[Leumas]

I keep coming back to this. I don't think the OP understand what matters about portraiture.
And worrying about the FA*85's ability to out-resolve any full frame sensor? Really? Not that resolution is important either of course

I never said portraiture was all about shallow DOF. The only difference in sensor size that has application is in FACT DOF. I can get just as epic of portrait shots on a MFT camera if DOF is not a concern.

---------- Post added 10-19-19 at 11:28 PM ----------

hm...I don't think Photography is an appropriate medium for you. As those who seek the Ne Plus ultra* in image quality often hold the most myopic views on matters others perceive as trivial on what quality IS. Frequently photographers in the pursuit of ultimate image quality neglect subject matter in chasing their ideal and therefore often produce banal, boring images purged of any and all emotion. As an experienced photographer I have seen many impressionable photographers subscribe to this pointless ideal as they falsely expect that their work will be "improved" by throwing money away for increasingly minute and fleeting advantages in image quality.


*Latin, literal translation: No More Beyond. English Transliteration: Go No Further.

I am fully aware of the qualities outside of fidelity that have merit. My extensive collection of 50yr old manual glass is great for that reason alone

This instance however, I am looking for which owner of both believe has a superior image output.

---------- Post added 10-19-19 at 11:33 PM ----------

I suspect that is how you want to interpret what people are saying.

Show me some portraits from the Sigma which stir the soul; that is what you should be interested in, and I have seen many from the FA77.

Not a matter of interpretation. Literally everyone who owns both has said they reach for their 85 most. Even the link provided for the 77 in the marketplace said they're selling it cause they prefer their 85mm

Stop being defensive and get off your high horse. I am open to be convinced either direction as far as which is better

[Sandy Hancock]

I am open to be convinced either direction as far as which is better.

I have a FA*85, but have not experienced the Sigma. I do have the Sigma 35/1.4 and consider it to be a superb lens.

That said, I have made far more memorable portraits with my FA77 than I have with my FA*85. Mainly because I have no excuse not to pack it. And the Sigma is considerably bigger than the FA*85.

None of the great portraits I have ever seen have impressed me because of their resolution or edge to edge sharpness. That is the only point I am trying to make.

The only difference in sensor size that has application is in fact DOF

No, it isn't. To get the same depth of field you can to stop down 1EV. That often gives better sharpness in the focal plane, which improves subject isolation. Full frame also opens up different lenses in the appropriate focal lengths, which gives choices based on other rendering characteristics which matter.

I'm not being defensive. I have nothing to defend. I just want you to avoid coming to pre-drawn conclusions.

[Digitalis]

I am looking for which owner of both believe has a superior image output.

Which lens is superior is a very relative and subjective thing - I own many of the portrait focal length K mount 85~120mm lenses. The Pentax FA*85mm f/1.4 is superb - besting the Canon EF85mm f/1.2L II regarding corner sharpness and flare resistance. The upcoming D-FA*85mm f/1.4 is an evolution, derived from the optical design of the FA* lens.

The FA77mm f/1.8 Limited is a very different beast from classic portrait lenses, slightly wider than what many consider to be a portrait focal length the optical design of the FA77 is not designed for perfect MTF scores, but its optical design is intended to render subjects in a particular way. Remarkably the FA77 also happens to perform extremely well when stopped down. The diminutive size of the FA77 means it is well suited to styles of photography where being unobtrusive and inconspicuous is an advantage. Models do not like overly large lenses that gaze back at them like eye of Sauron - the FA77 is not an intimidating lens, so it is possible to get models to feel more relaxed and naturally react positively as you work.


I find myself reaching for the FA77 when it comes to portraiture, curiously I also use the SMCP-K 50mm f/1.2 a lot on Pentax APS-C bodies, which is roughly the equivalent of the FA77 on the K1



The sigma 85mm f/1.4 lens I have in Nikon F - on the high resolution D850 it performs well, but is bested by the Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4. Nikons own 85mm f/1.4 has better flare resistance than both the Ziess and Sigma.

[Sandy Hancock]

I also use the SMCP-K 50mm f/1.2 a lot on Pentax APS-C bodies, which is roughly the equivalent of the FA77 on the K-1

Indeed.

Anyway, 77/1.8 on full frame is roughly equivalent to 50/1.2 on crop.

[Billk]

I tried both the FA 77 and the Sigma 85 at the shop. It was a no brainer to buy the FA 77. Way smaller and the images just looked more pleasing from the 77.

[termy]

I fully understand this >> "looking for which owner of both believe has a superior image output".

But it is just way too subjective a thing. How does one measure and then assess "superior image output"?
(By technical charts and test figures? If so that will be what i mentioned earlier)

if one is to ask, let's say, 10 persons who own both the FA77 and the Sigma 85 1.4,
I reckon we may likely get four different responses.

Four paxes who might say "i will say 85 as having superior image output".
(Likely by fact that it can do f1.4 and by subjective point that "85mm is classic portraiture focal length" and goodness knows what other factors they base that on).

Three paxes who might say "i will say 77 as having superior image output".
(Purely by gut feel when they viewed images by both lenses, and goodness knows maybe becuz of the ease of use and versatility the 77 afforded them, it subconsciously nudge them a bit towards the 77)

Two paxes who might say "i am 50-50 on them both; both equally capable of producing image output that i love".

And the odd one out who might go "are you kidding me? Get the F-135mm for superior portraiture image output', dont muck around with 85s"

ie, how does one "measure" "superior image output", especially for something such as portraiture.

What about that Afghan girl image?
(captured on Kodachrome slide film with a Nikon FM2 with a Nikkor 105mm f2.5.)

What about those Nam images captured by Tim Page?
(No idea what cam he used back then but seems he is on Fujifilm gear now).

If there's still some need to quantify "superior image output", then maybe get the Sigma 85mm and use it for 6months.

IF the images captured appeal to you and correspond to what you have in mind about what is "superior image output", then dont even need to think of the 77.

But if you must have direct comparison of both, then get the 85 first and then the 77 next and use both to capture same images under similar situations and conditions.

Only then you be able to answer the Qn you have in mind on "superior image output".
(And whichever you prefer less, am pretty sure you can sell it for very minimal loss)

Because, those who commented that they prefer the image output of the 85 over the 77, no one knows what multitude of factors are they basing it upon when saying that.

Whereas a number of those who are saying "77 rather than 85", one recurring thing seems to be the versatility and portability of the 77, AND also, the very very good image quality (subjective ya) of the 77.

You wont go wrong with either, i suspect.
But best to test it out oneself.

[Rondec]

Personally, I would prefer to get the FA 77 used now and then buy the DFA *85 when that comes out the first part of next year. The reason that there are fewer used Sigmas in the market place is because Pentaxians didn't buy many of them and they just don't come up for sale terribly often. The FA 77 is a little cheaper and more copies were sold.

As far as depth of field goes, the FA 77 shot at f1.8 and subject distance of 4 meters gives 30 cm of focus while the 85mm at f1.4 and 4 meters will give 20 cm of focus. This "might" make or break a portrait image, but it is unlikely to do so.

The pros for the FA 77 are the small size, nice build, colors and contrast. Negatives are tendency to purple fringing and soft corners wide open (not usually a problem for portraits) and screw driven auto focus (noise is the issue, not accuracy). The Sigma is sharper corners, not as good colors, and a lot bigger size. It has typical Sigma build which is OK, but nothing super-enjoyable to use.

Anyway, as I said, I own the FA 77 and plan to use it till the DFA *85 comes out when I will add that and may let the FA 77 go (although odds are I will keep both).

[G and T]

As I posted earlier, I have both lenses, but I may not have elaborated enough on the strengths and weaknesses of each.
First the Sigma. It's much bigger lens as can be seen by the pictures I included in my last post. It's a sharper lens in the centre ,corners and edges especially wide open. It doesn't fringe like the 77ltd and is more flare resistant. It renders very 3D like. It has a very pleasant bokeh when the background is not too busy but when there is a complex background it renders it in a confusing manner that is not very pleasing.
Next the 77ltd. It has the edge in size and portability by a long long way. Yes it is not as sharp especially in the corners wide open but this is not a problem for portraiture. Sharpness isn't everything, just take someones portrait and show all their wrinkles,pimples,pores and blackheads,soft lenses were used in movies for a reason! Yes it can flare, this is easily fixed by re-positioning the subject or camera, it can purple fringe but it has a beautiful creamy bokeh that it always achieves no matter the background.
I always use the Sigma in studio or where I CAN control the background and carrying it is not a problem but for distant locations or where unknown backgrounds may occur I always use the 77ltd for its beautiful creamy backgrounds. All the worry about 85mm v 77mm and f1.4 v f1.8 and DOF is in my opinion inconsequential (who wants to see a subjects eyes in focus and their nose and ears out of focus) as both lenses will produce stunning portraits.
Glenn

[UncleVanya]

My love of the FA 77 LTD stems from how much I liked the A* 85. The design of the two lenses glass is remarkably similar. This optical design is different from the FA* 85, not better, different. I like a lot of different lenses for portraits, and the 77 on crop feels right. But I have been known to use the DA* 200 as well... So what do I know!

One question for the OP: where will the lens be used mostly, Studio or Field?

[hadi]

For sigma 85, most of the shots here are done with that lens
Hadi Khan (HadiKhan) Photos / 500px

I think only one or two are with the 77

[UncleVanya]

For sigma 85, most of the shots here are done with that lens
Hadi Khan (HadiKhan) Photos / 500px

I think only one or two are with the 77

Look again... There are more 77 shots than you recalled. Both those and the 85 shots are excellent. Ironically the one that stood out to me (not as better, just got my attention) was a 200 f2.8 shot of a couple. Very nice work.

---------- Post added 10-20-19 at 10:50 AM ----------

I guess my take away for the OP is that all of the lenses we have for portraits can be fantastic in the right hands. Pick the one that makes you happy and move on.

[robgski]

all of the lenses we have for portraits can be fantastic in the right hands

Exactly, great glass won't make up for poor technique.

[Aaron28]

dropped my coin on the 77 for AF capabilities......my experience @ 1.4 with the FA50 also told me i'm not shooting @ 1.4 on a 85......I like the size of it in comparison to a Tamron 90 I use and the flash capabilities to a jupiter9 85/2

[hadi]

Look again... There are more 77 shots than you recalled. Both those and the 85 shots are excellent. Ironically the one that stood out to me (not as better, just got my attention) was a 200 f2.8 shot of a couple. Very nice work.

---------- Post added 10-20-19 at 10:50 AM ----------

I guess my take away for the OP is that all of the lenses we have for portraits can be fantastic in the right hands. Pick the one that makes you happy and move on.

It's about 17 to 5 shots using the 85 over the 77.

The first couple of shots were done with either a 50 or 200. In between with the 77, then latter half with all 85. Some of the images don't have the exif info for some reason

[UncleVanya]

It's about 17 to 5 shots using the 85 over the 77.

The first couple of shots were done with either a 50 or 200. In between with the 77, then latter half with all 85. Some of the images don't have the exif info for some reason

They are all very nice.