[Rondec]

let's connect with the text from the previous message




so isn't the FA*85/1.4 designed for 36x24mm i.e. FF format, and I don't see any difference in approach design between it and the FA77/1.8 at a time when Pentax didn't have a FF DSLR, both were made in the FF SLR era of Pentax, one received a direct successor, and the other is after 32 years old optical and construction formulas only receive a cosmetic change on the packaging (body font and glass coating) to be reincarnated as a new lens, I still maintain that the two lenses are not for side-by-side comparison and I'm not claiming that any of the mentioned is a bad lens I completely agree with Rondec's statement: whether the differences are significant enough to justify the price difference is something that every photographer would have to decide, ie. by no means compare them primarily as lenses of the same class

My understanding is that the FA *85 is a new design (for film) whereas the FA 77 limited optical design shares a lot with the A *85 f1.4. Both of the lenses are good, but struggle with the same things that most lenses designed for film do -- mostly aberrations and fringing.

The biggest negative to me about the FA *85 is that it is quite old right now. According to the PF lens review the last year of production for the FA *85 was 2004. That means that any copy for sale is a minimum of 18 years old -- probably quite a bit older. And there is probably no fixing the lens if problems develop. Pentax certainly won't have parts available.

[mbukal]

would this mean that the FA*85/1.4 has a newer optical design than the newly reincarnated FA HD 77/1.8, does this mean that the A*85 has been reincarnated a second time with minimal modification (the winning team does not change ), it would be ok if FA*85/1.4 was reincarnated in the same way as a cheaper version, i.e. FA HD 85/2.8 (new body font and new coating glasses,1 stop of reduced aperture due to higher nominal sharpness,no wr,screwdriver af)

[pres589]

Dude, it's just glass. Stop thinking so hard about it.

[mbukal]

Dude, it's just glass. Stop thinking so hard about it.

I won't stop thinking, but I will stop to write about the current topic

[repaap]

The fast 85 look does get tired pretty quickly. My first few sessions with the new 85mm were done at f1.4 just because I could. Honestly though, f2 or f2.8 is a better aperture to be at just to get that little bit extra in focus. The 77 at f2.8 is very usable.



In the same way, a person might decide that the DFA*85/1.4 is way more lens than they need, and that the FA77/1.8 might fit the bill quite nicely.

I kind of agree with you, But you can't simply get that look from FA 77, that is what I'm saying. Even stopped down DFA 85 has 'that' look, from what I have seen.

Won't be night and day, but you just simply have some things left to be desiered with 'just' FA 77. I have this lens and I have shot and owned couple othet fast 85 (why I still have FA 77 but not them(sigma&samyang) . I have also briefly tried DFA * 85 just to see side by side what is what. I have DFA*70-200 which has about 80% of what 85 has(AW, DFA * colours, contrast, high quality, no fring...) but it does have handy zoom range too...anyway. DFA*85 is very nice and should you need that look, it would be the way to go in pentax land.

FA 77 is very nice and light and stopped down in certain scenarios you don't need much more that that.

[Rondec]

I kind of agree with you, But you can't simply get that look from FA 77, that is what I'm saying. Even stopped down DFA 85 has 'that' look, from what I have seen.

Won't be night and day, but you just simply have some things left to be desiered with 'just' FA 77. I have this lens and I have shot and owned couple othet fast 85 (why I still have FA 77 but not them(sigma&samyang) . I have also briefly tried DFA * 85 just to see side by side what is what. I have DFA*70-200 which has about 80% of what 85 has(AW, DFA * colours, contrast, high quality, no fring...) but it does have handy zoom range too...anyway. DFA*85 is very nice and should you need that look, it would be the way to go in pentax land.

FA 77 is very nice and light and stopped down in certain scenarios you don't need much more that that.

I think the extra length that you have with an 85mm versus a 77mm focal length does help in terms of subject isolation and is more flattering for a subject's features. Obviously, this is a matter of degree. If you used an FA 31 to frame a portrait the same way that you would with an 85mm, you would have very unpleasant rendering of features.

I would add that the DFA *85 has the most contrast of any Pentax lens I've used. This tends to make images from it really pop in a way that images from other lenses need a bit more post processing to achieve.

---------- Post added 08-22-22 at 06:16 AM ----------

would this mean that the FA*85/1.4 has a newer optical design than the newly reincarnated FA HD 77/1.8, does this mean that the A*85 has been reincarnated a second time with minimal modification (the winning team does not change ), it would be ok if FA*85/1.4 was reincarnated in the same way as a cheaper version, i.e. FA HD 85/2.8 (new body font and new coating glasses,1 stop of reduced aperture due to higher nominal sharpness,no wr,screwdriver af)

If you read about it, it seems as though the FA *85 was optimized for portrait distances and didn't seem to take as good photos at longer distances. If you adjust for inflation, the FA *85 f1.4 sold for somewhere between 1500 and 1600 dollars new, where the DFA *85 is selling for 1700 dollars. It seems unlikely that a crippled version of the FA *85 with a maximum aperture of f2.8 would sell well if it was priced somewhere in the 1200 to 1400 dollar range.