[Kunzite]

I was pretty happy with my FA 77, but my wife shoots wedding and she got very frustrated dealing with purple fringing from that lens. I have heard all of the "one click" fix comments, but the reality is that if you have bad purple fringing, fixing it may leave a gray halo around your subject and further, if members of the wedding part have purplish dresses, it can really screw up those colors too.

Well, if I understand correctly what they say in the Development Story, Pentax redid the optical design from scratch (with the concave front element) because they otherwise couldn't properly address purple fringing.
It seems it's very important for portraiture

[Wheatfield]

Well, if I understand correctly what they say in the Development Story, Pentax redid the optical design from scratch (with the concave front element) because they otherwise couldn't properly address purple fringing.
It seems it's very important for portraiture

Try shooting anyone wearing some sort of bling with the 77 and see how it works out. Any sort of gold or silver jewelry can be an absolute nightmare with a lens that fringes badly and there really is no way to light against it.

[ffking]

Good to see - I thought they'd given up Pentax reviews - so long since they did one - which would be a shame as they are always fair. They are the people who provided the legendary 'con' regarding the 200mm lens, something to the effect of 'not available in other mounts'.

[Parallax]

ephotozine news, not Pentax news. Moved to the lens discussion forum.

[mikesbike]

A top-quality lens for sure, for those whose needs are met with a lens of this type. It is reassuring to see Ricoh/Pentax having developed such an advanced and superb lens!

I can understand some comparison of the new FDA 85mm f/1.4 with the much older FA 77mm f/1.8, but this is not actually all that appropriate. A better comparison would be against its predecessor, the FA* 85mm f/1/4. Of course, to be expected, some purple fringing problems are typical with fast lenses designed from the 35mm film era, and as to be expected, this is not likely to be significantly problematic with new modern designs for digital use.

The FA 77mm f/1.8 Ltd was designed with certain factors being prominent. Foremost is having a high-quality moderate telephoto lens in an incredibly compact but superbly built body. And, portraits have long been a specialty for this lens. My very first shot with my first FA 77mm Ltd years ago, which I still have, was a portrait photo of a young friend during a walk through the woods, down to a beach. I had the FA 43mm Ltd on camera when we stopped in a semi-clearing for a brief rest. I swapped lenses to my new FA 77mm, turned and said- "let me get a pic of you here", being at a suitable distance, and got off a single shot. I was using "P" mode and quickly judged that f4.5 picked by the camera, was about right to slightly blur the background to the degree, so as to still be recognizable for context. Then we continued down to take a swim before hiking back. When the film was developed and prints came back, I gave him a couple of copies. He said, that shot was the best photo ever taken of him, including the studio prints from his graduation! He was delighted, and so was I.

Since going into DSLR use, I have taken many more portraits using the FA 77mm Ltd, always with great results. I know purple fringing can occur with these film-based lens designs, especially with digital, but so far I have not run into this issue with portraits using this lens. But I have never used it for shooting a wedding, graduation, etc. and I am not a fashion photographer. For me, the FA 77mm lens is amazing in its IQ and build quality, yet while being so compact, and perfect for my kind of uses. I even got the new HD version last year, this time in black instead of silver. I am that fond of this lens and employ it fairly often for a variety of uses.

For those doing studio work, the new Pentax DFA 85mm lens could prove to be what was always hoped for! For those shooting weddings, it might also be the perfect answer for posed shots without worry regarding purple fringing in clothing or jewelry, while they might need to use other lenses as well, rather than be moving around a lot with this huge, 3-lb lens! Another possible option might be the DA 70mm f/2.4 Ltd for those wedding-shooters not needing a lens that long, nor such an extreme reduction in DOF- maybe for their moving around lens.

[BarryE]

Yes, the DFA*85/1.4 is still sharper up to F8, and has less fringing. It's not as great a difference as when they are both at f/1.8 where the *85 makes the 77 look like yesterdays news.
What you are paying for with the *85 is unparalleled wide open performance and better than most performance to around f/8 which is where the lesser lenses do start to catch up. I can take pictures with the *85 that I could only dream of with the 77.
One of the things I have gotten to like is that I don't have to have my backdrop in focus to get decent sharpness. Having the ability to control depth of field while maintaining great image quality is a beautiful thing.
Not being trapped into shooting at f5.6 or smaller simply because the lens doesn't work well at wider apertures is very freeing from a creativity viewpoint.

Thanks Bill. Or rather no thanks as this another vote for the 85. In my fledgling portrait steps I've found that I get considerably more in-focus shots at f5.6 as I like to move around a lot and a single spot focus is not perfect. It's not really that I don't like the reduced resolution at wider aperture. The backdrop point is well made. In my smaller room it is an issue, but I also have a much longer room I can set up for better backdrop control. It would be nice to experiment at really wide apertures, but that would probably require tripod use and a different approach. Eye detect/AF would handy. Learning ...

---------- Post added 08-19-22 at 07:34 AM ----------

Try shooting anyone wearing some sort of bling with the 77 and see how it works out. Any sort of gold or silver jewelry can be an absolute nightmare with a lens that fringes badly and there really is no way to light against it.

Good point, again.

[house]

my wife shoots wedding and she got very frustrated dealing with purple fringing from that lens. I have heard all of the "one click" fix comments, but the reality is that if you have bad purple fringing, fixing it may leave a gray halo around your subject and further, if members of the wedding part have purplish dresses, it can really screw up those colors too.

A lot of people mix up

- Purple fringing,
- Lateral CA
- Axial CA (longitudinal CA)

when they say how easy it is to fix. Lateral CA does actually fix up pretty nicely because you literally scale the colour channels (R an
d B) in relation to distance from center. Axial or longitudinal CA is a right nightmare to fix. Purple fringing is fixable but as you say leaves artefacts and can never be done automatically based on lens spec.

[repaap]

One more thing different with FA 77 and DFA *85 is that with 77 you won't ge that 'fast' 85 mm 'look'. Every one who has shot with fast 85 does know this. This is why DFA*85 is -still- on my shopping list.


FA 77 is great I love mine. Small compact and great for what it is. But it is not fast 85, and definetly it is not in class of DFA* lenses.

[mbukal]

why, why don't you compare two of the same length with the same apertures, FA 85/1.4 vs DFA 85/1.4, as if you are comparing a car with 1100 cubic meters and 150 horses with a car with 1600 cubic meters and 110 horses, I don't see the logic in comparing FA77/ 1.4 vs DFA 85/1.4 the only thing is that both are Pentax lenses with original Pentax design,77/1.8 vs 85/1.4 do not even belong to the same lens class, i.e. * class ,no, they are by no glasses for a parallel comparison of the same characteristic qualities

[gatorguy]

why, why don't you compare two of the same length with the same apertures, FA 85/1.4 vs DFA 85/1.4, as if you are comparing a car with 1100 cubic meters and 150 horses with a car with 1600 cubic meters and 110 horses, I don't see the logic in comparing FA77/ 1.4 vs DFA 85/1.4 the only thing is that both are Pentax lenses with original Pentax design

Both the DFA85 and FA77 are current production, easily found new with warranty, and often suggested for the same types of photography, ie "people stuff". Comparing a 30 year old lens made for film and no longer easily found, and especially in pristine condition, is not nearly as helpful IMHO.

I had the older FA85 1.4, one of my two favorite lenses at the time, and sold it shortly after getting the DFA85. The difference between the two was apparent. The legendary one is really good, but to me the new one is better in every way but weight.

[mbukal]

and the FA 77/1.8 was designed and sold before the FF DSLR Pentax existed ,it is not designed for the FF DSLR and its sensor requirements ,I still don't see the logic in the comparison of features other than the easy availability of FA77 vs FA*85 to compare with the new DFA*85 ,just as I don't I see the logic Pentax equipment users who buy a canikon abandoned dslr system to make up for what the Pentax dslr system does not allow them good enough

[pres589]

The comparison is a way of asking one's self if they're interested in moving to/from the FA 77 to the D-FA*85 or not. There's not a lot of comparable glass currently in production for k-mount. None with auto focus.

[Serkevan]

and the FA 77/1.8 was designed and sold before the FF DSLR Pentax existed ,it is not designed for the FF DSLR and its sensor requirements ,I still don't see the logic in the comparison of features other than the easy availability of FA77 vs FA*85 to compare with the new DFA*85 ,just as I don't I see the logic Pentax equipment users who buy a canikon abandoned dslr system to make up for what the Pentax dslr system does not allow them good enough

Eh... what? The FA 77 was designed for a 36x24mm sensor, and is sold new as a lens for the K-1. The comparison makes sense, it's a just-a-bit-shorter telephoto with less than a stop of aperture difference. Both lenses can be used interchangeably in 90% or more of the situations where you'd use one of the two. It's just the performance that is going to be different.

[Wheatfield]

One more thing different with FA 77 and DFA *85 is that with 77 you won't ge that 'fast' 85 mm 'look'. Every one who has shot with fast 85 does know this. This is why DFA*85 is -still- on my shopping list.


FA 77 is great I love mine. Small compact and great for what it is. But it is not fast 85, and definetly it is not in class of DFA* lenses.

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.

---------- Post added Aug 19th, 2022 at 09:46 AM ----------

why, why don't you compare two of the same length with the same apertures, FA 85/1.4 vs DFA 85/1.4, as if you are comparing a car with 1100 cubic meters and 150 horses with a car with 1600 cubic meters and 110 horses, I don't see the logic in comparing FA77/ 1.4 vs DFA 85/1.4 the only thing is that both are Pentax lenses with original Pentax design,77/1.8 vs 85/1.4 do not even belong to the same lens class, i.e. * class ,no, they are by no glasses for a parallel comparison of the same characteristic qualities

They are both available new. This goes a long way towards a valid comparison when one is trying to decide what to purchase new. The lens that comes closest to optical comparability with the DFA*85/1.4 is the A*85/1.4, and it is a unicorn of a lens that gives up autofocus. Good luck finding one.

When I was shopping for a new truck several years ago I was comparing the Dodge Ram 6.7 diesel to the Nissan Titan 5.0 diesel. They aren't anywhere near being in the same class, the Ram has something like 50% more horsepower and torque than the smaller Cummins engine.
I decided that for my needs, the smaller engine in the better built truck was sufficient and I ended up with the Nissan.

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.

[BarryE]

The comparison is a way of asking one's self if they're interested in moving to/from the FA 77 to the D-FA*85 or not. There's not a lot of comparable glass currently in production for k-mount. None with auto focus.

Yup, that's true.

Seeking other's opinions draws out useful experiences that help to assess the advantages/disadvantages of, in this case, the 85v77 as portrait primes. It would need a lot of points to be scored in the 85 camp for me to move me from the 77, because of the elephant in the room. Any guesses? The elephant is the clue. I would hate the weight of the 85. Easy to assess from the specs.

For a portrait prime these discussions hopefully help readers (myself included) weigh up the pros and cons that can't really be found from test reviews, without actually being able to make full, personal comparisons. One person's plus or minus written in passing can trigger of a thought process that is worth its weight in "gold". Bill's comment about PF and jewellery got me digging down into my photos to see if I'd missed any bad cases. I didn't find any, but in the future I'll make sure I always check - fortunately I shoot tethered so I've no excuse.