[biz-engineer]

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/hd-pentax-d-fa--85mm-f-1-4-lens-review-36139

HD Pentax-D FA* 85mm F/1.4 Verdict

The lens delivers the highest quality, unfortunately at the highest price in its group as well. However, the quality cannot be denied, so if that is what is required the answer is clear. It is large and heavy, there is no escaping that, but there is a clear reason for it in the construction detail that has gone into the end product. To be as good as it is, it needs to be a big, heavy lens. We are always looking for that "pixie dust" in a lens as well, that magical quality that cannot be measured but which we know when we see it. These lenses are the keepers, the ones that don't get swapped about, and once a Pentax user has the HD Pentax-D FA* 85mm f/1.4 ED SDM AW lens in their hands I very much doubt that they will want to give it up. 'Highly Recommended'.

[Kunzite]

Nice to see that Pentax products are still reviewed.

[Rondec]

It is a really nice lens. If you are into portraiture, you can't go wrong with this one. Sharp from f1.4 with really smooth out of focus rendering. It has a high level of contrast too -- higher than the DFA *50.

As for price, it feels like it is in the same ball park as the mirrorless offerings -- the Sony 85mm f1.4 is 1800 dollars and the Canon RF 85mm f1.2 (they don't have a f1.4 for RF right now) is 2600 dollars. Nikon doesn't have a Z mount 85mm f1.4 yet (their f1.8 is 800 dollars), but I would expect them to price theirs around 2000 dollars -- the tax folks pay for going mirrorless is that any of the newer lenses are really expensive. But any new lens designs are more expensive than older lenses, regardless of the brand.

[Serkevan]

It is a really nice lens. If you are into portraiture, you can't go wrong with this one. Sharp from f1.4 with really smooth out of focus rendering. It has a high level of contrast too -- higher than the DFA *50.

As for price, it feels like it is in the same ball park as the mirrorless offerings -- the Sony 85mm f1.4 is 1800 dollars and the Canon RF 85mm f1.2 (they don't have a f1.4 for RF right now) is 2600 dollars. Nikon doesn't have a Z mount 85mm f1.4 yet (their f1.8 is 800 dollars), but I would expect them to price theirs around 2000 dollars -- the tax folks pay for going mirrorless is that any of the newer lenses are really expensive. But any new lens designs are more expensive than older lenses, regardless of the brand.

I suppose their comparison was only to other* DSLR models - there, yeah, the DFA* is the most expensive one. It's also undoubtedly the most modern and, IMHO, it produces the best looking pictures out of the bunch.


*Zeiss Otus excluded, obviously.

[gatorguy]

I suppose their comparison was only to other* DSLR models - there, yeah, the DFA* is the most expensive one. It's also undoubtedly the most modern and, IMHO, it produces the best looking pictures out of the bunch.


*Zeiss Otus excluded, obviously.

LOL... Yeah, the Pentax was the second most expensive of the group, but did outperform all of them in this lens test.

"...the edge figures almost exactly match the central figures, giving an impressively even performance."

"Distortion is virtually zero, measuring just -0.03% barrel. That is really as close to rectilinear as we could hope for, being even better than many macro lenses."

"Flare resistance is remarkable...a square security light just in the corner of the frame and the lens is still able to define the square shape of the light, something which no other lens has yet been able to do."

[simon_199]

The MTF graph is practically constant from F1.4 to F5.6, really impressive. There's no doubt that Pentax can design modern top of the line optics. The latest star lenses are all gems.

[biz-engineer]

The MTF graph is practically constant from F1.4 to F5.6, really impressive.

Exactly, and the CA test chart is also impressive. Too bad I'm not enough into portrait photography to justify the price. I'm more into wide (20 to 35mm) and macro for a prime, that's why I've bought the FA35 2 and DFA50 macro, along with the DFA100 macro. Those new DFA* lenses are top notch, but getting those lenses is quite a long term investment, let see what Ricoh does next (35mm f1.4? 28mm f1.4?).

[Rondec]

I suppose their comparison was only to other* DSLR models - there, yeah, the DFA* is the most expensive one. It's also undoubtedly the most modern and, IMHO, it produces the best looking pictures out of the bunch.


*Zeiss Otus excluded, obviously.

Right. I think the newer the design, the more expensive the lens. The FA 77 limited obviously is a lot cheaper -- its an older design and so that is not surprising, since the R and D for it was paid for long ago -- but you can see the improvements you get with the DFA *85 over the FA 77.

[Serkevan]

Right. I think the newer the design, the more expensive the lens. The FA 77 limited obviously is a lot cheaper -- its an older design and so that is not surprising, since the R and D for it was paid for long ago -- but you can see the improvements you get with the DFA *85 over the FA 77.

Absolutely, and manufacturing cost is also certainly much higher with the Star - all that specialty glass has to be paid!

---------- Post added 08-18-22 at 06:40 AM ----------

LOL... Yeah, the Pentax was the second most expensive of the group, but did outperform all of them in this lens test.

"...the edge figures almost exactly match the central figures, giving an impressively even performance."

"Distortion is virtually zero, measuring just -0.03% barrel. That is really as close to rectilinear as we could hope for, being even better than many macro lenses."

"Flare resistance is remarkable...a square security light just in the corner of the frame and the lens is still able to define the square shape of the light, something which no other lens has yet been able to do."

Yeah, the lens is absolutely fantastic, just like the DFA* 50 was. *And* it does all of it without software corrections, so on a more exacting hi-res sensor in, say, high-ISO situations, the results will definitely be a bit better than with a lens that required software.

[Kunzite]

Yeah, the lens is absolutely fantastic, just like the DFA* 50 was.

I'd call it better. While the 50mm is itself amazing, they did go the extra mile with the 85.

[BarryE]

Right. I think the newer the design, the more expensive the lens. The FA 77 limited obviously is a lot cheaper -- its an older design and so that is not surprising, since the R and D for it was paid for long ago -- but you can see the improvements you get with the DFA *85 over the FA 77.

Are the "improvements" noticeable over the FA77 between f5.6 and f8 or so? This is the aperture range that works for me inside where I don't have to worry about background isolation.

[pres589]

Are the "improvements" noticeable over the FA77 between f5.6 and f8 or so? This is the aperture range that works for me inside where I don't have to worry about background isolation.

From PF's review of the FA 77, the one thing that stands out as worse on the FA 77 vs. the D-FA*85 is green/purple fringing. "Chromatic aberration is important wide open and present up to F5.6 on full frame and F4 on APS-C. Purple fringing is also visible. Software fixes are easy (and often automatic), at least."

Barrel distortion is nearly as good in a measured sense and probably equally good in a real world sense. Flare seems real-world as good and probably even better if you're talking about the HD version of the 77.

I've not used either lens so what do I know, but my opinion based on reviews and sample images is that most people would be perfectly happy with the FA 77 instead of the D-FA*85. For those that demand something closer to perfect and the weight/size & cost don't drive them away, the D-FA*85 is a great lens to have available for the k-mount system. If you're happy with the FA 77 that you have I don't think anyone would fault someone for not wanting to step up to the D-FA*85.

[Rondec]

Are the "improvements" noticeable over the FA77 between f5.6 and f8 or so? This is the aperture range that works for me inside where I don't have to worry about background isolation.

I would say the improvements are these: silent auto focus (this is true at any aperture), significantly better CA/Purple Fringing, and better border sharpness. The FA 77 has decent center sharpness, but border sharpness peaks around f8. If you only shoot at f8, though, you may not notice the difference.

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.

For easy linking, this is ephotozine's FA 77 review. https://www.ephotozine.com/article/smc-pentax-fa-77mm-f-1-8-limited-lens-16892

[BarryE]

From PF's review of the FA 77, the one thing that stands out as worse on the FA 77 vs. the D-FA*85 is green/purple fringing. "Chromatic aberration is important wide open and present up to F5.6 on full frame and F4 on APS-C. Purple fringing is also visible. Software fixes are easy (and often automatic), at least."

Barrel distortion is nearly as good in a measured sense and probably equally good in a real world sense. Flare seems real-world as good and probably even better if you're talking about the HD version of the 77.

I've not used either lens so what do I know, but my opinion based on reviews and sample images is that most people would be perfectly happy with the FA 77 instead of the D-FA*85. For those that demand something closer to perfect and the weight/size & cost don't drive them away, the D-FA*85 is a great lens to have available for the k-mount system. If you're happy with the FA 77 that you have I don't think anyone would fault someone for not wanting to step up to the D-FA*85.

In a controlled, studio type lighting, PF can be avoided/limited and at narrower apertures, less of a problem anyway. So I've never been inclined to consider this difference in the lenses. Thank you for reminding me, as I'd not remembered this difference and I had to think about me usage with the 77mm and my lighting.

---------- Post added 08-18-22 at 08:24 PM ----------

I would say the improvements are these: silent auto focus (this is true at any aperture), significantly better CA/Purple Fringing, and better border sharpness. The FA 77 has decent center sharpness, but border sharpness peaks around f8. If you only shoot at f8, though, you may not notice the difference.

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.

For easy linking, this is ephotozine's FA 77 review. https://www.ephotozine.com/article/smc-pentax-fa-77mm-f-1-8-limited-lens-16892

I agree the "one click" fix is only partially successful in many cases, with artifacts often introduced.

The inside/outside usage differences between the lenses are important I suspect. Your wife's wedding photography would benefit from the 85mm in many ways, however a controlled studio shot (rim lighting apart) PF and resolution at the edges matter less. Then as I see it, the size of the 77 may be an advantage. Well that's my reasoning in order to stop myself purchasing a 85. Of course I may well be kidding myself and I sure someone well tell me if I am.

[Wheatfield]

Are the "improvements" noticeable over the FA77 between f5.6 and f8 or so? This is the aperture range that works for me inside where I don't have to worry about background isolation.

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.