Steve Spencer wrote:
The Pentax 77 f/1.8 Limited is a nice lens and pretty compact, but it is a lot less so with the adapter. The lens has a 64mm diameter, but with the adapter it is 75.46mm long. So a compact lens on a Pentax camera becomes a not nearly so compact lens on the Sony Camera. Still it is relatively small for portrait lens. Personally, I am not that interested in the lens because I would prefer a lens that is designed for manual focus if I am going to manually focus the lens. The Pentax is good for manual focus for an AF lens, but it is not up to lenses designed for manual focus. Still if you can live with the somewhat short focal length and the manual focussing it is a good quality lens and a pretty small package.
I suggesedt the Leica M 90 f/2 (summicron) version III (also known as the pre-AA) because it is both a reasonable price and still relatively small. It also has a very nice rendering and very nice bokeh and the slightly longer focal length I also find appealing for portraits. It's volume is 266300 cubic mm, which is just a bit over the Pentax 77 limited which has a volume of 242900 cubic mm. The Pentax is a little fatter (about 2 mm) and a little shorter (about 10mm), but both are pretty compact. The Leica is also designed for manual focus.
Both these lenses are good choices and it depends on your own personal preferences which makes most sense, IMO. ...Show more →
Steve, the adapter puts the lens forward enough to make focusing quite comfortable. I'll do some more with the 77 Limited and see how good it is on the A7r, Initial tests show it's probably my best lens for sharpness and bokeh. That includes the FE 55/1.8.
Very easy to manual focus and if you have a K-3 too, you have fast AF capability as well.
Honestly, I can't recommend this lens highly enough.
I'll throw out the Rokinon 85mm 1.4. You can get it in an e-mount, inexpensive, sharp as a zeiss, and you can order it new instead of rolling the dice with used lenses. Of course it's full manual but then so I are a lot of options listed.
It'll be my next purchase after trying out one on my friends canon.
Like another posted mentioned before, the Nikkor 105/2.5 ltm (Sonnar design) is really under appreciated imo.
Heavy though because of the brass construction and longish, the length of most SLR 100mm.
But a nice lens nonetheless. (and not expensive compared to many ltm/m-mount options)
Here is a comparison in size. IMGP2080 by jenkwang, on Flickr
From left : Nikkor 105/2.5 ltm; Takumar 100/2; FD100/2 (all with adapters attached )
The Pentax FA77ltd, is a gem.
As shown by some of the other poster, its really well built and very small.
The size of most brand's 50/1.8
Convenient built in hood and very sharp from wide open and nice bold drawing style.
rongwam wrote:
@ Bluffer: Nice pentax 77mm/1.8 and 43mm/1.9 lenses. Any recommendation on adapters to use these pentax lens with A7r? Thanks.
Kindai Rayqual (have baffles) or Novoflex.
I have Novoflex but really should have gone for Kindai.
If you can find a good copy of the Pentax-FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited (preferably a Made in Japan copy) to go with the two other FA Limited's . . . you then have the Three Amigos!
The 31 is prone to bad copies, but good ones smoke anything else out there, especially on the A7r.
Bluffer wrote:
Steve, the adapter puts the lens forward enough to make focusing quite comfortable. I'll do some more with the 77 Limited and see how good it is on the A7r, Initial tests show it's probably my best lens for sharpness and bokeh. That includes the FE 55/1.8.
Very easy to manual focus and if you have a K-3 too, you have fast AF capability as well.
Honestly, I can't recommend this lens highly enough.
I believe that Steve's point is that, while the focus feel of the Pentax Limited lenses may be decent for an AF lens, MF-only lenses have much better manual focus feel, like old Takumars, Contax C/Ys, Leicas, etc. If one has Pentax AF cameras to split time with the Limited lenses, they make a lot of sense, but, if one is using only the A7/R in manual focus, other MF-only lenses may be a better option.
JimBuchanan wrote:
I'm surprised focal length doesn't come up more often when talking about portrait lenses on full frame.
Eastman Kodak would always suggest 80-85mm was the ideal focal length for portraits, but I think they were referring to a waist up portrait. When I was taking headshots in LA, the defacto standard was the use of the Nikon 105/2.5 for head and shoulder portraits and I also preferred that longer focal length on full frame, as it flattens the image (and noses) just a hair more. Shot at a wider aperture the face and head was in focus with adequate subject isolation from the background. Currently, I have seen excellent results with the C/Y 100/2.
Jeff Kott wrote:
I'm curious. How do you know this? Have you tested a "good copy" on the A7r yourself or can you point us to someone who has?
I've seen what good copies can do and even my suspect copy ain't bad . . . stopped down.
The trouble with dodgy ones comes when they're wide open. Wide open mine ain't good thus was sent to a Pentax lens specialist today for major surgery, the focus was also sticking and the lens hood had gone loopy.
This is stopped down on the A7r, f5.6 I think, I added the vignette, it doesn't vignette on the A7r . . .
douglasf13 wrote:
I believe that Steve's point is that, while the focus feel of the Pentax Limited lenses may be decent for an AF lens, MF-only lenses have much better manual focus feel, like old Takumars, Contax C/Ys, Leicas, etc. If one has Pentax AF cameras to split time with the Limited lenses, they make a lot of sense, but, if one is using only the A7/R in manual focus, other MF-only lenses may be a better option.
Meh! You get used to whichever lens is on your cam ultimately. That said, a Leica bod (Getty staff tog) warned me about short throw on the Voigtlanders making accurate focusing tricky.
The PK's are easy to to manual focus as their old full frame offerings were designed for the old film bodies.
lucas lumiere wrote:
I'm going to chime in and suggest something a little different. The 50mm zeiss zm sonnar 1.5. I have been playing with that lens recently and I've been really happy with its rendering. It is also super compact. I suppose it depends on your shooting style and the type of portraits you want to be taking.
Cheers.
I really like the 50mm Sonnar lenses for people photos. It's a bit wide for a 'traditional' portrait look, but that also doesn't stop me. On the Leica M 50mm is my portrait focal length and I love Sonnar rendering. I'd suggest trying some of the 1950s and earlier Sonnar vintages. I've had good luck with the Zeiss-Opton 50/1.5 and the Nikkor 5cm/1.4 is interesting and has some split personality depending on aperture. I guess there are also the Russian lenses at great prices... Bonus is these Sonnars are really tiny.
One lens I recently picked up for a song ($145) that is turning out to be a very nice, relatively compact lens on the A7r is the Minolta MD 100/2.5. It has a really cool, two-stage built-in/ slide out hood (If I recall, the Summicron 90 R has a similar design) and is sharp wide open.
What I have noticed is that the 100's in general tend to be better corrected lenses by nature (less distortion and more even sharpness over the frame) as compared to the shorter 85's. For portraiture, this of course does not matter much (and a shorter lens will be desirable for some) but if one wants a more versatile lens that could be used for say anything from reproduction work, architecture and even landscape, that quality might matter.
Bluffer wrote:
Meh! You get used to whichever lens is on your cam ultimately. That said, a Leica bod (Getty staff tog) warned me about short throw on the Voigtlanders making accurate focusing tricky.
The PK's are easy to to manual focus as their old full frame offerings were designed for the old film bodies.
The Limited manual focus is feel is good for an AF lens, but I still probably wouldn't choose it for an MF-only camera, when there are so many manual focus lenses out that aren't compromised for AF and feel amazing. It's something that OP should at least consider.
douglasf13 wrote:
The Limited manual focus is feel is good for an AF lens, but I still probably wouldn't choose it for an MF-only camera, when there are so many manual focus lenses out that aren't compromised for AF and feel amazing. It's something that OP should at least consider.
rscheffler wrote:
I really like the 50mm Sonnar lenses for people photos. It's a bit wide for a 'traditional' portrait look, but that also doesn't stop me. On the Leica M 50mm is my portrait focal length and I love Sonnar rendering. I'd suggest trying some of the 1950s and earlier Sonnar vintages. I've had good luck with the Zeiss-Opton 50/1.5 and the Nikkor 5cm/1.4 is interesting and has some split personality depending on aperture. I guess there are also the Russian lenses at great prices... Bonus is these Sonnars are really tiny.
i agree about the 50 sonnar (and 85 sonnars) having great rendering for portraits, but of course when i say portraits i'm not thinking of head and shoulders formal portraits. that's a type of shot i never take. i'm thinking more environmental types of portraits where more of the subject is included and you don't have much control of the background.
Jeff Kott wrote:
I don't see where the Pentax 31 was tested on the A7r.
Bluffer wrote:
Pinholecamera's got a 31mm Limited on an A7, he might chime in with a few examples.
are you guys not seeing the comparison of the 31mm limited shots with 100% crops in the link?
douglasf13 wrote:
The Limited manual focus is feel is good for an AF lens, but I still probably wouldn't choose it for an MF-only camera, when there are so many manual focus lenses out that aren't compromised for AF and feel amazing. It's something that OP should at least consider.
+1, this is why i never looked further at the 77 after i handled it.
