[jfsavage]

Does anyone have any thoughts on the 77mm limited and how the new 55mm SDM?

[jfsavage]

Is there really no one out there that owns both?

[lawsonstone]

I have both, but haven't done a critical comparison. I find the 77mm wonderful, but for much of my shooting it is a little too much zoom. I also have the DA 70mm ltd and can't decide which of the two I like.

The 55mm SDM is a great lens as well. My only complaint is that it's very big.

If you are thinking of one or the other, you'll have to consider the difference in focal length, the difference in size/weight, and the slight difference in speed (1.8 vs. 1.4). The 77mm Ltd is a jewel to hold in your hand, but the DA*55 is a masterpiece of the latest craft in lens design.

IN a way, it's apples and oranges. I suspect the DE*55 is the more versatile lens overall unless compactness is a concern.

[K-9]

The DA 55 is built like an old 85 and shoots like one on a DSLR. The problem with that is, when Pentax goes FF, you're going to be left with one giant 55mm lens that will shoot at 55 instead of 85. Not very practical for a standard lens.

Also, is this lens one that even works on FF film bodies without issues?

[eyou]

no vignetting at f/8 was the last i heard from the DA lenses on FF thread.

[jfsavage]

I am mostly looking for the emotional response to the two lenses. I know how much people love the 77mm, and I've been tempted by it in the past. I'm curious to see if people have the same reaction to the 55mm - it seems to have the same potential for LBA. I was hoping the price would drop down a little more than it has, as it is expensive for a non-limited lens.

I'm not too worried about FF - I'm not sure Pentax will go FF even. I see FF as the new medium format - bigger, better quality, more expensive. My gut feeling is that Pentax will produce a true medium format digital camera and leave the 35mm FF space to others.

[Mr. The Guy]

The problem with that is, when Pentax goes FF, you're going to be left with one giant 55mm lens that will shoot at 55 instead of 85. Not very practical for a standard lens.

Also, is this lens one that even works on FF film bodies without issues?

So, you are suggesting to not get a lens (the 55) because it might not be optimal at some time in the future. BUT, you argue that you should get a lens that is sub-optimal (the 77) today. When the OP goes out to take pictures tomorrow, they will be using a digital camera, but you want him to buy a lens designed for film. The focal length is inappropriate for APS-C (why I sold mine). It has no weather sealing, the hood is inadequate, and the K-7 has functionality that FA lenses cannot utilize. An old design vs. a new design. A portrait lens that matches with currently available bodies, vs. a portrait lens made for a format first used before most people on this forum were born.

It's a digital world my friend. Join us. IMHO buying old stuff vs. new stuff is always the wrong choice.

[dugrant153]

I don’t have the 77mm, but I had the DA70 Limited and sold it to fund the DA*55. I found the DA70 too long for my general use, so I’m thinking 77mm would be the same. I like going wider, and the 55mm focal length provided just enough image compression for me for portrait and model photo use. The DA70 Ltd on the other hand had a bit too much compression for my liking. The DA*55 is the equivalent of 85mm on film... and now I see why people bought 85mm back in the day...

If I had to choose between the the DA*55 and FA77 Ltd (and… actually, I did choose between them), I’d get the DA*55 F1.4. SDM is a tad on the slower end but not a big deal (the slowness, I think, is mainly a camera body issue. I shoot in some pretty difficult lighting most of the time…). Manual focus feel on this lens is EXCELLENT. I actually prefer to MF this lens rather than let the SDM do its thing. The image quality is superb from F1.4 (yes, F1.4!) and up. The build quality and weather sealing and overall “put-together-ness” of this lens … it’s a work of art, IMO. It’s not a metal limited, and with the hood it’s a bit chunky… but I don’t really mind as it’s big enough to give my hands a good grip on it.

On paper, the DA*55 doesn’t seem like much of an upgrade. But you definitely have to get your hands on one and test it out and see for yourself what it’s all about. I went to a shop with NO intention of buying one and just gave it a quick test run to see what all the hollabaloo was about.

About a week and a half later, I had my own copy.

[K-9]

So, you are suggesting to not get a lens (the 55) because it might not be optimal at some time in the future. BUT, you argue that you should get a lens that is sub-optimal (the 77) today. When the OP goes out to take pictures tomorrow, they will be using a digital camera, but you want him to buy a lens designed for film. The focal length is inappropriate for APS-C (why I sold mine). It has no weather sealing, the hood is inadequate, and the K-7 has functionality that FA lenses cannot utilize. An old design vs. a new design. A portrait lens that matches with currently available bodies, vs. a portrait lens made for a format first used before most people on this forum were born.

It's a digital world my friend. Join us. IMHO buying old stuff vs. new stuff is always the wrong choice.

You're getting ahead of yourself. Yes, I did suggest not getting the 55, due to 1) it's high price, and 2) for it's potential backwards and forwards incompatibility issues. However, I never argued or mentioned the 77 lens at all. I didn't imply to get the 77, I was merely commenting on the 55.

If there are those who want to buy the new DA lenses for only using them on DSLR's, there's no reason why they can't. I simply offered reasoning why I didn't think it was logical. As far as weatherproofing, you only need it if you shoot in inclement weather. I never do. Some others may never either.

Buying old stuff or new stuff is a choice. I'll take the F 50mm 1.4 over the DA 55 as there is no justification of the higher price for just weatherproofing for me. I do not feel it's any sharper than the F. I also use film and digital bodies, and would get a FF DSLR in the future, therefore, that's 1 out of 3 of my setups that the DA will not work well with. My F lens will work with all 3.

[jslifoaw]

It's a digital world my friend. Join us. IMHO buying old stuff vs. new stuff is always the wrong choice.

Newer is not always better, especially when it comes to anything with electronics of any sort. The most obvious reasons to get DA lenses are quick shift (quite useful), weather sealing, compactness (in some cases), or maybe there's a focal length not served by film lenses (eg wide lenses).

We do not know if the lenses will be mounted on film cameras or FF cameras, or if the 55 might lose its ability to AF because its motor dies, or if the lens is going to be used in an application which requires manually setting the aperture.

Although underlying electronics always improve, the execution often takes backward steps due to pricing/competition or deliberate feature cutting.

[augustmoon]

The FA77 is one of the reasons I bought a K20D a year ago last spring, as I do a lot of portrait work. I wanted great quality prime with AF, much much better than the Canon 85L and 40D, 5D I switched from....

I have to say, though, that the DA*55 is my favorite and absolutely best performing lens that I have used on the K20D thus far. I have bought and sold about 40 other lenses that aren't in my sig below, including all of the DA ltds. and a few more Voigts/Zeiss, and most of the Pentax zooms.

The two are different focal lengths obviously, but where as before I would tend to stick with the FA77 and try to get more room to back up to use, I now tend to favor the DA*55, even if it means coming in a little closer. I will now use the Zeiss 85 for headshots, but now will use the DA*55 for everything else. The 77 was my AF portrait and people machine, but the 55 has taken that role over

The 55 is very sharp at F2, perhaps just a little more useable at these more wide open apertures than the 77 is.

And I agree with your opinions about Pentax's FF

In some instances I prefer the compression of the longer focal length, but then

If Pentax were to carry out the DA* line with a 70-85 or so, I'd most likely buy that and sell the 77, maybe even sell the Zeiss 85. If they came out with a DA*28 or 30, I'd sell the FA31 in a blink of the eye.

The coloring and rendering is similar between the DA*55 and the Zeiss' that I own.

I used to have the Voigtlander 58, but the color and rendering of the DA*55 was even nicer to my eyes. It was actually very very similar, but needing and wanting AF for this purpose, then it was no question, plus the AF is very decent on the 55, and I was actually able to get better AF with the 55 than MF with the VL58.

My emotional response is that I love this lens, and I tend to use it when I can before another lens, except when the focal length is the deciding factor.

My technical feelings is that it is a very sharp and very capable lens, that really has incredible IQ, and that the AF is very accurate and trustworthy.

[jfsavage]

That is a very useful analysis - I appreciate everyone's input.

The technical analysis at SLR Gear indicates the 55mm is awesome: Pentax Lens: Primes - Pentax 55mm f/1.4 SDM SMC DA* (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

In fact, wide open (which is why I want it) it seems to be vastly better than the Canon 1.4:

"Prior to testing it, we'd heard the buzz that the Canon 50mm f/1.4 prime (non-zoom lens) was a little soft when shot wide open. Even with that preparation though, we about fell out of our chairs when we first saw its blur plots. Yikes! - This is a prime? At f/1.4, this lens has the dubious distinction of having one of the worst blur characteristics among the 20 or so lenses we've tested at this point."

And better than the Canon 1.2L:

"Given its L-class designation and lofty(!) price, we found the 50mm f/1.2 to be a bit of a disappointment. While the center-sharpness and shading (vignetting) are excellent over the full aperture range, the wide-aperture corner sharpness, the chromatic aberration, and the distortion performances were all subpar."


The 55mm SDM is heading towards the top of my shopping list.

[kristoffon]

So, you are suggesting to not get a lens (the 55) because it might not be optimal at some time in the future. BUT, you argue that you should get a lens that is sub-optimal (the 77) today. When the OP goes out to take pictures tomorrow, they will be using a digital camera, but you want him to buy a lens designed for film. The focal length is inappropriate for APS-C (why I sold mine). It has no weather sealing, the hood is inadequate, and the K-7 has functionality that FA lenses cannot utilize. An old design vs. a new design. A portrait lens that matches with currently available bodies, vs. a portrait lens made for a format first used before most people on this forum were born.

It's a digital world my friend. Join us. IMHO buying old stuff vs. new stuff is always the wrong choice.

are you a troll? what a bunch of CRAP

first off, how is the 77 sub optimal? how is the hood inadequate? this lens doesn't even need a hood, you can shoot straight into the sun.

how is the focal length inappropriate? of course it's longer than on film, but are you saying that 77 mm is useless on aps-c? were there never any film 100mm lenses? actually the fov change is not relevant. 77mm is long on film and remains long on aps-c. you just have to take a couple steps further and remains an amazing portrait lens.

what functionality does the K7 have that the 77ltd won't utilize? are you talking about distortion & vignetting corretion? then you don't know what you're talking about because this lens has NONE of them.

go back to your cave, troll

[nostatic]

I consider the 77 a magic lens. I also do not believe in machine tests or picture of focus charts and brick walls.

I may end up getting a 55 for the following reasons:

good focal length (though it is somewhat close to my 43)
SDM
Weather resistance

As for emotional response, there is another thread comparing Zeiss 50 and the 55*. I think the 55* has a nicer look. I really liked my CV 58/1.4, but I need AF. I'm willing to bet the 55* would scratch that itch *and* give me silent AF (with K20d).

[jfsavage]

I consider the 77 a magic lens. I also do not believe in machine tests or picture of focus charts and brick walls.

I may end up getting a 55 for the following reasons:

good focal length (though it is somewhat close to my 43)
SDM
Weather resistance

As for emotional response, there is another thread comparing Zeiss 50 and the 55*. I think the 55* has a nicer look. I really liked my CV 58/1.4, but I need AF. I'm willing to bet the 55* would scratch that itch *and* give me silent AF (with K20d).

I find that the technical tests give good insight into some of the capabilities of lenses, as long as you understand the limitations of that type of approach.

The thread you mention is very interesting - I am hoping for some other images to be added ;}