[Wheatfield]

'Devils advocate' is fine by me. I do it all the time. Drives my better half crazy :-)

True, in some ways, but the SMC (less so the HD) can flare and CA is an irritation to some (not me), thus my outside comment. The smallness of the 77 is less in the models face than I would think the 85 would be - easier to move around. I'm happy with the 77 - just curious to hear how it holds up against 77 with real people shots.

I keep hearing this myth that a large lens is at a disadvantage because it will "make the model nervous". This is, to be blunt, a pile of hot steaming poo.
If the model is nervous, there is a trust issue with the dynamic between the model and the photographer that has nothing to do with the equipment.
Photographers used to shoot portraits with 11x14 plates, I did portraits for years with the 6x7 and 4x5. Both are larger cameras, the glass on the 6x7 tended to be big and the camera was loud. I have never had any issues with nervous models due to what gear I was pointing at them.
The only time I had to work with a model who was a bundle of nerves was a young lady who was doing her first nude shoot. She was very deliberately pushing herself outside of her comfort zone regarding the style of images, but chose me as the photographer for her adventure because she felt safe with me.

---------- Post added Jan 30th, 2022 at 12:39 PM ----------

(No) thanks for that Bill

Why would you say "hands down" better? I tend to stay between f4 and f8 (f5.6 favourite). Only use flash, no natural light and I tend to move around a bit. Still "hands down" better?

Yes. The 85 is still the better lens. I own both. My 77 has been in storage since I got the 85.
The 85 gives me slightly more working distance, it gives me an almost twice as bright viewfinder, and puts almost twice as much light to the AF sensor for increased focus reliability. It focuses faster and more accurately, and it is quieter while doing it.
At f8 or so, there isn't much to say optically, the 77 has mostly caught up to the 85 by then, but the 85 still has the other operational advantages.
The 77 is a nice lens, don't get me wrong, but don't pretend it is up to the standard set by the 85. It isn't.

[iheiramo]

It might seem to be a big negative to those who haven't used the lens. Once one has used the lens, knowledge creeps into the conversation and the concerns are rendered nonexistent.
The 85 is plain and simply a much better lens in every respect than the 77. It's hands down no contest. I tend to shoot portraits off a tripod, so the weight isn't a concern. Having said that I shot a couple of outdoor sessions with the 85 last fall handheld and the weight was not a concern. Actually, when shooting handheld the extra weight is to the photographer's advantage.

I usually just carry camera in my hand without any straps and put camera in shoulder bag, if I want to get my hands free. With DFA*85 I noticed that this wasn't comfortable when walking over hour. Now I use backpack with sling system on longer walks when I have DFA*85 in camera. So weigth is an issue, but solvable and something that is not gonna limit my use of that lens. Well, air travel still remains to be seen. My hand luggage is already overweight even with smaller and lighter lenses, so I might have to do some compromises there.

[Wheatfield]

I usually just carry camera in my hand without any straps and put camera in shoulder bag, if I want to get my hands free. With DFA*85 I noticed that this wasn't comfortable when walking over hour. Now I use backpack with sling system on longer walks when I have DFA*85 in camera. So weigth is an issue, but solvable and something that is not gonna limit my use of that lens. Well, air travel still remains to be seen. My hand luggage is already overweight even with smaller and lighter lenses, so I might have to do some compromises there.

I can see that, but it is outside the scope of this thread. I don't do much for long hikes these days, and when I do my dog is generally carrying my gear, and in those situation the 85 stays in the truck in favor of the 70-210/4 anyway.

[BarryE]

I keep hearing this myth that a large lens is at a disadvantage because it will "make the model nervous". This is, to be blunt, a pile of hot steaming poo.
If the model is nervous, there is a trust issue with the dynamic between the model and the photographer that has nothing to do with the equipment.
Photographers used to shoot portraits with 11x14 plates, I did portraits for years with the 6x7 and 4x5. Both are larger cameras, the glass on the 6x7 tended to be big and the camera was loud. I have never had any issues with nervous models due to what gear I was pointing at them.
The only time I had to work with a model who was a bundle of nerves was a young lady who was doing her first nude shoot. She was very deliberately pushing herself outside of her comfort zone regarding the style of images, but chose me as the photographer for her adventure because she felt safe with me.

---------- Post added Jan 30th, 2022 at 12:39 PM ----------



Yes. The 85 is still the better lens. I own both. My 77 has been in storage since I got the 85.
The 85 gives me slightly more working distance, it gives me an almost twice as bright viewfinder, and puts almost twice as much light to the AF sensor for increased focus reliability. It focuses faster and more accurately, and it is quieter while doing it.
At f8 or so, there isn't much to say optically, the 77 has mostly caught up to the 85 by then, but the 85 still has the other operational advantages.
The 77 is a nice lens, don't get me wrong, but don't pretend it is up to the standard set by the 85. It isn't.

Re the 'poo', I hear that and I agree the interaction between the photographer and the subject is the key thing and probably overrides the big lens pointing at the subject. Portability is a personal issue.

Re. the 85 being a better lens. I'm sure it is, but how much better to offset my personal preference for a smaller size lens ...? The increased light and focus is a very useful pointer, this is what I wanted to draw out from folk without prompting. Thank you. I've been subjecting my long suffering better wife and occasional friend to portrait practise sessions while we've been taking care during Covid. When we're feeling safer to let strangers into our house, I'll be picking up portraits of local people/neighbours as a project, starting with the 77, but focussing has been a little iffy. IQ has been fine. So thanks again as I consider and re-consider the 85mm ...

[Wheatfield]

Re the 'poo', I hear that and I agree the interaction between the photographer and the subject is the key thing and probably overrides the big lens pointing at the subject. Portability is a personal issue.

Re. the 85 being a better lens. I'm sure it is, but how much better to offset my personal preference for a smaller size lens ...? The increased light and focus is a very useful pointer, this is what I wanted to draw out from folk without prompting. Thank you. I've been subjecting my long suffering better wife and occasional friend to portrait practise sessions while we've been taking care during Covid. When we're feeling safer to let strangers into our house, I'll be picking up portraits of local people/neighbours as a project, starting with the 77, but focussing has been a little iffy. IQ has been fine. So thanks again as I consider and re-consider the 85mm ...

Personal preference for a smaller lens is fine. Where we run into problems is conflating that portability with optical quality.
As your usage is apparently smaller apertures, the 77 is as good a choice as any.
We are paying a hefty amount of money to get the wide open perfection that the 85/1.4 supplies. If we aren't going to use it, there isn't any point in paying for it.
If I did all my shooting at f/5.6 and smaller I wouldn't have bought the new 85. The 77 is good enough stopped down. For that matter my old M85/2 is on par with the 77 at f/8. Most lenses are pretty equal by that aperture. The exception is the broken ones.

[biz-engineer]

In all these shots, it's all about the subject, light, background and how colors are rendered. With same skilled photographer, those studio shots could have been made with the kit zoom.

[Digitalis]

If the model is nervous, there is a trust issue with the dynamic between the model and the photographer that has nothing to do with the equipment.

^THIS^


I have been on countless shoots where models were skittish for various and assorted reasons - I have a damn good sound system in my photography studio, I find letting them listen to music from their phones ( Tidal, Spotify...wherever) helps put them at ease.

The 85 is still the better lens. I own both. My 77 has been in storage since I got the 85.

I work with both lenses - the DFA*85 is better for commercial work where its optical superiority at wide apertures is plain to see, but I still use the FA77 for personal work - and in situations where the optical properties of the DFA*85mm wouldn't be recognizable. Also the physicality of the FA77 suits me more as it has an aperture ring and as we all know - aperture control in studio work is of paramount importance. I find there is greater fluidity to my workflow when I have a physical aperture ring on my lens than flicking an E-Dial in abstract increments.

[BarryE]

I work with both lenses - the DFA*85 is better for commercial work where its optical superiority at wide apertures is plain to see, but I still use the FA77 for personal work - and in situations where the optical properties of the DFA*85mm wouldn't be recognizable. Also the physicality of the FA77 suits me more as it has an aperture ring and as we all know - aperture control in studio work is of paramount importance. I find there is greater fluidity to my workflow when I have a physical aperture ring on my lens than flicking an E-Dial in abstract increments.

Thanks Doug. This is helpful. I too will only be doing personal work with the FA77 - portraits for me is definitely work-in-progress and as we escape the claws of Covid, lighting, subject interaction/guidance, will I believe, be more important than the small improvements I might be able to achieve with the 85mm, especially at my preferred f4/f5.6. Better focussing of the 85mm, as Bill said, would be nice, but that's down to technique too, I suppose.

[Rondec]

Compared to the FA 77 limited the DFA *85 has better borders at wide apertures, better sharpness overall at all at anything wider than f5.6, better flare resistance (I haven't used the HD version which is supposed to be better), less purple fringing, and more contrast. On the negative side it is more expensive and quite a bit bigger.

If you are using it in situations where you need to be quiet, obviously the DFA *85 is a lot quieter than the FA 77.

The FA 77 is good enough for most people, but if you are shooting professionally, it is probably worth it to consider the DFA *85 -- even if it is only to save processing time of getting rid of fringing in back lit photos.

[BarryE]

Compared to the FA 77 limited the DFA *85 has better borders at wide apertures, better sharpness overall at all at anything wider than f5.6, better flare resistance (I haven't used the HD version which is supposed to be better), less purple fringing, and more contrast. On the negative side it is more expensive and quite a bit bigger.

If you are using it in situations where you need to be quiet, obviously the DFA *85 is a lot quieter than the FA 77.

The FA 77 is good enough for most people, but if you are shooting professionally, it is probably worth it to consider the DFA *85 -- even if it is only to save processing time of getting rid of fringing in back lit photos.

Thanks, Vincent. I think I've got the balance of the pros of the DFA *85 over the FA77. Taking the whole package, the 85mm is optically better in all areas. The 77mm may have advantages owing to its size, but that is subjective. Re the fringing: I've experienced this often during general use, but not under artificial lighting. I'll pay closer attention to some hair light shots to see if I'm missing instances, but I've probably not experimented with sufficient backlit, studio type problem lighting for it to be showing up. Or maybe the hair lights have just not had the intensity, nor the contrast, for fringing to be exhibited.

So at medium apertures, where the eye(s) is in focus and the ear(s) is dropping oof nicely, ie around f4/f5.6 at my shooting distance, and working with the working with the lighting styles I've been using, it looks like the differences between the two lenses would not be that significant. As I've indicated, this is work in progress for me.

Next up is the FA 43mm v the DFA *50, for 3/4 length poses. I think I know what the advice will be for this comparison if I were to ask it

[Digitalis]

So at medium apertures, where the eye(s) is in focus and the ear(s) is dropping oof nicely, ie around f4/f5.6 at my shooting distance, and working with the working with the lighting styles I've been using, it looks like the differences between the two lenses would not be that significant. As I've indicated, this is work in progress for me.

Wait until you get into mixed lighting, at wider apertures the FA77 can struggle a bit with the extremes in contrast that come with hard light sources. Stopping it down is the best way to mitigate its worst characteristics.

[Wheatfield]

Next up is the FA 43mm v the DFA *50, for 3/4 length poses. I think I know what the advice will be for this comparison if I were to ask it

Again, f/8 is the great equilizer. If you are shooting at around there as you indicate that is what you do, a relatively clean Coke bottle will give as good a picture as anything else.
Don't bother with the 43 or the DFA*50. Find a used F50/1.7 instead and save your money.

[BarryE]

Wait until you get into mixed lighting, at wider apertures the FA77 can struggle a bit with the extremes in contrast that come with hard light sources. Stopping it down is the best way to mitigate its worst characteristics.

I'll remember that if I'm ever in mixed lighting. Thanks.

---------- Post added 01-31-22 at 05:09 PM ----------

Again, f/8 is the great equilizer. If you are shooting at around there as you indicate that is what you do, a relatively clean Coke bottle will give as good a picture as anything else.
Don't bother with the 43 or the DFA*50. Find a used F50/1.7 instead and save your money.

... as it happens I recently cut the bottom off a coke bottle to create a pouring coke shot. So I could try it :-)

I already have the 43, so monies already 'invested' :-)

[UncleVanya]

Even at f8 I didn’t love the FA43 on crop or on my Sony a7riii. I like my F 50/1.7 / DA 40 / DA* 55 / and FA 50 better. So much so I sold my FA 43. My results that I didn’t like weren’t with portraits - the portraits I made were fine but the other lenses resonated with me more.

[Wheatfield]

Even at f8 I didn’t love the FA43 on crop or on my Sony a7riii. I like my F 50/1.7 / DA 40 / DA* 55 / and FA 50 better. So much so I sold my FA 43. My results that I didn’t like weren’t with portraits - the portraits I made were fine but the other lenses resonated with me more.

The 43 is the weakest of the old limited lenses. I bought it because I thought it would be an interesting lens on APS-C. I never grew to like the thing though.