Heck, I'm still using the 85 f2.0. It's small, light weight, (no bigger
than a 50mm really), and on APS-C gives something between good and great
results.
It's just a good thing that my eyes are still pretty good since it's
manual focus, and I use it mostly in low light where the green button
gives a decent approximation of correct exposure, since the lens is wide
open most of the time.
On 3/26/2020 5:35 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Mar 26, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Bill <anotherdrunken...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/25/2020 8:42 PM, d...@dougbrewerphoto.com wrote:
Has it been 21 years? Holy smoke. Still, when you get it right...
Heresy alert: Don't read past this if you are faint of heart our have other
underlying conditions.
The 77 is a good lens, on film with the AF that we had at the time it was a
very good lens, maybe even a great lens, but that was then, this is now.
Today, the 77 is a dated design with slow AF gearing that is prone to all sorts
of fringing.
Yeah, it's under corrected spherical aberration gives it nice bokeh and a great deal of
three dimensional effect, but to just toss off "when you get it right" says a
lot more than the lens delivers.
It's not all hat, no cattle, but it's herd is not as big as people make it out
to be.
bill
This sort of discussion is kind of like when someone posts “I just bought a
K-70 and I want another lens, which lens should I buy?”, the only appropriate
response is “for what sort of photography?”.
Alternatively, deciding between the 77/1.8 and the new 85/1.4 is like deciding
between a 30W tube amp and a 100W solid state amplifier (*). Some people will
argue that the solid state amp is more accurate, and others that the tube amp
sounds better. Some people will say that the tube amp is better for some sorts
of music and the solid state better for others.
One thing that I know about my 77 is that for many years after I got it, I
could not look through the viewfinder when it was on my camera, without it
making me smile. If you define “imperfection” as difference from an exact
representation of the scene, every lens has imperfections, some of them are
pleasing to some, some are displeasing. It’s kind of like the ginger who hates
the freckles that you think are so incredibly attractive.
I’ve learned that in low light conditions, the difference of 2/3 stop can make
a lot more difference than one would guess. I’ve also learned that with
(pentax) autofocus, more magnification means more separation between autofocus
points, and less chance that the camera will focus on the thing that you don’t
want it to. The 85/1.4 is also weather sealed, which can make a big difference
when shooting outdoors. On the other hand, it’ll probably weigh about the same
as my 77, 43, 31, and FA50 all put together. And for that matter, until they
hit the used market, I’d probably have to sell all of those to have enough
money to buy a new 85/1.4.
I expect that when things settle that they will both be great lenses, that in
most cases the optical differences between them won’t matter, but there will be
cases where one would be better than the other.
* As an aside, it turns out that someone I was having a debate with on facebook
was involved in the design of the NAD3020, which was the first piece of audio
gear that I bought, and amazing piece of kit, especially for the price.
--
Larry Colen
l...@red4est.com
--
Any idiot can shoot with a Canon, Nikon, or Sony, it takes a special kind of
idiot to use a Pentax.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
