Earlier tonight (actually last night, but I haven't been to bed yet) I was photographing a band at a dance, in challenging light conditions. I was alternating between my FA77/1.8 and my injured pfa50/1.4.
I absolutely love my 77. While my 31 is more generally usefull, there is some quality about the pictures I get from the 77 (especially portraitish) that I like so much more than even the ones I get from the 31. I don't know what this quality is, and it could just be a factor of depth of field, but I don't think so. My PFA 50 is a perfectly competent lens, and amazing for the price. It's also often the length I need, and even more often a critical 2/3 stop faster than the other two. But, for some reason, it seems a lot harder to get pictures that I really love out of. Question 1: What is it that is different about the 77 that makes it such an amazing lens for shooting portraits? Particulary, what quality is different between it and the 31? Is it just a factor of the length? Question 2: What is the 55/1.4 like in comparison to these other lenses? My impression from what I've read is that in general terms such as sharpness, it is in the same league as the 31 and the 77, but what is its personality like compared to these other three lenses? -- The first step is learning to take great photos, the second step is learning to throw away ones that are merely good. Larry Colen [email protected] http://www.red4est.com/lrc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
