[G and T]

I own both and here is the take I have on my copies of these lenses. The Sigma is MUCH larger than the diminutive 77ltd see the attached pictures (the 1st without hoods, the 2nd with the 77ltd's inbuilt hood extended and the Sigma with the FF hood, last with the Sigma's APSC hood). With my copies the Sigma is much sharper, not that the 77ltd is by any means a slouch,but the Sigma is seriously sharp and renders 3D like photos that are extremely pleasing with the right background. The 77ltd on the other hand while not quite as sharp or 3D like, always provides awesome bokeh no matter what the background is.
When I have to travel the 77 is my go to lens but when I have a controlled environment the Sigma can't be beaten.
Glenn

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[zapp]

A Pentax camera deserves a Pentax lens.
77 is small and nice. It lacks f/1.4, weather sealing, quick AF.

[stevebrot]

Really? I think that one is not on the table for me as it's even more costly than the 77mm and I believe older so I assume it resolves less detail than the 77

That would not be a valid assumption. The FA* 85/1.4 is a premium lens and highly prized. The FA 77/1.8 Limited was released seven years later and is also a premium lens, but different in design intent. As you noted, one can expect to pay the same or more for the FA* 85/1.4 used as for the FA 77/1.8 new. My understanding is that those who own it consider it money well-spent.

FWIW, I own the FA 77/1.8 Limited and have no interest in either the Sigma 85 or the FA* 85, but that is probably just me.


Steve

[termy]

So my only concern with the 77mm is the entire point of FF portraiture is shallow DOF. So at 1.8 am I basically throwing that advantage out the window, or would you K1 77mm users say it's still a big jump from APS-c?

I usually shoot using the FA77 and there's quite a handful of other images i can share just to see for example, but, guess figures may be easier to grasp.

For fun's sake, i just went online to have a look.
And these are the figures.
(Can only hope i am doing the correct thing as i am not that familiar with these things).

Constant factors being >>

A) Using eg of lens focal length 76mm. (That site didn't have a choice of 77mm).
B) aperture of f1.8.
C) With subject distance of 200cm
(2metres).

On 35mm film format (fullframe).
The near-field limit is 196.5cm.
Far-field limit is 203.6cm.
Total depth of 7.1cm.

On a camera such as K-5
(Yeah, that website uses camera models).
The near-field limit is 197.7cm.
Far-field limit is 202.4cm.
Total depth of 4.75cm.

When changed it to lens focal length of 85mm.
And aperture of f1.4
Subject distance remaining at 200cm.

On 35mm film.
Near-field limit is 197.8cm.
Far-field limit is 202.3cm.
Total depth 4.5cm.

On pentax K-5.
Near-field limit is 198.5cm.
Far-field limit is 201.5cm.
Total depth is 3cm.


I do think the FA77 will do just fine.

[angerdan]

I also was looking at the Samyang as it looks like a ridiculous value, but I love using the face tracking for portraits; it nails focus. So I have to go for something with autofocus.

When you wait until the release of the D FA* 85mm 1.4, yo'll be able to catch used FA*, Sigma and even the Limited as secondhand.

[robgski]

I regularly see FA 77mm offered here on PF, which is where I purchased my copy. I don't know what you consider "bargain" but any price below US $600 is a good deal in my opinion, and I've seen several offered around US $500, very tempted to get a second copy at that price.. I'm pretty frugal when it comes to lens purchases, but buying an FA 77mm is money well spent.

As others have said, the relatively compact size, IQ and other qualities of the FA 77mm, especially when paired with the K-1, make it a lens I recommend to anyone interested in high quality portraiture, though it suits other genres as well

[termy]

Leumas.

Grab this >>

Silver Pentax FA 77 Limited Price Reduced - PentaxForums.com

[Leumas]

So sounds like people who own both are saying: Sigma is their preferred choice, and only the 77mm if size is a factor. Size isn't an issue for me as I have APS-c and Micro 4/3rds kits for compactness. I'm just interested in ultimate image fidelity.
I'm actually a little surprised as I thought the 77 would trounce the Sigma.

[stevebrot]

I'm just interested in ultimate image fidelity.

Good luck! You have my sincerest sympathy.


Steve

[Sandy Hancock]

So sounds like people who own both are saying: Sigma is their preferred choice, and only the 77mm if size is a factor. I'm actually a little surprised as I thought the 77 would trounce the Sigma.

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.

[termy]

So sounds like people who own both are saying: Sigma is their preferred choice, and only the 77mm if size is a factor. Size isn't an issue for me as I have APS-c and Micro 4/3rds kits for compactness. I'm just interested in ultimate image fidelity.
I'm actually a little surprised as I thought the 77 would trounce the Sigma.

if the main thing you want to zoom in on, is whether the "FA77 would trounce the Sigma", i think that wont be too difficult to do.

Just check out all those lens tests and lens reviews which actually contain all those very technical what "MTF charts", and where they start measuring this and that and what not.

In a way, i guess, that could be said to be the "most objective way possible", to gauge these two lenses.

BUT.
Human portraiture, and whether a portraiture image could make a person look at it and feel something, i am not too sure whether those test charts and figures might help in that way.

Plus. Those charts and figures arent going to be able to share on just how flexible and versatile the 77 is (as compared to FL of 85).

All things considered, i have found the 77 very versatile for using outdoors and indoors, and the physical size of it also added to just how useable it is in all sorts of situations and circumstances.

Ultimately, your preference is only thing that matters.
based on thus far, you seem to lean towards the 85, due to it being able to do f1.4 (as oppoed to the FA77 which can only do f1.8).

Thus. If having the option of going 1.4 is a big factor, then thinking over which to pick is rather needless.

Anyway, just for example.
Another FA77 image.

Image snapped with FA77 on Pentax MZ-S (film cam).
No further pp on any software.
As it is from the colour lab.

[UncleVanya]

Anyway, just for example.
Another FA77 image.

Image snapped with FA77 on Pentax MZ-S (film cam).
No further pp on any software.
As it is from the colour lab.

Great portrait! Love this.

[Digitalis]

I'm just interested in ultimate image fidelity.

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.

[Braveheart]

That would not be a valid assumption. The FA* 85/1.4 is a premium lens and highly prized. The FA 77/1.8 Limited was released seven years later and is also a premium lens, but different in design intent. As you noted, one can expect to pay the same or more for the FA* 85/1.4 used as for the FA 77/1.8 new. My understanding is that those who own it consider it money well-spent.

FWIW, I own the FA 77/1.8 Limited and have no interest in either the Sigma 85 or the FA* 85, but that is probably just me.


Steve

Very well said. I paid for my mint copy of FA*85 used for a about the same price for a new FA77. FA77 is much more portable but the FA* is not that much bigger either.

[Sandy Hancock]

So my only concern with the 77mm is the entire point of FF portraiture is shallow DOF.

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