Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: 50F14 or 50M28

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    20

    50F14 or 50M28

    Hello all,

    I'm looking at getting a low f-stop lens for my alpha, and I'm wondering if someone can tell me the biggest difference between these two lenses. there is the SAL50F14 which has an fstop of 1.4 or the SAL50M28 which has an F of 2.8 but does macro.

    what makes a lens be able to do macro? the focal difference is .2 meters vs. .45 meters. i want to be able to do macro but is 2.8 going to be large enough for doing shots in dim lighting?

    based on price i'm tempted for the 50F14, but i'm wondering if i should save my pennies for a little longer and go with the macro.

    I will have to get the lens from sony, otherwise i would be all about getting something used!
    Sony DSLRA100 w/ SAL18200
    Sony DSCW7B
    Sony DSCW80

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,560

    Lightbulb Talkin' about twin 50s

    Quote Originally Posted by shanks View Post
    Hello all,

    I'm looking at getting a low f-stop lens for my alpha, and I'm wondering if someone can tell me the biggest difference between these two lenses. there is the SAL50F14 which has an fstop of 1.4 or the SAL50M28 which has an F of 2.8 but does macro.

    what makes a lens be able to do macro? the focal difference is .2 meters vs. .45 meters. i want to be able to do macro but is 2.8 going to be large enough for doing shots in dim lighting?

    based on price i'm tempted for the 50F14, but i'm wondering if i should save my pennies for a little longer and go with the macro.

    I will have to get the lens from sony, otherwise i would be all about getting something used!
    For sharpness, the Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 was an excellent lens. Actually, better than the f/1.4 version. I have both and it still amazes me. The f/1.4 seems to be a better portrait lens, overall, but as bit more difficult to find and more expensive. On the SONY, the 50mm effective becomes a 75mm focal length, so you wind up with a short telephoto.

    You really can not go wrong have the Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 in your bag, they made tons of them. You should be able to get for under $50, easily.

    Obviously, the f/2.8's MACRO shorter minumum focus distance is its edge ... getting that much closer is better for those kind of shots. Extension tubes can also offer you this capability. You might consider looking in them ... 12mm is the average. Using a "ring flash" is also a good idea with that kind of lens, if your subject will tolerate it. You usually only get one shot of a "living" nature subject, so you better know your settings and equipment, because once you push that shutter release ... Adios.

    Most manufacturer's 50mm MACROs are all around this f/2.5-2.8 range ... so that should be no surprise. Although, since the cost of investment is so low ... personally ... I'd try the 12mm Extension Tube plus the 50mm f/1.7 before I plunked down the cash for the SONY 50MM f/2.8 MACRO.

    Just by chance ... here's a link for an AF 50mm f/1.7
    Last edited by DonSchap; 07-24-2007 at 04:51 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •