[EssJayEff]

For what it's worth (including comments) . . . DPReview posted a HD Pentax 77mm F1.8 Limited sample gallery.

[stevebrot]

May I be the first to say, "UNFAIR"!

I didn't click through, but just wanted to be the first.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Now that I have actually looked at the photos, I don't know what one might say based on what might be told without spending hours dissecting the downloadable files. I will, however, comment loudly that,

I thought I was the only one who uses the FA 77/1.8 Limited for shooting a bike race*.


Steve

* ...and a "crit" at that!

[aaacb]

I thought I was the only one who uses the FA 77/1.8 Limited for shooting a bike race*.


Steve

* ...and a "crit" at that!

I once got amused looks for shooting hockey with the da 40 but it is a good focal length for behind the goal angles

[stevebrot]

I once got amused looks for shooting hockey with the da 40 but it is a good focal length for behind the goal angles

"Criterion" bike races, such as in the gallery photos, are held on city streets and are characterized by sufficient distance on the straights for entry at fairly high speeds ~30mph) into on the often uneven pavement of the right angle corners. The strategy for photography is to find a spot on the sidewalk to shoot a particular space on the course. If there is going to be a crash or drama within the peloton, it will be on those corners. I turn off AF and prefocus to a point just past the apex. Fast AF is only an asset if it can guess the subject. FWIW, I use M mode too for DOF control and adequate shutter and no...I don't like ISO changing on the camera's whim. I can usually get two or three chosen shots per pass.


Steve

[clickclick]

The people posting comments seem to have a better idea what the lens about than the author.

[ramseybuckeye]

The people posting comments seem to have a better idea what the lens about than the author.

Isn’t that usually the case because they are actual users, and know how the system operates.

[stevebrot]

The people posting comments seem to have a better idea what the lens about than the author.

You must mean the comments from other than the "Bokeh Nazis" and "Generic Trolls". Of course, there are some that are fully credentialed for both labels.



Steve

[DWS1]

The people posting comments seem to have a better idea what the lens about than the author.

Isn’t that usually the case because they are actual users, and know how the system operates.

Pretty much all that needs to be said about it.

[AfterPentax Mark II]

Interesting that some people actually looked at the pictures. Most of them seem to have an allergic reaction to mentioning the brand Pentax.

[Rondec]

I took a lot at a chunk of their images and they seemed really boring. Not as boring as taking photos of brick walls, but not anything I thought was particularly interesting either.

The strong point of the FA 77 was always its out of focus rendering and the transitions from in focus to out of focus areas. Not many of these images demonstrate much of that.

[Serkevan]

I took a lot at a chunk of their images and they seemed really boring. Not as boring as taking photos of brick walls, but not anything I thought was particularly interesting either.

The strong point of the FA 77 was always its out of focus rendering and the transitions from in focus to out of focus areas. Not many of these images demonstrate much of that.

One user complained about the distracting bokeh.
On the 77.
I cannot even. Sure, some OOF "bokeh balls" have CA on their edges, but good look seeing that below 100% magnification. I swear these people don't take photos, just look at MTFs.

[clickclick]

Isn’t that usually the case because they are actual users, and know how the system operates.

You must mean the comments from other than the "Bokeh Nazis" and "Generic Trolls". Of course, there are some that are fully credentialed for both labels.



Steve

Yes and yes, and once again makes me question why I ever waste any time looking at anything posted over there.

[jersey]

I do not know, out of focus parts seems a bit distracting to me. Maybe it is because of pictures themselves but they seem a bit "fuzzy", make my eye to wander into those areas (instead of focusing on the subject). Images with stars are good example with me focusing on the OOF stars in first and the big foremost star on the second, ignoring what's in focus. Landscape images are nice and pleasant to look on the other hand. Kinda weird for short telephoto.

[c.a.m]

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