* 200mm, and the second with the FA 77 LTD. The famous FA LTD "look" is in evidence in the 2nd shot. In looking from the 1st to the 2nd shot, One can readily see how natural the 2nd shot is- virtually 3-d, like looking at reality through an open window!

[TerryL]

Agreed. 200mm is great for head and shoulders on the K1 or the K3 if you have room to stand back.

Here's a shot I like with the DA*200 and another with the FA 77. I would say either the FA 77 or the Sigma 85 are your first choice if you need AF. (I know I do!)

Very nice. Thank you for sharing.
Terry

---------- Post added 01-12-18 at 04:19 PM ----------

I think FA 77 is probably what I would do and save for the DFA *85 for whenever it is released, maybe the end of 2018?

Nice pictures, Ron. Hey, I live in Virginia, too. About 45 minutes from the beach. Grew up in Roanoke.
Terry

[Kerrowdown]

I would like an 85mm 1.4

I wouldn't rule out manual focus... my “Sweetheart” (Pentax-A* 85mm F1.4) is just a joy to use.

[kevingun]

A Tamron 90 mm would be close to a 85 on the K-1 and on a K-3 it would be a 135
It is a pretty good lense plus you can find a good used copy for around 250 or less

[TerryL]

There is the frog, who can help (top left of each image has focal length, aperture and format infos):



Kermit is the size of a human head. If you click on the image you can look at the bigger image version.

Thank you for taking the time to do this. Very helpful.
Terry

---------- Post added 01-13-18 at 07:57 AM ----------

A Tamron 90 mm would be close to a 85 on the K-1 and on a K-3 it would be a 135
It is a pretty good lense plus you can find a good used copy for around 250 or less

Thank you, Kevin. I see that you live in NC. I'm in Suffolk, VA, right on the border.
Terry

---------- Post added 01-13-18 at 08:00 AM ----------

I wouldn't rule out manual focus... my “Sweetheart” (Pentax-A* 85mm F1.4) is just a joy to use.

I certainly won't rule out mf. I am very comfortable with mf.
Terry

---------- Post added 01-13-18 at 08:20 AM ----------

Have you calibrated your camera/lens combination to correct for any FF/BF issues when using optical viewfinder with AF ?

You also need to look at which AF points are locking focus. Use fewer AF points or even single to get the eyes sharp.

While I agree that LV zoomed to 100% while manually focussing is an excellent tool to ensure you nail focus, it wont work with a model who can't keep their head still, like my dogs

I plan to this weekend. My Son is going to help me get the camera set up, today. He's so gifted. Once that's finished, I'll be able to hit the ground running.
Terry