77ltd vs 50-135* Thoughts...?

beaumont · 10-06-2008, 01:40 PM

I currently have the 31ltd and am I always amazed with it's abilities as well as the benefits of its rather fast speed (1.8). However, I do find myself requiring a longer focal length, which as a result, I've been pretty convinced that one of my next lens purchases would be the 77ltd.
I also have an 18-250 which has proven to be a great vacation lens, albiet a great "outdoor" vacation lens because of its relatively low speed. Now, with the recent thread testimonials pertaining to the 50-135*, I'm thinking of possibly selling my 18-250, forgeting about the 77ltd and picking up a 50-135*. The 50-135* would certainly be more versatile than the fixed 77ltd. Coupled with the new 1.4 teleconverter, it would transform into a 70-190 (albiet slowed down a little). I don't think I'd miss the 190-250 range too much, I'd be gaining the weatherproofing (which isn't a "deal-breaker" to me), but losing the potential FF abilities of the FA.
Therefore the question is, how would you rate the abilities/results of the 77ltd vs the 50-135*? What else am I missing?...
Thx in advance for the feedback

Alfisti · 10-06-2008, 01:51 PM

I really doubt you'll see a difference at the same apertures.

IMHO this realy comes down to size and weight, if you're willing to tote the 50-135 all day then i'd go that route.

jsherman999 · 10-06-2008, 02:13 PM

Consider this.

offertonhatter · 10-06-2008, 02:30 PM

The 50-135 is a stunning lens, and a perfect Portrait lens. Now the 77mm will have to be truly exceptional to beat it. Having said that I would love a 77mm as well, but I have LBA........ lol

rfortson · 10-06-2008, 08:35 PM

I had both and sold the 77Ltd because the 50-135 was good enough to me, that I rarely switched over to the 77Ltd. I'm not saying the 50-1356 is absolutely better, but it's close enough that I don't miss the 77Ltd (other than the tactile experience of holding and using that fine, precision metal lens).

beaumont · 10-06-2008, 08:38 PM

Thanks for the feedback guys. A tough decision...

k100d · 10-06-2008, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by rfortson

(other than the tactile experience of holding and using that fine, precision metal lens).

that to me is worth a lot

but the versatility of the 50-135 is awesome, it's just if you're willing to lug it everywhere.

suro · 10-06-2008, 09:19 PM

Pentax 77mm /1.8 Limited and Pentax 70mm /2.4 Limited is much better than Pentax 50-135* /2.8

But, 50-137* is more comfortable for daily use

suro · 10-06-2008, 09:21 PM

I think for portraits you need 77 limited at f1.8

Star 50-135* is not so good for professional portraits.

jsherman999 · 10-06-2008, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by suro

I think for portraits you need 77 limited at f1.8

Star 50-135* is not so good for professional portraits.

I don't know if I'd agree with that, with my 50-135 I'm consistently able to get
shots like this with no real effort:

I think I've seen actual portrait photogs posting shots in this forum taken
with the 50-135 that blow me away.

The 70 & especially the 77 are probably superior for portrait work, but not
by much if so.

.

suro · 10-06-2008, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

I don't know if I'd agree with that, with my 50-135 I'm consistently able to get
shots like this with no real effort:

I think I've seen actual portrait photogs posting shots in this forum taken
with the 50-135 that blow me away.

The 70 & especially the 77 are probably superior for portrait work, but not
by much if so.

Pentax 50-135* is just good zoom

Pentax 77mm /1.8 - is legend with amazing image

k100d · 10-06-2008, 09:56 PM

if you need more convincing, read MJ's article here
sm-02-05-02

although he seems much more caught up on the DA35 now :P

jsherman999 · 10-06-2008, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by k100d

if you need more convincing, read MJ's article here
sm-02-05-02

although he seems much more caught up on the DA35 now :P

The money quote:

Quote:

"The Greatest"

All three are utter standouts optically. With the vagaries of personal taste taken into account, no lens, however deluxe, can be called the "best" for everyone, but the Limiteds are certainly among the best. Popular Photography in its March 2002 issue called the Pentax SMC-FA 31mm Limited one of the greatest prime lenses it had ever tested (the other two were the Voigtländer Heliar 50mm f/3.5 and the Nikon Nikkor 45mm f/2.8P Tessar-type. This wasn't clear in the issue itself, but I contacted the Editor, Jason Schneider, who confirmed it). Yet all things considered, the 77mm may be the best lens of the three. A nearly ideal short tele, the 77mm Limited is superb — contrasty, excellent for portraits wide open, with a truly beautiful, delicate bokeh that compliments the almost 3-D vividness of the in-focus image. Tops in its class? There are certainly a lot of great short teles out there. But I can't name an AF SLR short tele I'd put above it.

beaumont · 10-06-2008, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by k100d

if you need more convincing, read MJ's article here
sm-02-05-02

although he seems much more caught up on the DA35 now :P

Originally posted by jsherman999

The money quote:

Thanks for the response. I certainly have no doubt about the abilities of the 77. I guess I'm just wondering if the 50-135 has "caught up to it" (as those reviews are a few years old now)?

RBellavance · 10-07-2008, 04:58 AM

What the DA*50-135 can't give you is the shallow depth of field resulting from apertures wider than f/2.8.

10-06-2008, 01:40 PM	#1
beaumont Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 505	*77ltd vs 50-135 Thoughts...?** I currently have the 31ltd and am I always amazed with it's abilities as well as the benefits of its rather fast speed (1.8). However, I do find myself requiring a longer focal length, which as a result, I've been pretty convinced that one of my next lens purchases would be the 77ltd. I also have an 18-250 which has proven to be a great vacation lens, albiet a great "outdoor" vacation lens because of its relatively low speed. Now, with the recent thread testimonials pertaining to the 50-135, I'm thinking of possibly selling my 18-250, forgeting about the 77ltd and picking up a 50-135. The 50-135* would certainly be more versatile than the fixed 77ltd. Coupled with the new 1.4 teleconverter, it would transform into a 70-190 (albiet slowed down a little). I don't think I'd miss the 190-250 range too much, I'd be gaining the weatherproofing (which isn't a "deal-breaker" to me), but losing the potential FF abilities of the FA. Therefore the question is, how would you rate the abilities/results of the 77ltd vs the 50-135*? What else am I missing?... Thx in advance for the feedback

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Is this bokeh ok for 77ltd	kiwao	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	05-26-2010 08:53 AM
For Sale - Sold: K20d, 50-135*, 16-45, 43ltd, 35ltd macro, Voigtlander 58/1.4, maybe 77ltd	nostatic	Sold Items	8	01-24-2009 10:07 AM
An example of why the 77ltd doesn't suck	jsherman999	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	26	06-16-2008 03:02 PM
A few with the new to me 77LTD :)	vievetrick	Post Your Photos!	8	11-13-2007 07:27 AM
First thoughts on Sigma 24-135 2.8-4.5	filmamigo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	09-30-2007 08:04 PM

10-06-2008, 01:51 PM	#2
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	I really doubt you'll see a difference at the same apertures. IMHO this realy comes down to size and weight, if you're willing to tote the 50-135 all day then i'd go that route.

10-06-2008, 02:13 PM	#3
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Consider this.

10-06-2008, 02:30 PM	#4
offertonhatter Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: North West UK Posts: 390	The 50-135 is a stunning lens, and a perfect Portrait lens. Now the 77mm will have to be truly exceptional to beat it. Having said that I would love a 77mm as well, but I have LBA........ lol

10-06-2008, 08:35 PM	#5
rfortson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Houston TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,129	I had both and sold the 77Ltd because the 50-135 was good enough to me, that I rarely switched over to the 77Ltd. I'm not saying the 50-1356 is absolutely better, but it's close enough that I don't miss the 77Ltd (other than the tactile experience of holding and using that fine, precision metal lens).

10-06-2008, 08:38 PM	#6
beaumont Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 505 Original Poster	Thanks for the feedback guys. A tough decision...

10-06-2008, 08:39 PM	#7
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	Originally posted by rfortson (other than the tactile experience of holding and using that fine, precision metal lens). that to me is worth a lot but the versatility of the 50-135 is awesome, it's just if you're willing to lug it everywhere.

10-06-2008, 09:19 PM	#8
suro Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Ekaterinburg Posts: 344	Pentax 77mm /1.8 Limited and Pentax 70mm /2.4 Limited is much better than Pentax 50-135* /2.8 But, 50-137* is more comfortable for daily use

10-06-2008, 09:21 PM	#9
suro Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Ekaterinburg Posts: 344	I think for portraits you need 77 limited at f1.8 Star 50-135* is not so good for professional portraits.

10-06-2008, 09:35 PM	#10
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by suro I think for portraits you need 77 limited at f1.8 Star 50-135* is not so good for professional portraits. I don't know if I'd agree with that, with my 50-135 I'm consistently able to get shots like this with no real effort: I think I've seen actual portrait photogs posting shots in this forum taken with the 50-135 that blow me away. The 70 & especially the 77 are probably superior for portrait work, but not by much if so. .

10-06-2008, 09:51 PM	#11
suro Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Ekaterinburg Posts: 344	Originally posted by jsherman999 I don't know if I'd agree with that, with my 50-135 I'm consistently able to get shots like this with no real effort: I think I've seen actual portrait photogs posting shots in this forum taken with the 50-135 that blow me away. The 70 & especially the 77 are probably superior for portrait work, but not by much if so. Pentax 50-135* is just good zoom Pentax 77mm /1.8 - is legend with amazing image

10-06-2008, 09:56 PM	#12
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	if you need more convincing, read MJ's article here sm-02-05-02 although he seems much more caught up on the DA35 now :P

10-06-2008, 10:26 PM	#13
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by k100d if you need more convincing, read MJ's article here sm-02-05-02 although he seems much more caught up on the DA35 now :P The money quote: Quote: "The Greatest" All three are utter standouts optically. With the vagaries of personal taste taken into account, no lens, however deluxe, can be called the "best" for everyone, but the Limiteds are certainly among the best. Popular Photography in its March 2002 issue called the Pentax SMC-FA 31mm Limited one of the greatest prime lenses it had ever tested (the other two were the Voigtländer Heliar 50mm f/3.5 and the Nikon Nikkor 45mm f/2.8P Tessar-type. This wasn't clear in the issue itself, but I contacted the Editor, Jason Schneider, who confirmed it). Yet all things considered, the 77mm may be the best lens of the three. A nearly ideal short tele, the 77mm Limited is superb — contrasty, excellent for portraits wide open, with a truly beautiful, delicate bokeh that compliments the almost 3-D vividness of the in-focus image. Tops in its class? There are certainly a lot of great short teles out there. But I can't name an AF SLR short tele I'd put above it.

10-06-2008, 10:50 PM	#14
beaumont Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 505 Original Poster	Originally posted by k100d if you need more convincing, read MJ's article here sm-02-05-02 although he seems much more caught up on the DA35 now :P Originally posted by jsherman999 The money quote: Thanks for the response. I certainly have no doubt about the abilities of the 77. I guess I'm just wondering if the 50-135 has "caught up to it" (as those reviews are a few years old now)?

10-07-2008, 04:58 AM	#15
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	What the DA*50-135 can't give you is the shallow depth of field resulting from apertures wider than f/2.8.