Pål wrote: > Dario wrote: > > > According to comparative tests made by AOHC member Carlo Lastrucci, > > the 77 Limited is not as good as FA* 85/1.4, since contrast is excessive, at > > least for Velvia film (shades are almost always deep blacks) and color > > rendition is cold, too much different from all other Pentax glass, including other > > Limited lenses. Resolution of the 77mm is rather close to that of the > > 85/1.4, but the 85mm is better at most apertures. The only true > > advantage of the 77mm vs. the 85/1.4 FA* is its size. > > > Sorry, but this grossly misleading. I've owned both lenses and so have > many PDML'rs. I've yet to hear about anyone of those who prefers the FA* > lens.
Now you've heard of. > There's no difference in color rendition. They are similar to all current > Pentax lenses; slightly on the warm side. The 77 Limited is sharper at all > apertures I'm rather cautious in supporting Carlo's tests 100%, since I wasn't there at time of making them, and something could have gone wrong. However, since I know Carlo and I can hardly think he wants to fool me and AOHC friends, I usually believe his pictures (not just his words). Also, I'm sure that pictures weren't mixed up, as details have different size at infinity. According to Carlo's statements, the 77mm looks like the colder Pentax lens ever tested by him, much different from 85 FA* and even colder than the 35mm f/2 FA (the latter being the second colder Pentax lens among those tested). Unfortunately, I only have B&W pictures here, supplied to me two years ago for being published in Spotmatic magazine. > but they approach each other at F:8 and smaller. OK, we agree here. Around f/8 both lenses show more or less same sharpness and detail. > At wide apertures > the difference is night and day between the 77 and the 85. > Actually, the 77 Limited is as sharp at 2.8 as the 85 is at F:8. Sorry to contradict you, but according to my pictures, things are exactly the other way round, and the 85 FA* wins very easy against the 77 Ltd. The 85mm FA* at f/1.4 (not to speak of f/2) is far better than the 77mm at f/1.8! > The 85 is also optimized for > close range focusing. The 77 use fixed rear element to ensure consistent > quality through the whole focusing range. The FA* lens do not. The FA* 85/14 > is great for shooting test targets or portraits. Our test shots were taken at infinity, shooting houses and trees. > For general use it > basically sucks. It is the only lens I ever owned that I sold dure to the > fact that wasn't good enough; and it isn't even a consumer lens. Is it possible we got a bad 77mm Ltd and you got a bad 85mm FA*? > The 77 has also much better bokeh as bokeh was a design parameter with this lens. Apart Pentax claims, did you notice any actual difference, by comparing them in same situation? I have no opinion on that topic, as I didn't make proper comparisons. > BTW Blacks are supposed to be deep black with Velvia. That's how the film > is designed. All good lenses will have this feature when using Velvia. Pål, please don't misunderstand my words. Of course blacks must be black and I won't discuss that. When I wrote "shades are almost always deep blacks" I meant that near all shades become black, even when they shouldn't. > The part about contrast is excessive doesn't make sense either. Both this and > the rendition of the blacks points towards lab/film variations more than > lens variations. Sorry, same film for both lenses. Cheers, Dario Bonazza -------------------------------- http://www.dariobonazza.com
