Which lense to own

[millz]

Minolta AF50mm f/1.4 lens or the Sony 50mm f/1.4 Lens. I know this is hard to believe but dont take price into the equasion There is not enough difference to worry about it. So which one would you pick based on speed, performance and quality

And like usual I can still get the Sony before Christmas so that might make the decision for me But please be honest just tell me if they were both FREE which one would you rather shoot with.

[dr4gon]

People seem to like the Minolta better. But really, they're the same lens..... I think the Sony will be better just because it's new and has some warranty and has a nice 55mm front filter thread :D

[millz]

ty the other option i was thinking was going crazy and getting the 35mm f/1.4 G-Series Wide-Angle Lens or isnt it even fair to have this in the picture

I cant help myself i just want to buy some glass its addicting

[Peekayoh]

Two Minolta lenses. The RS has the 55mm filter.

[seanhoxx]

The Minolta 50mm 1.7 is a sweet lens, does a great job, just get one in as near mint cond. as you can. I am also a glass addict, just tray and be wise, and try to think it through before buying. make sure it is a good lens for your camera, that you buld your overall focal length, etc. If you don't use it the lens is just a paper weight. If it's a junk lens, you won't like the pictures and it becomes a paper weight. happy buying.

[dr4gon]

Oh, didn't know the RS was a 55mm. Thanks Peter. ;)

I guess I'm the only who'd like a Sony lol...

[Rooz]

Minolta AF50mm f/1.4 lens or the Sony 50mm f/1.4 Lens. I know this is hard to believe but dont take price into the equasion There is not enough difference to worry about it. So which one would you pick based on speed, performance and quality

And like usual I can still get the Sony before Christmas so that might make the decision for me But please be honest just tell me if they were both FREE which one would you rather shoot with.

if price is no barrier, get the sony.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sony_50_1p4_m15/

[millz]

i believe this would be a nice compliment for indoor shots etc seems like my next lens choice having the 18-250 already

[dr4gon]

if price is no barrier, get the sony.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sony_50_1p4_m15/

A very good review. I'm not sure how much of that is due to manufacture variation between lenses.

[e_dawg]

I was going to say, between the two 50/1.4's get the Sony version for the ADI and improved coatings. Having read the dpreview test, there's even more reason to get it now (sharper).

However, I would recommend the Sony 50/2.8 macro over either, as it's a better performer in every way at every aperture. It doesn't have the faster f/1.4 max aperture, but as you can see from the tests, f/1.4 isn't very usable in terms of image quality (contrast, corner sharpness, longitudinal CA, irregular bokeh). If you have to use the lens above f/2 anyways, that's not much difference from using the 50/2.8 macro at f/2.8. The difference is that the 50 macro is usable wide-open and the 50/1.4 is not. And the 50 macro can do macro, while the 50/1.4, obviously, cannot.

BTW, check out a pic from the 50/2.8 macro. The first pic in the gallery was the actual shot. The second pic is a 100% crop from the central 1 MP of the original shot. Mouse-over the image to get a larger size (X2Large or X3Large should be good) as well as EXIF data.

http://scpublicgallery.smugmug.com/gallery/6716090_tQPjm/1/428839298_YPqSi


Another thing that may not be apparent from looking at MTF graphs and such from lens tests and reviews is that the 50 macro is likely to be less prone to flare and ghosting due to the recessed front element. With the large, exposed front element, it's no surprise that the 50/1.4 is prone to flare and ghosting. You absolutely need to use the lens hood outdoors, and even with it on, the lens will still be prone to flare and ghosting due to internal reflections from the massive amount of light that is being let in. Even without a lens hood, the 50 macro shouldn't have as much of a problem.

[Peekayoh]

I'm with e_dawg on this one. You should be able to pick up a 50mm f1.7 and a 50mm macro for the same (maybe less) price as the Sony f1.4.
I just bought a second 50mm Macro, RS version to see if it was an improvement on the one I have but I think I prefer the older one. The focus limiter is an advantage but I don't really have a problem with focus speed on the older lens anyway. The colour rendition on the RS seems a bit warmer.
I'll stick the RS on eBay next year.

[millz]

so i guess im confused whats the big difference between these lenses. the macro f2.8 and the f1.4. the other question am i thinking right with fixed 50mm or should i be looking in a different direction. such as 35mm or some other lense. im looking for indoor portrait low light maybe. something that will take stunning photos.

[laydros]

I haven't used any of these lenses, but if you think the 50mm is too long, and price isn't an issue, then the 35mm f/1.4 G is one of the highest rated lenses on Dyxum.

Early on I was thinking about getting one of the 50mm for indoor shots of my on-the-way daughter, but it was pointed out to me that 50mm can be a little long indoors.

[Peekayoh]

Well the f1.4 simply has a large aperture which can gather more light so you can use it in low light conditions. Unfortunately sharpness suffers at f1.4 (see the review that rooz pointed you to) and you need to stop down to get sharper, so bang goes the advantage of the wider aperture.
The 50mm macro on the other hand is still sharp at it's smaller f2.8 maximum aperture. It also has a "true" macro 1:1 performance for the little things in life.

You need to decide what's important to you.

On the subject of a portrait lens, conventional wisdom says 105mm is the best focal length, but anything from 75 to 135mm is OK. If you want a tight head shot, you have to do it from too close with a 50mm lens; when you're only a 18" or so away, noses grow and ears disappear. Even worse with a 35mm. Of course with the APS-C sensor, your 50mm lens becomes 75mm and is actually a pretty good choice for this application. The low price of a second hand 50mm f1.7 lens makes it a "must have" for the APS-C user.

[e_dawg]

If it's portraits you're interested in, the 50 mm lenses would be preferable for indoor portraits on APS-C (i.e., non-full frame dSLRs like the A100-700 Sonys).

35 mm would be a better choice if you wanted a single prime lens that would be your all-purpose walkaround lens, as it is equivalent to a "normal" lens that has a similar field of view to human vision (i.e., neither magnified nor wide-angle). However, the 35/1.4G IMO is not that type of lens for several reasons: (1) too expensive for what you get, (2) specialized for portraiture at the expense of sharpness for other applications, (3) flare outdoors in bright sun, (4) longitudinal chromatic aberration at out-of-focus transitions.

[dr4gon]

If it's portraits you're interested in, the 50 mm lenses would be preferable for indoor portraits on APS-C (i.e., non-full frame dSLRs like the A100-700 Sonys).

35 mm would be a better choice if you wanted a single prime lens that would be your all-purpose walkaround lens, as it is equivalent to a "normal" lens that has a similar field of view to human vision (i.e., neither magnified nor wide-angle). However, the 35/1.4G IMO is not that type of lens for several reasons: (1) too expensive for what you get, (2) specialized for portraiture at the expense of sharpness for other applications, (3) flare outdoors in bright sun, (4) longitudinal chromatic aberration at out-of-focus transitions.

Agreed, 50mm is the ideal choice for an indoor portrait and has some uses outdoors as well (depending on the background). I think you will find 50mm on a C sized sensor to be perfect.