which one is a better 70mm lens?

**rparmar** · 04-20-2010, 11:51 AM

Hey, Gene: You read me incorrectly... again. I am not offended or upset. The fact I thought one of your statements rude does not imply I'm sitting here fuming into my keyboard.

If you wish to be sarcastic and you acknowledge that English is not your first language, perhaps indicate this with an emoticon? Otherwise, how do you really expect anyone else to understand you? Tone is not easily carried in the written word.

If this is the only time in 50 years someone has misunderstood you, you are either extremely lucky or extremely forgetful. People misunderstand me all the time -- it is in the nature of language.

(I will not reply further in case more misunderstandings occur! We can take this to PM.)

GeneV · 04-20-2010, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by rparmar

Hey, Gene: You read me incorrectly... again. I am not offended or upset. The fact I thought one of your statements rude does not imply I'm sitting here fuming into my keyboard.

If you wish to be sarcastic and you acknowledge that English is not your first language, perhaps indicate this with an emoticon? Otherwise, how do you really expect anyone else to understand you? Tone is not easily carried in the written word.

If this is the only time in 50 years someone has misunderstood you, you are either extremely lucky or extremely forgetful. People misunderstand me all the time -- it is in the nature of language.

(I will not reply further in case more misunderstandings occur! We can take this to PM.)

We need the x and the v. I saw this and wondered what I had said.

xGene · 04-20-2010, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

We need the x and the v. I saw this and wondered what I had said.

Oops! So sorry! Didn't realize there was another one. I'll make sure I use the "x" in the future! Thanks for the heads-up!

xGene

Pentaxor · 04-20-2010, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by xGene

Touché !!! On the other hand, I am a of those that believe a beautiful woman is beautiful, no matter what! That's the French genes in me...
Unfortunately (or not???) I do not have many opportunities to photograph head shots of professional models ... But if I could, I would rather use my FA50, or FA77ltd, or FA*85. NOT the Sigma 70 EX, unless I had no other choice.

Gene

those are nice lenses for portraiture work. I was adamant on looking for a good deal on an FA*85 last year, before giving up since it's price is just too much ($1,000+) and it's hood is somehow ridiculously big as well. although it is small and light without it.

you don't have to worry about shooting headshots of professional models. what you would only see are heavy layers of make-up to cover up some of those freckles and pores. although there are exceptions and those types are really anal and takes care a lot about their face and bodies.

anyhow, beauty does lie in the eyes of the beholder.

xGene · 04-20-2010, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

If this is the only time in 50 years someone has misunderstood you, you are either extremely lucky or extremely forgetful. People misunderstand me all the time -- it is in the nature of language.

(I will not reply further in case more misunderstandings occur! We can take this to PM.)

Mmm... trust me, I had my share of misunderstanding in my life! and probaby many more to come. I like to think it made me "wiser".... Although my latest post is not a good representation...

(<= please take note)

As you can see with my number of posts, I don't have much experience with this, but I take a lot of pictures, and did it for a long time (only with Pentax equipment) so I think I can bring some value to this forum. Please forgive me!

(<= please take note)
Are we cool?

<=

xGene

xGene · 04-20-2010, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

those are nice lenses for portraiture work. I was adamant on looking for a good deal on an FA*85 last year, before giving up since it's price is just too much ($1,000+) and it's hood is somehow ridiculously big as well. although it is small and light without it.

I am actually barely using the FA*85 anymore since I acquired the 77ltd. I think it possesses all the advantages of the 85, without the drawbacks (WEIGHT & size). I know this will probably trigger a volley of protests from some... But this is my position. Let me know if you're still interested. It's mint. I was thinking of keeping it for "sentimental" value... But really it's just sitting in a closet (covered in a nice red velvety fabric...)

you don't have to worry about shooting headshots of professional models. what you would only see are heavy layers of make-up to cover up some of those freckles and pores. although there are exceptions and those types are really anal and takes care a lot about their face and bodies.

LOL! That's what I thought! Thanks for confirming! BTW, I like freckles...

anyhow, beauty does lie in the eyes of the beholder.

Agreed! :ugh::ugh:

Pentaxor · 04-20-2010, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by xGene

Actually, if the Pentax 100 Macro had a focus limiter, that is the one I would have gotten.
Gene

the FA100/2.8 has a focus limiter. it's AF is much much faster than the Sigma. the Pentax has a lot more punchy color, the Sigma is a lot more sharper and has more contrast. both are indispensable due to their respective focal length use. anyhow, I almost considered setting aside and selling the FA100 in favor of the Sigma, especially when doing macro. only to find out later that I needed the extra telephoto reach in other use.

Pentaxor · 04-20-2010, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by xGene

Agreed! :ugh::ugh:

Gene, I believe the extra 8mm reach and half-stop faster of the 85mm over the 77mm would be much nicer in rendering a much more brighter and shallower DOF in isolating the subject from the background. your proposition sounds very interesting but I'm also optimistic about the upcoming Sigma 85 which I'm also considering in buying and saving for at the end of the year. who knows, it might even be better and cheaper than the FA*85. anyway, out of curiosity, how much would you be willing to sell it if ever?

one more question, how was the bokeh on the Bokina? I think I'm also going to start a thread pitting it against another lens.

xGene · 04-20-2010, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

the FA100/2.8 has a focus limiter. it's AF is much much faster than the Sigma. the Pentax has a lot more punchy color, the Sigma is a lot more sharper and has more contrast. both are indispensable due to their respective focal length use. anyhow, I almost considered setting aside and selling the FA100 in favor of the Sigma, especially when doing macro. only to find out later that I needed the extra telephoto reach in other use.

Ah! I stand corrected! I could swear the D-FA had no limiter... unless it was the 50mm? Damn! Now I can kick myself... funny thing is that they don't even indicate it has a limiter on Pentax' website... You would think they would advertise about such an important feature??
So by your statement (Sigma a lot more sharper) you agree with me that all Macro lenses are not created equal although this FL is "easy" to design (sorry rparmar, couldn't pass on that one!

(<= again)

I am in agreement with you, this is the reason I keep my older Tamron SP 90 Adaptall, for when I need a little more distance to the subject. But I definitely prefer the Sigma's rendering and sharpness (for macro work).

xGene

xGene · 04-20-2010, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

Gene, I believe the extra 8mm reach and half-stop faster of the 85mm over the 77mm would be much nicer in rendering a much more brighter and shallower DOF in isolating the subject from the background. your proposition sounds very interesting but I'm also optimistic about the upcoming Sigma 85 which I'm also considering in buying and saving for at the end of the year. who knows, it might even be better and cheaper than the FA*85. anyway, out of curiosity, how much would you be willing to sell it if ever?

Again I agree with you. However, I found that the difference in rendering does not warrant the additional bulk. And that hood!!! Man!! what were they thinking???

In a nutshell, the FA*85 has a little bit more CA wide open, but currently not "correctable" in the K-7. The FA77 now is. I like that. Additionally, if I need more "reach", because of the quality of the K-7 RAW's, I can always crop to magnify, without significant loss in IQ. Again, this is based upon my own copies of these lenses. I have a feeling that these 2 lenses have very similar optical formulations, with perhaps a different coating? The 77mm seems to have better contrasts, but the difference is really, well, minimal.

How much I would sell my FA*85? I really don't know. What is the market price right now? Sorry for asking, I really really have no idea whatsoever. I only know how much I paid for it back in 1998.

xGene

xGene · 04-20-2010, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

one more question, how was the bokeh on the Bokina? I think I'm also going to start a thread pitting it against another lens.

Sorry Pentaxor... I have no idea what you mean by "Bokina"...

xGene

Pentaxor · 04-20-2010, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by xGene

Ah! I stand corrected! I could swear the D-FA had no limiter... unless it was the 50mm? Damn! Now I can kick myself... funny thing is that they don't even indicate it has a limiter on Pentax' website... You would think they would advertise about such an important feature??
So by your statement (Sigma a lot more sharper) you agree with me that all Macro lenses are not created equal although this FL is "easy" to design (sorry rparmar, couldn't pass on that one!

(<= again)

I am in agreement with you, this is the reason I keep my older Tamron SP 90 Adaptall, for when I need a little more distance to the subject. But I definitely prefer the Sigma's rendering and sharpness (for macro work).

xGene

Gene, you somewhat confused the FA100 with the D-FA. the FA is the version before the D-FA and it is completely different from it's D-FA successor. the body design of the FA is different since it's built like a tank ( solid metal) and has a recessed element and focus limiter switch and focus clamp, but doesn't have the quick-shift that the D-FA has.

macros are far different from ordinary lenses and above class IMO. and I also notice that macros render differently eventhough how good they are already in terms of IQ. there is a degree of difference in contrast, sharpness, color and bokeh rendering as well. I'm not sure though if the 85mm is easy to design. I think otherwise that would be the 50mm and 135mm but ultimately the 135mm, IMO.

Pentaxor · 04-20-2010, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by xGene

Sorry Pentaxor... I have no idea what you mean by "Bokina"...

xGene

I was referring to the Tokina 90/2.5 or Vivitar 90/2.5.

Joaodcn · 04-20-2010, 10:18 PM

Regarding the Pentax Limited 70 2.4, I was really impressed by its sharpness. It is really worth it.

hangu · 04-20-2010, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

one more question, how was the bokeh on the Bokina? I think I'm also going to start a thread pitting it against another lens.

Someone beat you to it, at least in the sharpness department.
Making Not Taking: Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 VMC 1:2 "Bokina"

Making Not Taking: 8-Lens Macro Shoot-Out

This is a very special lens. I currently have it in for repairs and won't see it for another week or two. I've only taken a few photos with it and the sharpness/bokeh is absolutely amazing. I'll try to put some photos up so you can get an idea of the bokeh.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
F 35-70mm lens problem	Pablom	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	04-25-2010 04:21 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax FA* 28-70mm f2.8 AL lens	JasonA	Sold Items	8	01-16-2010 01:46 AM
Which smc m lens up to 70mm?	bigK	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	09-30-2009 11:48 AM
Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX DF lens	Mechan1k	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	04-06-2008 05:31 AM
What is this lens? Pentax 35-70mm f3.5	Papersniper	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	11-03-2007 06:24 AM

04-20-2010, 11:51 AM	#16
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,823	Hey, Gene: You read me incorrectly... again. I am not offended or upset. The fact I thought one of your statements rude does not imply I'm sitting here fuming into my keyboard. If you wish to be sarcastic and you acknowledge that English is not your first language, perhaps indicate this with an emoticon? Otherwise, how do you really expect anyone else to understand you? Tone is not easily carried in the written word. If this is the only time in 50 years someone has misunderstood you, you are either extremely lucky or extremely forgetful. People misunderstand me all the time -- it is in the nature of language. (I will not reply further in case more misunderstandings occur! We can take this to PM.)

04-20-2010, 11:54 AM	#17
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by rparmar Hey, Gene: You read me incorrectly... again. I am not offended or upset. The fact I thought one of your statements rude does not imply I'm sitting here fuming into my keyboard. If you wish to be sarcastic and you acknowledge that English is not your first language, perhaps indicate this with an emoticon? Otherwise, how do you really expect anyone else to understand you? Tone is not easily carried in the written word. If this is the only time in 50 years someone has misunderstood you, you are either extremely lucky or extremely forgetful. People misunderstand me all the time -- it is in the nature of language. (I will not reply further in case more misunderstandings occur! We can take this to PM.) We need the x and the v. I saw this and wondered what I had said.

04-20-2010, 11:57 AM	#18
xGene Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Toronto, Ontario Posts: 151	Originally posted by GeneV We need the x and the v. I saw this and wondered what I had said. Oops! So sorry! Didn't realize there was another one. I'll make sure I use the "x" in the future! Thanks for the heads-up! xGene

04-20-2010, 12:02 PM	#19
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by xGene Touché !!! On the other hand, I am a of those that believe a beautiful woman is beautiful, no matter what! That's the French genes in me... Unfortunately (or not???) I do not have many opportunities to photograph head shots of professional models ... But if I could, I would rather use my FA50, or FA77ltd, or FA85. NOT the Sigma 70 EX, unless I had no other choice. Gene those are nice lenses for portraiture work. I was adamant on looking for a good deal on an FA85 last year, before giving up since it's price is just too much ($1,000+) and it's hood is somehow ridiculously big as well. although it is small and light without it. you don't have to worry about shooting headshots of professional models. what you would only see are heavy layers of make-up to cover up some of those freckles and pores. although there are exceptions and those types are really anal and takes care a lot about their face and bodies. anyhow, beauty does lie in the eyes of the beholder.

04-20-2010, 12:07 PM	#20
xGene Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Toronto, Ontario Posts: 151	Originally posted by rparmar If this is the only time in 50 years someone has misunderstood you, you are either extremely lucky or extremely forgetful. People misunderstand me all the time -- it is in the nature of language. (I will not reply further in case more misunderstandings occur! We can take this to PM.) Mmm... trust me, I had my share of misunderstanding in my life! and probaby many more to come. I like to think it made me "wiser".... Although my latest post is not a good representation... (<= please take note) As you can see with my number of posts, I don't have much experience with this, but I take a lot of pictures, and did it for a long time (only with Pentax equipment) so I think I can bring some value to this forum. Please forgive me! (<= please take note) Are we cool? <= xGene

04-20-2010, 12:16 PM	#21
xGene Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Toronto, Ontario Posts: 151	Originally posted by Pentaxor those are nice lenses for portraiture work. I was adamant on looking for a good deal on an FA85 last year, before giving up since it's price is just too much ($1,000+) and it's hood is somehow ridiculously big as well. although it is small and light without it. I am actually barely using the FA85 anymore since I acquired the 77ltd. I think it possesses all the advantages of the 85, without the drawbacks (WEIGHT & size). I know this will probably trigger a volley of protests from some... But this is my position. Let me know if you're still interested. It's mint. I was thinking of keeping it for "sentimental" value... But really it's just sitting in a closet (covered in a nice red velvety fabric...) you don't have to worry about shooting headshots of professional models. what you would only see are heavy layers of make-up to cover up some of those freckles and pores. although there are exceptions and those types are really anal and takes care a lot about their face and bodies. LOL! That's what I thought! Thanks for confirming! BTW, I like freckles... anyhow, beauty does lie in the eyes of the beholder. Agreed! :ugh::ugh:

04-20-2010, 12:22 PM	#22
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by xGene Actually, if the Pentax 100 Macro had a focus limiter, that is the one I would have gotten. Gene the FA100/2.8 has a focus limiter. it's AF is much much faster than the Sigma. the Pentax has a lot more punchy color, the Sigma is a lot more sharper and has more contrast. both are indispensable due to their respective focal length use. anyhow, I almost considered setting aside and selling the FA100 in favor of the Sigma, especially when doing macro. only to find out later that I needed the extra telephoto reach in other use.

04-20-2010, 12:34 PM	#23
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by xGene Agreed! :ugh::ugh: Gene, I believe the extra 8mm reach and half-stop faster of the 85mm over the 77mm would be much nicer in rendering a much more brighter and shallower DOF in isolating the subject from the background. your proposition sounds very interesting but I'm also optimistic about the upcoming Sigma 85 which I'm also considering in buying and saving for at the end of the year. who knows, it might even be better and cheaper than the FA*85. anyway, out of curiosity, how much would you be willing to sell it if ever? one more question, how was the bokeh on the Bokina? I think I'm also going to start a thread pitting it against another lens.

04-20-2010, 01:20 PM	#24
xGene Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Toronto, Ontario Posts: 151	Originally posted by Pentaxor the FA100/2.8 has a focus limiter. it's AF is much much faster than the Sigma. the Pentax has a lot more punchy color, the Sigma is a lot more sharper and has more contrast. both are indispensable due to their respective focal length use. anyhow, I almost considered setting aside and selling the FA100 in favor of the Sigma, especially when doing macro. only to find out later that I needed the extra telephoto reach in other use. Ah! I stand corrected! I could swear the D-FA had no limiter... unless it was the 50mm? Damn! Now I can kick myself... funny thing is that they don't even indicate it has a limiter on Pentax' website... You would think they would advertise about such an important feature?? So by your statement (Sigma a lot more sharper) you agree with me that all Macro lenses are not created equal although this FL is "easy" to design (sorry rparmar, couldn't pass on that one! (<= again) I am in agreement with you, this is the reason I keep my older Tamron SP 90 Adaptall, for when I need a little more distance to the subject. But I definitely prefer the Sigma's rendering and sharpness (for macro work). xGene

04-20-2010, 01:33 PM	#25
xGene Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Toronto, Ontario Posts: 151	Originally posted by Pentaxor Gene, I believe the extra 8mm reach and half-stop faster of the 85mm over the 77mm would be much nicer in rendering a much more brighter and shallower DOF in isolating the subject from the background. your proposition sounds very interesting but I'm also optimistic about the upcoming Sigma 85 which I'm also considering in buying and saving for at the end of the year. who knows, it might even be better and cheaper than the FA85. anyway, out of curiosity, how much would you be willing to sell it if ever? Again I agree with you. However, I found that the difference in rendering does not warrant the additional bulk. And that hood!!! Man!! what were they thinking??? In a nutshell, the FA85 has a little bit more CA wide open, but currently not "correctable" in the K-7. The FA77 now is. I like that. Additionally, if I need more "reach", because of the quality of the K-7 RAW's, I can always crop to magnify, without significant loss in IQ. Again, this is based upon my own copies of these lenses. I have a feeling that these 2 lenses have very similar optical formulations, with perhaps a different coating? The 77mm seems to have better contrasts, but the difference is really, well, minimal. How much I would sell my FA*85? I really don't know. What is the market price right now? Sorry for asking, I really really have no idea whatsoever. I only know how much I paid for it back in 1998. xGene

04-20-2010, 01:36 PM	#26
xGene Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Toronto, Ontario Posts: 151	Originally posted by Pentaxor one more question, how was the bokeh on the Bokina? I think I'm also going to start a thread pitting it against another lens. Sorry Pentaxor... I have no idea what you mean by "Bokina"... xGene

04-20-2010, 02:59 PM	#27
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by xGene Ah! I stand corrected! I could swear the D-FA had no limiter... unless it was the 50mm? Damn! Now I can kick myself... funny thing is that they don't even indicate it has a limiter on Pentax' website... You would think they would advertise about such an important feature?? So by your statement (Sigma a lot more sharper) you agree with me that all Macro lenses are not created equal although this FL is "easy" to design (sorry rparmar, couldn't pass on that one! (<= again) I am in agreement with you, this is the reason I keep my older Tamron SP 90 Adaptall, for when I need a little more distance to the subject. But I definitely prefer the Sigma's rendering and sharpness (for macro work). xGene Gene, you somewhat confused the FA100 with the D-FA. the FA is the version before the D-FA and it is completely different from it's D-FA successor. the body design of the FA is different since it's built like a tank ( solid metal) and has a recessed element and focus limiter switch and focus clamp, but doesn't have the quick-shift that the D-FA has. macros are far different from ordinary lenses and above class IMO. and I also notice that macros render differently eventhough how good they are already in terms of IQ. there is a degree of difference in contrast, sharpness, color and bokeh rendering as well. I'm not sure though if the 85mm is easy to design. I think otherwise that would be the 50mm and 135mm but ultimately the 135mm, IMO.

04-20-2010, 03:03 PM	#28
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by xGene Sorry Pentaxor... I have no idea what you mean by "Bokina"... xGene I was referring to the Tokina 90/2.5 or Vivitar 90/2.5.

04-20-2010, 10:18 PM	#29
Joaodcn Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Belgium Photos: Gallery Posts: 60	Regarding the Pentax Limited 70 2.4, I was really impressed by its sharpness. It is really worth it.

04-20-2010, 11:08 PM	#30
hangu Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: NYC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,071	Originally posted by Pentaxor one more question, how was the bokeh on the Bokina? I think I'm also going to start a thread pitting it against another lens. Someone beat you to it, at least in the sharpness department. Making Not Taking: Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 VMC 1:2 "Bokina" Making Not Taking: 8-Lens Macro Shoot-Out This is a very special lens. I currently have it in for repairs and won't see it for another week or two. I've only taken a few photos with it and the sharpness/bokeh is absolutely amazing. I'll try to put some photos up so you can get an idea of the bokeh.