77mm limited worth it or better option

[mountainvisions]

I'm wondering if the 77, which i know is a stellar lens, is worth the money

over say a 85mm 1.4 or something similar.

 

with the rebate i plan on buying one within the next 60 days.

 

my plans are the use it for portraiture and more specifically indoor sports

(baskcetball and volley ball) sans the flash.

 

thoughts on it for the sports? it will be mounted to both 35mm and ist D

thanks in advance.

[andrew robertson]

I don't own any Pentax gear, but I'd buy all the Limited lenses before they are gone.

[stemked]

I'm a film shooter so this may or maynot be relevant to your photography. I have had the 77mm for about three months now and have used it mostly to keep up with my 2 year old. I have played with the famous Pentax 85mm f1.4 FA in stores and have seen photos from it. So my general impressions:

 

It is a little wide for head/sholder portraits. The lens wide open offers lovely brokeh however. I love the way this lens pops subests out, even in busy backgrounds. The 85mm is known to have stellar, if not legondary, brokeh as well.

 

The lens is very small and weighs a lot less than the 85mm f1.4.

 

I haven't used it for sports myself, and not haveing shot much in the way of sports, I would think for the price you'd be better off with a Sigma 70-200 f2.8. 77 seems (to me) to be a little too wide for general sports photography.

 

The 85mm is getting pretty hard to find too.

[mmfoto]

I've got the A* 85/1.4 and love the detail and bokeh it can bring out. I know however that the 77 Limited also as highly regarded optics.

The 77 limited additionally is better to travel with (smaller), has autofocus and most important is normaly for sale. The 85's are really hard to come by these days.

[mountainvisions]

Thanks for the responses.

 

I do like the size of the limited. I already own some f2.8 tanks (both tokinas).

 

For sports I was on the edge but with a 1.5 crop the 77= 105mm should make for a great indoor v-ball and b-ball lens for near court.

 

I used to shoot a lot of stuff with a 80mm zoom for v-ball and that was just a little on the short side (although useful from the sidelines). probably 85mm would be perfect.

 

i have a 80-200 tokina 2.8 which honestly is barely fast enough for less then pro level lighting. I figured the 1.8 would give me enough extra speed to be useful for near court b-bal.

 

The lens is definitely going to be two different lenses for me one is a very short tele on 35mm and the other is a very nice mid tele on digital.

 

The size though is so appealing. Especially for travel where I might take both dig and film bodies. The 77 would make a good canid/street lens (although a little long) on 35mm while on the digital it would make a great portrait mid tele lens.

 

but the bottom line is I'm jazzed about the optical quality. the limiteds have been compared to Zeiss and Leica in quality and I think with the rebate this lens is a steal. Now the 31mm and 43mm are a little bit weird lenghts and I probably won't get either although the 31mm on digital is pretty much a 50mm so it's enticing but not a priority.

[mawz]

The 77 Limited is typically cheaper than the A* 85 f1.4, which is generally considered to be the best version of the Pentax 85's.

 

Both lenses are worth every penny.

[asimrazakhan]

i have the 77mm limited as well as the FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro. my main style of photography is travel and landscape. though i do shoot some portraits once in a while. for travel i would not even consider taking the 100mm because of its weight. but when it comes to portraits, its either one of these lenses. sometimes i want a real close up shot and thats when the 100mm rules since its a macro lens. the 77mm does not have a high magnification nor a close enough minimum focusing distance. and in fact, the 85mm is worse than the 77 in both min foc distance and magnification. the FA135mm f/2.8 is slightly better than both the 77 and 85. i know that the Pentax 85mm (even the A version) is considered by many as THE best portrait lens ever built, but i would also add that it really depends on your style of portrait photography. if you just want head and shoulder shots then you should be happy with either the 85 or 77. if you want closer 'high key' shots such as ones that just show an eye, nose, and perhaps lips... then a macro lens will give you more versatility, freedom, and control.

 

 

a few things to note here are that macro lenses are not exactly the best wide open. a 77 or 85 will beat a macro lens at f/2.8. but that becasue macro lenses are meant to be used very close up where maximum depth of field is crucial. on the other hand, a slight softening of the image at f/2.8 can be nice for portraits... especially with women. but take note that the 100mm at f/2.8 is still extremely sharp.

 

another thing is that the 85mm is very bulky and weighs almost as much as the 100mm macro! with the lens hood it gets to be quite a chunk of glass. the 85 would be nice to have just for its sharpness, but for ease of traveling and general photography, i chose the 77mm... which by the way has a built in retractable lens hood and only takes 49mm filters. so you can imagine how small it is. i've also got the 43mm limited and its often hard to distinguish which is which when i'm pulling them out of the bag.

 

 

so the bottom line is, i'd vote for the 77 before the 85. but it all depends on your nees because we are talking about two of pentax's top short tele lenses.

[40mm]

<i>with a 1.5 crop the 77= 105mm</i>

<br><br>

1.5 x 77mm = 115.5mm

[mountainvisions]

good point on the 115. new math or brain fart. or just stupidity. should still work just fine since the extra 10 at 100+ isn't a huge difference for indoor sports work. changes things a bit for other uses though.

 

it's on order now so looking foward to testing/using it.

[staffan__gren]

<p><em>a few things to note here are that macro lenses are not exactly the best wide open. a 77 or 85 will beat a macro lens at f/2.8</em><br>

<br />Asim, I do not totally agree with you. The popular Tamron 90mm macro lens is very good already at f/2.8, and you will see no noticeable difference compared with the 77 or 85, I believe (go to photozone.de to verify if you like).</p>