[house]

The photos are a bit boring and chaotic, not really considered compositions. Usually tele lenses clean up most views into abstract cuts. Strangely this gallery looks more like what you get from a normal or moderate wide. I like the city though, has a river, has proper working sites has what looks like some kind of urban center.

The images actually look quite good if you get used to the way of framing. Colours and contrast are excellent. Those against the light shots have great clarity, like the pylon and the street lights.

There's no hiding the ca though. Seeing that much purple in the cabin roof isn't great at all. It's a pretty severe limitation of the lens.

[stevebrot]

I wonder if the photographer wasn't aware of the unique characteristics of the 77, and didn't exploit its strengths.

I own the original FA 77 so can't comment directly regarding the HD version except to say that I truly have never thought about exploiting the lens' strength. I just do photography and the pixies do their thing. Here is some near and far bokeh from the original as well as some highlight disks.


Pentax K-3, Pentax-FA 77/1.8 Limited (non-HD)

...and a bike race, just for good measure...


Pentax K10D, Pentax-FA 77/1.8 Limited (non-HD)



Steve

[BarryE]

I'd like to think "so what" and "ignore". However, this constant chipping away from folk that don't understand and dislike the brand, does eat away at Pentax's reputation. The Pentax system is far from perfect, but it's mostly better than the users who use it. Bad publicity probably reduces sales and ultimately investment. Refuting bad reviews may help redress the balance, but probably better to just create great photographs and tag them with Pentax/Ricoh.

[ffking]

Yeah - the shots are pretty random to me - including f./1.8 landscape as an opener!?

Incidentally, the cycle shots are about the only ones that show the 3-D pop - and there the shutter speed is wrong - either too high or too low, so there's a smudge of blur that doesn't look intentional

[ffking]

probably better to just create great photographs and tag them with Pentax/Ricoh.

Yup - that's what I do every day

[jersey]

probably better to just create great photographs and tag them with Pentax/Ricoh.

I created Instagram account just to post photos with #pentax tag

[kiwi_jono]

To be fair I don't think they ever seek to take award winning photos, more representative shots.
Sure more shots with 3D pop would be nice but realistically it takes a while with the 77 to consistently get those (or maybe its just it take me a while to learn a lens!). Ideally they would give it to someone with some 77 experience but thats probably not a realistic approach for every brand and lens they test.

I think the shots show some glimpses of the nice rendering but the dreaded PF shows up clearly too, which I'm sure will feature in conclusions!

[house]

They should shoot general photos and stress the lens to reveal weaknesses imho. It would be great if they also aim to show the strengths of a lens. I don't really think dpreview is the place for serious lens reviews though. They just run through a lot of gear very casually.

[simsburyphoto]

I have have had the SMC version of the FA 77 for about 1 year now. Small, light, handle well, and sharp, but not clinically sharp. Like other's have said, not optically perfect. That said it helps deliver some really beautiful photograhs.

[vijaykishan]

To my eye, the sample images do not do justice to this lens. I've seen many other images from the FA 77mm Limited that are almost jaw-dropping, but not in the DPReview gallery. In my opinion, many of the images could have been taken with almost any lens to produce the same bland effect.

I wonder if the photographer wasn't aware of the unique characteristics of the 77, and didn't exploit its strengths. Hard to understand the objective(s) of the exercise.

- Craig

This!, couldnt have put in better words.

[house]

This!, couldnt have put in better words.

But you can make a selection of jawdropping photos from any lens. Thats largely up to the skill of the photographer. So whenever you browse flicr or pf you will see the best that person and lens can do.

I agree though that you need either more considered or more systematic photos for a review to be meaningful.

[vijaykishan]

But you can make a selection of jawdropping photos from any lens. Thats largely up to the skill of the photographer. So whenever you browse flicr or pf you will see the best that person and lens can do.

I agree though that you need either more considered or more systematic photos for a review to be meaningful.

Of course, a skilled and creative photographer who understands the limitations AND strengthsof the tool/s at hand, is likely to exploit it to deliver his/hervision/creative-output. In this case, the exercise was to showcase the strengths and weakness of the lens and all we got was/is - meh. There seems to be a lack of understanding or even a willingness to understand SWOT, that is the cause of the apparent chagrin. Using a wonderfully made Katana to demonstrate how to make a salad is OK for comedic effect, but not in a review; sure it cuts veggies... you get the drift

[Jonathan Mac]

At least they're paying some attention to Pentax, and to one of the things that make the system unique.

[JPT]

I agree that the images here are not very interesting, but the photographer does know Pentax well. I believe Mike Tompkins is a long-time Pentax user himself. I think his gallery for the 85mm was better.

[Kunzite]

I agree that the images here are not very interesting, but the photographer does know Pentax well. I believe Mike Tompkins is a long-time Pentax user himself. I think his gallery for the 85mm was better.

On some other forum, trolls "explained" to me how the D FA* 85mm f/1.4 was much inferior even to film era lenses, and had no chance when compared to modern ones - they used DPReview samples for that, Mike Tomkins' versus whoever shot with the RF 85mm.
I'm not naïve enough to think that it only happened there.