Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

Thanks Derby, always nice to hear another opinion on this. I have a feeling that I will one day have to buy both! Antonio On 24 May 2004, at 13:02, Derby Chang wrote: hi Antonio I haven't read the rest of the 34 digests I have in my inbox, so someone may have already repeated what I've said

Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

hi Antonio I haven't read the rest of the 34 digests I have in my inbox, so someone may have already repeated what I've said I have both the 85 and the 77. Without a doubt from the time I only had the former, the 85 was my flat out fave lens. Beautifully creamy, fast to manual or auto focus

RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

I have had them all: FA*85/f1.4, A*85/f1.4, K85/f1.8, M85/f2, FA77/f1.8. This is what I think: - The 1.4s are simply too big and heavy for everyday use, and too intimidating for portraits. Thus I sold them. - The FA*85/f1.4 and the M85/f2 are specialists for portraits. Do not use them at open ap

RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

I have had them all: FA*85/f1.4, A*85/f1.4, K85/f1.8, M85/f2, FA77/f1.8. This is what I think: - The 1.4s are simply too big and heavy for everyday use, and too intimidating for portraits. Thus I sold them. - The FA*85/f1.4 and the M85/f2 are specialists for portraits. Do not use them at open ap

Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

On Wed, 19 May 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > The M 75~150, while, IMO, worthless in many situations, is also a good > choice for traditional portraits. Relatively small and light, good focal > length range. I just P/EXed my M80-200/4.5 for a F70-210. While my heart bleeds for the loss of a near-

Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In my opinion, the 85 is not really bad for landscapes/scenery > > (made recently a side by side test, comparing it to a Summicron > > M 90/2: almost the same performance at infinity, and quite good > > even wide open...), > > Is the Summicron so bad? I

Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

Gianfranco Irlanda wrote: > In my opinion, the 85 is not really bad for landscapes/scenery > (made recently a side by side test, comparing it to a Summicron > M 90/2: almost the same performance at infinity, and quite good > even wide open...), Is the Summicron so bad? I tested three different sa

Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

te: 5/20/2004 9:08:07 AM > Subject: Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids > > BTW: I have found that the 80-200/2.8 wide open makes a fine portrait > lens. > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com

Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

BTW: I have found that the 80-200/2.8 wide open makes a fine portrait lens. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com

Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

Alan Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Would be interested to hear from those with experience of the above lenses > >as to which you would recommend for portraiture/candid shots. > > Practically, I just hate the 85 for its weight, size, and oversized hood > which fits nowhere in my bag (it look

Re: A 15mm-85F2 (was RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids)

t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:13 PM Subject: Re: A 15mm-85F2 (was RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids) > I'm with you Mr. Robb on this one. The 85mm F/2 gets no respect on this list. > I think it's the most useable 85mm P

Re: A 15mm-85F2 (was RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids)

I'm with you Mr. Robb on this one. The 85mm F/2 gets no respect on this list. I think it's the most useable 85mm Pentax makes. It's not much bigger than a 50mm. Is there really a huge difference between F2 and F1.8? All this talk about the "too big" 85mm makes the 85F2 that perfect portrait lens

Re: A 15mm (was RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids)

"Winston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'm really curious, because usually a lens this wide has its own >limitations but often makes a spectacular view. I mean, if Pentax is >still selling this lens, it should be good. How much do you pay for it? I have the K version of the 15mm f/3.5 and I really

Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

On 19/5/04, MARK R, discombobulated, offered: >I haven't used either lens, but since the original poster mentioned >"candid" photos, I'm thinking the enormous, intimidating 85/1.4 might >not be ideal, regardless of its stellar optical characteristics :) Beg to differ Mark. I don't think the A*85

RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

>Yup, the 85 is much more intimidating - although FA 85/1.4 is the >smallest compared to Nikon's gigantic 85/1.4 and Canon's 85/1.2. Unless >you put the 'show off' factor into the shopping list, the FA 85/1.4 is >still ok :) The only thing intimidating about any lens is nothing to so with the ha

Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

Gotta chime in here. I haven't used the 77, but oh boy I have used the A*85mm f/1.4 and that is a lens to die for. It is pure portrait lens, and if you like minimal depth of field, guess what - you can open it right up and shoot wide open, with impressive results.

RE: A 15mm (was RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids)

I'm really curious, because usually a lens this wide has its own limitations but often makes a spectacular view. I mean, if Pentax is still selling this lens, it should be good. How much do you pay for it? I believe the reason they are still selling some of the very old manual focus lenses because

Re: A 15mm (was RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids)

Winston wrote: > I'm really curious, because usually a lens this wide has its own > limitations but often makes a spectacular view. Spectacular or intriguing views (its outstanding distortion correction hides its focal length sometimes, giving pictures that intriguing taste) and very good quality

Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

If it's not for the crazy price tag, I might actually buy a new A15. Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan Apparently, the A 15mm is still available as well, though mine has been delayed again, and isn't scheduled to arrive until late this month. __

Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

My sample had been disassembled completely before it was sold just to find out what caused it. Many Pentax K mount manual focus fixed focal length lenses were designed and built the same way with 2 metal (some plastic) helicoid guide plates guiding the position of the whole focusing mechanisms.

RE: A 15mm (was RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids)

g special at the wide end. -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 12:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A 15mm (was RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids) Not a clue. I am so bad, I really don't worry over much about this sort

Re: A 15mm (was RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids)

- Original Message - From: "Winston" Subject: A 15mm (was RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids) > > I notice that this lens is often discussed or mentioned in this list. Is > it good? How does it compare to Nikon's 15 or newer 14? Compared to > Holo

A 15mm (was RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids)

I notice that this lens is often discussed or mentioned in this list. Is it good? How does it compare to Nikon's 15 or newer 14? Compared to Hologon? >>Apparently, the A 15mm is still available as well, though mine has been delayed again, and isn't scheduled to arrive until late this month. Wil

Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

- Original Message - From: "KT Takeshita" Subject: Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids > > I just need to buy that 31mm to satisfy my thirst of complete LTD lens, > > but the price keeps me away from getting it! > > Ditto here! I do not think it

RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

> -Original Message- > From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hi all, > > Would be interested to hear from those with experience of the > above lenses as to which you would recommend for > portraiture/candid shots. > > Subjective, experienced based opinions welcomed,. I

RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

Yup, the 85 is much more intimidating - although FA 85/1.4 is the smallest compared to Nikon's gigantic 85/1.4 and Canon's 85/1.2. Unless you put the 'show off' factor into the shopping list, the FA 85/1.4 is still ok :) >> I haven't used either lens, but since the original poster mentioned "candi

RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 8:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids Actually, having had multiple copies all the lenses in the Pentax 85mm line-up, and having used the 77mm - although to a much lesser extent - I'd suggest the K85/1.8 a

Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

"Winston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Personally I think 85 is more for portraits due to smoother bokeh. The >77 is a bit harsh (or 'sharp') in this case. So 77 is more suitable for >general picture taking because of its compact size. Nevertheless, both >are great. I haven't used either lens, bu

Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

CTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 5/19/2004 6:13:29 PM > Subject: Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids > > Antonio Aparicio asks - > > > Would be interested to hear from those with experience of the above > > lenses as to which you would reco

RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

Personally I think 85 is more for portraits due to smoother bokeh. The 77 is a bit harsh (or 'sharp') in this case. So 77 is more suitable for general picture taking because of its compact size. Nevertheless, both are great. As for the availability, same thing here, I ordered my 43 and 77 through

Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

Antonio Aparicio asks - > Would be interested to hear from those with experience of the above > lenses as to which you would recommend for portraiture/candid shots. 77mm Limited Bill

Re: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

On 04.5.19 8:14 PM, "Winston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with most of it, except that I think 77 is equally sharp wide > opened. I remember testing my *ist (35mm) with this lens - I shot almost > a roll of Reala at f/1.8 and they are all sharp, very crisp with distant > subjects. Of cour

RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

HI Ken, I agree with most of it, except that I think 77 is equally sharp wide opened. I remember testing my *ist (35mm) with this lens - I shot almost a roll of Reala at f/1.8 and they are all sharp, very crisp with distant subjects. Of course the sharpness would be more even stopped down, and de

RE: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/canndids

Once again this is second hand knowledge, but there is no doubt the 77 limited is on my list of to buy lenses. -Shawn -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 4:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 77 limited or 85* for portraits/can