----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Colen"
Subject: Dangerous thoughts about glass, and a couple of questions
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?
I recall posting about this just after I got my first 77. I thought it was
an amazing lens for general photography, but I absolutely hated it for
portraiture.
After looking at many pictures that I shot with it, I decided that what I
didn't like was, for lack of clearer terminology, it had too much
microcontrast, and was just too damned sharp.
However, what I did really like about the 77 is it's bokeh rendering. I
think it was Alan Chan who noticed (and immediately dismissed the lens as
garbage for it) that it has a fair amount of spherical abberation at wide
apertures.
However, it does allow the lens a very nice bokeh, and a 3 dimensional look
to images taken with it.
Just watch out for specular highlights, they can go a little odd.
With most lenses, to get that 3D look in portaiture I am having to use a
skim light to seperate the subject from the background, with the 77, I get
most of the same look without the extra head.
The 31 shares a lot of similarities with the 77, high sharpness, lots of
contrast and excellent out of focus rendering.
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 DA*55 is the 77s ugly brother. It's big, it's plastic, it's kinda
unwieldy, but damn, it's got some happening glass in it.
Think of it as a 77, but a little faster and 30% shorter.
William Robb
--
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.
