Well, let me fine-tune your understanding just a little, too - g. While I
do agree with your statements ~in general~, Bruce, I do disagree somewhat
with your emphasis on it being ~so~ bad as a landscape lens. I do think
it's a better portrait lens, yes, but I haven't found it to be so
At portrait distances (say 4 to 6 feet) or at mid-range say 10 feet),
just how different is the angle of view of the subject lenses? I've seen
test reports that suggest that the 77 is actually a bit longer than that,
and the 85 is not quite that (at least close in, due to the IF), so they
Alan wrote:
At least mine was hopelessly soft at wide open near infinity. Brokeh was
horrible at near infinity too.
Like Alan I replaced my FA* 85/1.4 with the 77 Limited and don't regret it.
One thing was the lack of sharpness of the 85 wide open, worse was the fact
that you need to stop
]] On Behalf Of Brian Walsh
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 3:18 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: 77/18 Ltd.vs. FA* 85/1.4(Was Re: Pentax SMC-FA*
85mm/1.4 IF on E-bay)
At portrait distances (say 4 to 6 feet) or at mid-range say
10 feet),
just how different is the angle of view of the subject
: Thursday, December 13, 2001 2:08 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax SMC-FA* 85mm/1.4 IF on E-bay
At least mine was hopelessly soft at wide open near infinity. Brokeh was
horrible at near infinity too.
regards,
Alan Chan
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go
When did you get back? Nice to see you here.
tv
Fred wrote:
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Right.
Bill Owens wrote:
Lees-McRae College.
Bill, KG4LOV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
If there's one thing I've learned it's that there are degrees of
hopelessly and horrible, and as many definitions of them as there are
sets of eyes in the world. In fact, I've seen pictures from hopelessly
soft
lenses with horrible bokeh hanging on gallery walls. It's enough to make
me
wonder
The FA* 85mm f/1.4 is the best portrait and wedding lens in my arsenal. For
head and shoulders shots, I usually use it wide open. Most of the time, for
weddings, I work at f/5.6, except when I'm shooting in candlelight. I will
have to do some test shots to see how it performs at infinity focus
Paris, Leonard wrote:
The FA* 85mm f/1.4 is the best portrait and wedding lens in my arsenal. For
head and shoulders shots, I usually use it wide open. Most of the time, for
weddings, I work at f/5.6, except when I'm shooting in candlelight. I will
have to do some test shots to see how it
Pål Audun Jensen wrote:
...but isn't the M 85/2 supposed to be a dog?
Some people - perhaps repeating what they've heard elsewhere - contend
that the M85/2.0 is a poor quality lens.. Not that many people have
actually owned one, and speak only from ignorance.
Good fortune has shined its
First Shel said:
Not that many people have
actually owned one, and speak only from ignorance.
and then he said:
At smaller apertures
it's a fine lens, certainly superior to many highly regarded zooms that
list members fawn all over, at certainly the equal to many primes.
I'm guessing
In a message dated 12/12/01 18:22:04 GMT Standard Time, Shel writes:
While the 85/2.0 doesn't reach to the same optical heights as
the A*85/1.4, it is far from a bowser, and, because of some softness at
wider apertures makes an excellent portrait lens. At smaller apertures
it's a fine
Personally, I'd like to see a comparison of the FA*85's exotic bokeh along
side that of a more typical lens. Anyone have something handy?
t
On 12/12/01 10:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/12/01 18:22:04 GMT Standard Time, Shel writes:
While the 85/2.0 doesn't reach
There's a particular former editor of a
national photo magazine who was, and may still be, very interested in
acquiring this lens.
Yo! Present.
Actually, I like almost all short teles. It seems to be the easiest focal
length to design and the hardest to screw up. The compact 85/2s from
Timothy Sherburne wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see a comparison of the FA*85's exotic bokeh along
side that of a more typical lens. Anyone have something handy?
Not a comparison, but some examples. 85mm:
http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/oranges.html
I would have a very difficult time picking between the 85/1.4 FA and the
77/1.8 Limited.
I think what it would come down to for me would be the superior handling of
the Limited lens. It's less than half the weight of the f/1.4 plus hood,
it's considerably smaller, and it focuses closer--2.3
Were these done with autofocus?
tom wrote:
Not a comparison, but some examples. 85mm:
http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/oranges.html
http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/ollie-corner.html
http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/great-dane2.html
http://bigdayphoto.com/1223.html
77mm:
Super.
Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tom wrote:
http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/great-dane2.html
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
First time I've seen gfm Bridge. Think I'll nitpick a little. Shouldn't
the title be LMC Bridge?
Bill, KG4LOV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax SMC-FA* 85mm
Bill Owens wrote:
First time I've seen gfm Bridge. Think I'll nitpick a little. Shouldn't
the title be LMC Bridge?
I guess. What's LMC?
tv
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the
Lees-McRae College.
Bill, KG4LOV
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax SMC-FA* 85mm/1.4 IF on E-bay
Bill Owens wrote:
First time I've seen gfm Bridge. Think I'll
tv pointed my browser at:
http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tom/fosters/max2.html
is that cat dead or just resting?
Regards,
/\/\ick...
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users'
At 11:08 AM 12/12/01 -0800, you wrote:
Personally, I'd like to see a comparison of the FA*85's exotic bokeh along
side that of a more typical lens. Anyone have something handy?
t
Posted earlier on this list:
http://www.t3.rim.or.jp/~azuma/html/camera/lenses_test/001123/wakana.html
Among the
Coincidentally, I'm looking into that possibility right now. I
developed some negs recently and the focus was soft with the 90mm on the
M3. I was shooting at relatively low shutter speeds and wide open
aperture, or one stop down. Some earlier, and similar photos, are
beautifully sharp. I plan
Bruce:
Let me correct your understanding just a little. The FA* 85
lens is outstanding optically when used as a portrait lens.
The bokeh is wonderful and has great control of DOF. Where
it sucks is when used as a fast landscape lens. It is not
designed to perform very well at infinity focus
Shel:
Some people - perhaps repeating what they've heard elsewhere
- contend that the M85/2.0 is a poor quality lens.. Not that
many people have actually owned one, and speak only from
ignorance.
I also think that the M 85/2 has been unfairly maligned. It has previously been
suggested by
27 matches
Mail list logo
