[mr.b.snowden]

For your consideration....icon/midnight/@menu

I had fallen in love with the 77 three (yes 3!) times, buying one, selling it, regretting it, repeat x 2. I finally got rid of the 77 when I found a great price (at that time) for the FA*85. That proved to be a great lens, outside of the fringing, that I kept it until the DFA*85 came out. Once I got my hands on the DFA*85, I found that the images were spectacular, my wallet lighter, and my wrists a bit sore. I haven't looked back otherwise, outside of looking at the work I captured with those lenses, and know that they were a tool for a certain point of time in my portfolio.

The FA 77 is a light lens, easy to take with you wherever you go. The FA*85 is a big bigger, but nothing too crazy weight wise (with a gripped body), and then the DFA*85 is a different beast.

[Digitalis]

he ended up paying several hundred more for the pair from another source because he insisted the MiJ's they were selling priced quite a bit higher rendered images noticeably better than my MiV versions

My Zeiss optics bench can't tell the difference between the Pentax FA Limited AIV and MIJ lenses....that buyer was either very special or very stupid and I'm betting on the latter.

Then again, I have seen Leicaphiles display a certain reluctance to buy Canadian made Leica lenses.

[wadge22]

I think it's more fair to say "country of origin doesn't matter as much as price to me personally, and very probably doesn't affect performance" than to call people silly or stupid.

I go out of my way to purchase products made in USA, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, UK, Italy, etc. Tools, clothes, home goods, electronics, and yes... camera equipment. Up to and including saving longer and paying more. Whenever possible, which is a lot more of the time than a lot of people (who don't have the same values and priorities) realize.

My reasons are several, and ultimately they're my own. And I don't go around trying to tell people it's the only wise choice. But I also don't think it's right to be called stupid for what I choose to do with my money.

[UncleVanya]

I think it's more fair to say "country of origin doesn't matter as much as price to me personally, and very probably doesn't affect performance" than to call people silly or stupid.

I go out of my way to purchase products made in USA, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, UK, Italy, etc. Tools, clothes, home goods, electronics, and yes... camera equipment. Up to and including saving longer and paying more. Whenever possible, which is a lot more of the time than a lot of people (who don't have the same values and priorities) realize.

My reasons are several, and ultimately they're my own. And I don't go around trying to tell people it's the only wise choice. But I also don't think it's right to be called stupid for what I choose to do with my money.

I think the fact that the buyer said he had heard the MIJ lenses were better than the AIV from the Internet is the context. The lack of depth in their analysis is what drives the label. That is quite different from someone saying they prefer MIJ over AIV for personal reasons. But I’m perhaps more diplomatic and I wouldn’t personally say stupid but “reasoning challenged“…

[Digitalis]

But I also don't think it's right to be called stupid for what I choose to do with my money.

Hello, I'm from Australia. I have a rough idea where you are from, but over here we no compunctions about calling people what they are. Preferences for an MIJ FA limited over an AIV often arise due to persistent rumors which are based upon flimsy reasoning and have no basis in reality at best, and at worst: the preference exists for no other reason other than veiled cultural prejudice. I have tested as many of the FA limited lenses as my friends and colleagues allow me to borrow from them* and I have a fair sample size** to put this AIV and MIJ argument to rest and: in spite of this it still persists.

* while I still had my optics bench set up.
** better than a meta analysis suspect of P hacking.

[house]

Related to this is a Chinese reviewer who when comparing the SMC Vs HD FA35 noted that they weighed exactly the same. Across if I remember correctly a switch of country and factory. He also compared this with a long lived Zeiss lens which had serious weight fluctuations over the years.

This is to say that Pentax appears to have very strict control.

[Digitalis]

He also compared this with a long lived Zeiss lens which had serious weight fluctuations over the years.

I would counter that point by mentioning that there are more likely to be counterfeit Zeiss lenses than Pentax. Aside from looking up the serial numbers Leica will actually weigh individual components of their rangefinders to certify they are authentic.

[c.a.m]

Then again, I have seen Leicaphiles display a certain reluctance to buy Canadian made Leica lenses.

But, but, but.... didn't they have a secret stash of highly-purified Canada Balsam? Or maybe it was Labatt's beer; I'm not certain.

- Craig

[Serkevan]

I can not comment on the FA*85 or HD77, so I will not vote. However, as a very happy owner of a 77... It produces gorgeous, stunning images. In a totally unscientific test, I have found that the photos that make my friends and family go "wow" the most are those from the Limiteds. The rendering is to die for.

My Zeiss optics bench can't tell the difference between the Pentax FA Limited AIV and MIV lenses....that buyer was either very special or very stupid and I'm betting on the latter.

Then again, I have seen Leicaphiles display a certain reluctance to buy Canadian made Leica lenses.

I always thought the only difference (not even necessarily meaningful difference) was that the earliest runs of the FA Limiteds (not even all the MIJ ones) used leaded glass which changed a bit the optical properties. I had my doubts that it would be impactful, but it's nice to see that validated.

(I happen to have a 77 with serial number... 2600s I think, and a 43 in the 7000 range, but they were literally the cheapest copies I found - 350€ a piece is a steal).

---------- Post added 07-12-22 at 06:09 AM ----------

highly-purified Canada Balsam?
- Craig

Is that how you call maple syrup now?

[house]

I would counter that point by mentioning that there are more likely to be counterfeit Zeiss lenses than Pentax. Aside from looking up the serial numbers Leica will actually weigh individual components of their rangefinders to certify they are authentic.

The level of nerdery involved in the optical and historical analysis of his pieces makes me think it's unlikely he made that mistake.
?????????FA35mm F2.0 AL - ????

Here's the equivalent for the DFA21 (speculative optical analysis as no patent has been registered)
????????????????DFA21mm F2.4 Limited? - ????

or a summicron history
????????Summicron??? - ????

They are tricky to translate due to the annoying bilibili interface but it can be done. Here are some pdf's
https://filebin.net/oujb7g7lhh3gzyol

[Digitalis]

I always thought the only difference (not even necessarily meaningful difference) was that the earliest runs of the FA Limiteds (not even all the MIJ ones) used leaded glass which changed a bit the optical properties. I had my doubts that it would be impactful, but it's nice to see that validated.

There was plenty of warning that leaded glass was going to be phased out as there was a spectacular amount of evidence of how harmful to the environment and to the people manufacturing it was. I'd say Jun Hirakawa anticipated this when the FA43 and FA77 were designed and put into production.

[6x7II]

With the new D FA* 85 out, the prices of FA* 85s are way down, and with the new HD FA 77 out, SMC FA 77s are priced quite reasonable right now. I've been wanting one of these three to go with my K3 iii, and have been looking for a reason to chose one over the other. I can get a Near Mint FA* 85 for under $700, and probably a new HD FA 77 for close to that if I wait for a sale, A Mint MIJ FA 77 can be found for under $500.

Is there enough improvement in the HD 77 to forget about the SMC version? There really isn't enough of a difference in price to compare on that alone (for any of the 3). I'm also not terribly worried about the size of the 85, as I have some big glass now.

Based on opinions about sharpness and bokeh from old threads I read, it should be the 85 all the way, but opinions are just that.

So...order up an 85 or a 77?

The New HD77 is the one to go.
Rationals the coating is much better preventing flat and low contrast in backlight situations I sold my mij SMC 77 version after shooting side by side with the HD version. The new coating did not solve the purplefringe though 😟
If you are really in to portraiture and are willing to carry around a very heavy lens then you could consider the hd85 but combine it with a K1.

[BruceBanner]

SMC for portraiture
HD for general/landscape
FA* working out

[clackers]

FA* working out

It's not a big lens, Bruce, only a 67mm filter.

Perhaps you meant the DFA*.

[Digitalis]

didn't they have a secret stash of highly-purified Canada Balsam? Or maybe it was Labatt's beer; I'm not certain.

How to make a Germanophile Leica aficionado lose their lunch: