> Owning a K85/1.8 that I'm really happy with, is there any point in > aspiring to own a Ltd 77/1.8? What are its strong points over the 85 > other than autofocus and shiny silver finish?
There is also one weak point of the 77/1.8 "over" the 85/1.8 to consider - the 77/1.8, as an AF lens without an MF/AF clutch, produces a "whirring" sort of feel when manually focusing (I call it the "R2-D2 Effect" - <g>). This doesn't bother some people, but it does bother me. > Would the 43mm be a better bet? I already have a F50/1.7 (love the > pictures but hate the cosmetics) and I'm getting to like primes more > and more nowadays. Do I need a 50 and a 43, or a 77 and a 85? Whether you "need" both pairs of focal lengths or not will be a very personal thing. 43mm is definitely different from 50mm, and 77mm is somewhat different from 85mm, although the difference between 43 and 50 is larger in effect than the difference between 77 and 85. > If you are just getting to like primes, there are many other focal > lengths to consider that will be a big advance over your zooms. 43 vs > 50mm or 77 vs 85mm are just too close in focal length to think about > duplicating the glass vs the other good choices out there. This is true. Picking up a stronger telephoto prime such as a 135 or a 200, or a wider prime such as even a humble 28 would give a greater variety of options photographically. > While I agree that it's probably a good idea to explore a wider range > of primes at first, I don't see the 43mm/50mm and 77mm/85mm lenses as > "duplicating the glass." The characteristics of these lenses are very > different, and having a 43/50/77/85 combination will cover a wide > variety of situations. It's not just the focal length that one should > consider when working with primes. This is true, but I think that if ~I~ (although we all have different tastes, of course) were to restrict myself to just four primes, I would not select 43, 50, 77, and 85. Rather, I would prefer to supplement one 77 or 85 and one 43 or 50 with a wide angle and a longer telephoto. > For most people, except compulsive gear freaks (no offense intended), And no offense taken - <g>. > the 77 and 85 is for all practical purposes the same focal length. The > Limited offers excellent bokeh and is more compatible with modern > camera features. The K 85/1.8 also offers "excellent bokeh", too, of course. I ~want~ to like the 77/1.8 and the 43/1.9 Limiteds, but the manual focus feel (that I harped on once again, above) just gets in the way (for ~me~ - I concede that this is a very personal thing). I have owned the 43/1.9 for a short while, and I have had a chance to try out a 77/1.8 briefly (not photographically - just focusing it on a camera body), and I dislike the focusing. This is frustrating to me, because I have seen some very interesting images taken with the 77/1.8, and I do like the 40-ish focal length of the 43/1.9 quite a bit. So, just one more gripe - why couldn't Pentax have made a good MF 40mm prime. The M 40/2.8 is interesting, but is basically a curiosity, and the 43/1.9 is primarily an AF lens. Boy, I would have ~loved~ a K 40/2.8, or a K 40/2, or (<drool> a K 40/1.4... <g> But I digress... Fred - 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 .
