Minolta AF 50mm F1.4 A-mount lens reviews
 Dotsch#44299 date: May-18-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24/2,8 Minolta 28/2,8 Minolta 50/1,7 Minolta 100/2,8 Macro Sigma 300/4,0 Minolta 28-35/3,5-4,5 Minollta 35-70/4,0 |
| price paid: | unknown |
| positive: | - Very good build - Sharp - 1.4 - Leight weight |
| negative: | - Flares - Needs to stopped down to got sharp. Also edges will get better stopped down |
| comment: | Great lens. Must have. |
; 12MP| Phil Wood#44211 date: Jan-21-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta - AF 50 F1.7 Sony - AF DT 50 F1.8 SAM Minolta - AF 50 F2.8 Macro Minolta - AF 50 F3.5 Macro |
| price paid: | 80 GBP |
| positive: | Sharp, fast, Minolta colours |
| negative: | Significant vignetting wide open, awkward and pathetic lens hood, focus ring too narrow. |
| comment: | This is a very good lens, but very noticeable vignetting lets it down wide open - even though it is easy enough to correct in LR. There are definitely situations where I prefer the f1.7 - but probably not enough to buy both unless you are a collector. The f1.4's biggest advantage is that extra half stop and the thin DOF it provides. In situations where the corners don't matter much - portraiture for example, the faster lens wins. So far I have only used it on FF, I suspect I will like it more on APS-C where the vignetting should not be an issue. Build quality is excellent - 20+ years old and still going strong. Colours are great if you like Minolta colours (I do). Distortion is not really noticeable on FF apart from the aforementioned vignetting (which is a real let down). Flare is an issue with all older lenses, but it's not a big issue, the f1.4 was a premium lens in its day and it shows. The hardest rating to mark is sharpness - because I find it difficult to decided where to draw the line between 4.5 and 5 - the 50mm macros are sharper, does this mean the f1.4 should be 4.5? But I see plenty of 5s for zooms that I know aren't as good - so I gave it 5. Comparing it with my other AF 50mms: f1.7 - given that the two are almost indistinguishable it is funny that the f1.7 feels better - probably just me. On the positive side my f1.4 focus is spot on, my f1.7 needs microfocus adjustment - the f1.4 will see a lot more use on my A58! f2.8 - the f1.4 isn't as sharp but is faster and lighter and sharp enough, however, the f2.8 has 1:1 macro and remains my favourite 50mm. f3.5 - the f3.5 is a bit toylike compared to my other Minolta 50mms - sharper than the f1.4, bigger but much the same weight. I prefer the old metal lenses but, like with the f2.8 the real choice is between macro (1:2 in this case) and the considerably wider aperture of the f1.4. Sony f1.8 - I can't see any advantage of the Sony APS-C lens apart from a decent lens hood, weight (only 70g) and perhaps price, though I'd gladly pay more for the extra build quality, wider aperture and FF capability of the f1.4. I suppose I might opt for the Sony if I was planning some contre-jour portraiture where the hood and modern coatings should be an advantage (I'll update this review after try the f1.4 on APS-C). Bottom line, if I had to give up all but one of my 50mms I'd keep the f2.8, but I'm hanging on to the f1.4 and looking forward to trying it out on APS-C. UPDATE Having spent some time with the lens on an APS-C body (A58) I can confirm that, as expected, vignetting is not an issue. It also has a great advantage over my f1.7 in that it focuses accurately without the need for micro-adjustment. All of which makes it a pretty good portrait option on APS-C, a good wide aperture short tele. That said it is not a focal length I like too much on the smaller sensor - I prefer a longer lens for portraiture if space allows. |
| ithinkso#44036 date: Mar-22-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm f1.7 Minolta 85mm f1.4 Minolta 100mm f2 |
| price paid: | £149.00 |
| positive: | Compact,light. Very little vignetting at f1.4. better than I expected. |
| negative: | some noticeable barrel distortion. |
| comment: | I allowed curiosity to get the better of me when I purchased this lens. I wanted to see for myself if it really was better than the f1.7, which I was never greatly impressed by. My immediate impression was that it really is, although sadly i did not get long to use it thoroughly at different f stops before the iris failed (oil on the blades - frustratingly just the wrong side of the retailer's 3 month warranty). It now only functions wide open. I know that strictly speaking, reviewing broken lenses is against Dyxum lens reviewing policy, but I have continued to use the lens, comparing it's performance at maximum aperture with the the 85mm f1.4. Which I think it does favorably. It does show some noticeable barrel distortion at portrait distances. Surprising for a "standard" lens I think. I might one day try and fix it. |
| transiently#39909 date: Aug-4-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Canon 50/1.4, Pentax SMCT 50/1.4, Zuiko OM 50/1.4. Minolta 50/1.7, |
| price paid: | part of a set |
| positive: | A genuine contender for best of the old design 50/1.4's. Outstanding performance in most scenes by about F2.5 and effectively perfect sharpness/contrast by about F3.5. Surprisingly high resolving power even wide open. |
| negative: | Yes, it does tend towards a slightly glowy, hazy rendition at 1.4 (even though in pure resolution terms, it is doing well), but it improves fast as you stop down, and is actually FAR better than the other old 1.4 designs in this respect. If you are prepared to pay for a newer design, you will see even less of this than with this lens. Tendency for purple to appear in light source bokeh at some longish distances when shooting at night. (My 50/1.7 didn't do this). Flare control, while better than Minolta zooms, isn't really noticeably better than eg a 50 year old SMCT Pentax or other good, old primes...3.5 would be a fair score, and I could have gone for 3. |
| comment: | Better than the 1.7, particularly for corner sharpness, for a minimal size/weight penalty. I also prefer it to the other 1.4 lenses I've owned (I would rank this in first and the other three in the order I presented them above, although my Zuiko was an old silver-nosed one). Years ago I used an MD Rokkor 50/1.4 and it is obvious that this is optically very similar to that lens, if not identical. Its character and performance are obviously on a par. Examine photos taken with it online to see if its slight colour bokeh tendency annoys you. I really think it's very good indeed and that it seems to have been a clear winner for Minolta over their Japanese rivals. |
| addy landzaat#39903 date: Jul-23-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Canon EF 50/1.4 USM Canon EF 50/1.8 II Sony 50/1.4 |
| price paid: | €100,- (used) |
| positive: | Small and light Good at f/2 great at f/10 |
| negative: | Not that good at f/1.4 |
| comment: | I like the Sony/Minolta much more then the Canon 50/1.4. Both the Canon and the Sony aren't that good wide open, the Sony/Minolta improves by f/2, the Canon a little later, I prefer the bokeh of the Sony/Minolta and by f/10 the Sony/Minolta are the best lenses I own. The Sony and Minolta version behave exactly the same. The Sony has a rounded aperture but the difference is small. |
| QuietOC#39901 date: Jul-22-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta MD 50 F1.4 Minolta AF 50 F1.7 & RS Minolta MD 50 F2 Minolta AF 50 F2.8 Macro RS Minolta AF 50 F3.5 Macro Minolta SR 55 F2 Minolta MC 55 F1.7 Minolta MC 58 F1.4 Neewer 50 F2(.4) Fotasy 50 F1.8 Vivitar 50 F1.8 Sony DT 50 F1.8 SAM Sony E 50 F1.8 OSS |
| price paid: | 70 USD (used) |
| positive: | Size and weight Very sharp wide-open |
| negative: | Axial CA/focus shift Flare Slight barrel distortion Play in barrel Tiny, non-locking built-in hood Lack of in-camera lens compensation |
| comment: | A somewhat worn looking copy purchased from an individual seller on eBay. The coating on the front element is worn off in several spots/scratches. With the caps on it looks identical to the Minolta AF 50 F1.7. The lens elements are larger and the front and rear elements are not recessed as deep as those on that lens. This lens was originally $175 in 1985 about twice the price of the AF 50 F1.7. Sony is still selling this design with a distance encoder and some other changes for $450. This lens doesn't get recognized by the camera or software as the Sony lens, so there is no automatic lens compensation available. The focal length of the Minolta 50s may be closer to 52 mm. The other 50 mm lenses are definitely wider. The Minolta MC 55 F1.7 is definitely longer. This lens is amazingly sharp wide-open even on a 2X teleconverter. There is definitely heavy axial CA which makes focusing accurately difficult. Stopping down to F1.7* cleans up a lot of the axial CA fringing. Unfortunately there is no way to focus A-mount lenses stopped down. Like the much older 58 F1.4 the focus plane of the 50 F1.4 is quite flat from corner to corner on APS-C. The corners are brighter than the other lenses. It is definitely brighter wide-open than the F1.6, F1.7, and F1.8 lenses. The aperture mechanism is slow even after cleaning the blades and the lever. Images will wash out with bright light sources. The pullout hood is nearly useless. I use a generic 49 mm screw on hood that is a bit more helpful. The next version of this lens got a much larger removable bayonet hood. *Both my A65 and A5000 display the aperture range from F1.4 as F1.6, F1.7, F2... It is strange especially when Sony only sells F1.8 lenses, and F1.7 is the half-step between F1.4 and F2. Probably this F1.7 is actually F1.8 which would also fit with the second stopped down F1.7 setting when using the Minolta AF 50 F1.7 lenses. F1.8 lenses display as F1.8 wide-open. |
| edgar4232#38895 date: Jul-6-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 50mm F1.7 minolta AF 28-70mm F2.8 minolta AF G 50mm F2.8 macro minolta AF 80-200mm F2.8 Tokina ATX AF 70-210mm F4 Beercan 100mm F2.8 macro minolta AF |
| price paid: | 130 USD |
| positive: | Usable 1.4 center sharpness ok 2.2 tack sharp on the whole frame Cheap but not that cheap compared to other brands at f2 its almost the same sharpness as my 28-70mm minolta G at 2.8 |
| negative: | soft in the corners you have to step it down up to 2.2 or more price |
| comment: | it's sharper than my 50mm 1.7 but for me, it's already ok the 50mm 1.7 for the price it's not that much the difference in light and bokeh for me but if you need the 1.4 go for it or even just tried it out anyways you can sell it again you won't regret either it's a good lens good for travel light and good metal construction overall a good lens and is 1.4 |
| Chrisblobster#38875 date: Jun-2-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-55mm DT kit lens |
| price paid: | NZD $210 |
| positive: | Razor sharpness, colours, bokeh, build quality, compact size, f/1.4 lets me shoot in low light hand-held. |
| negative: | Retractable lens hood, narrow MF ring, some vignetting wide open on full frame A99. |
| comment: | Crazy sharp, nice Minolta colours, and I quite like the bokeh even at f/1.4, but at f/2.8 to f/3.5 I find the bokeh is lovely. The lens hood is just odd and the MF ring is quite narrow, but otherwise the lens feels robust and nice to use. Paired with my SLT-A57 it makes for a nice compact lightweight urban combo, and now with my A99 I'm getting more in the frame. My go-to lens on the A99. |
| elroustom#28627 date: Jul-11-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50/1.7 is a bit more contrasty, but not as smooth or as sharp. |
| price paid: | 150 USD (used) |
| positive: | Fast and sharp, great color. Did not require micro-adjustment for either A77 or A900. |
| negative: | Out of focus areas can be creamy soft to a fault. Not contrasty enough to forgive focus errors wide open. Pull out hood is a little strange, and maybe useless, but better than nothing. |
| comment: | I love this lens. Will use it often. |
| Pattok#27602 date: Jun-7-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - minolta af 70-210mm f4 (beercan) - minolta af 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 (beercan) - minolta AF 100mm f2.8 - minolta af 75-300mm beercan - ... |
| price paid: | 130€ |
| positive: | - sharpness stopped down - compact and light - retractable lens hood |
| negative: | - soft and glowy wide open |
| comment: | I use this lens mostly when i want to stay compact and when my main intent is not to take pictures, which is often. Focal length is versatile and apertures ranges gives lots of options. Rendering is good and special, typical for a fast 50. Sharpness wide open is as expected not fantastic, but if properly focussed (which is tricky even with af) and if post processed delicately it can become very acceptable. Above f2 it is very sharp. Colors and contrast are very good but I prefer those from the beercans. |
| del23#11938 date: Aug-4-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mmf1.7 |
| price paid: | 130 GBP |
| positive: | Sharp Fast AF Colors Solid building |
| negative: | Flare control is not so good Soft wide open |
| comment: | This lens is sharper on f2.8 in compare with Minolta 50f1.7 and much more usable @ f2.2 or f2, although wide open is soft like f1.7 version. You dont have to buy this lens if you already own f1.7. On the other hand, if you want fast prime (and dont have money for ZA 50f1.4) this lens is highly recommended. And yes, it work better with FF |
| peter3400#11801 date: May-1-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Other primes |
| price paid: | 150 CHF |
| positive: | Size, price, IQ, colors, Sharpness, speed |
| negative: | strong vignetting wide open on FF cameras |
| comment: | a great overall lens. |
| minoltista.ca#11536 date: Dec-12-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 50mm/2.8 Macro RS Minolta AF 50mm/1.7 tamron SP AF 28-75mm/2.8 |
| price paid: | 150 USD (for repair) |
| positive: | + Light, little, discreet + Quick and accurate focus + Outstanding image quality stopped down (f4 – f8) + Excellent value performance / price |
| negative: | - Distortion - Some flare |
| comment: | My preferred prime lens. Very good at 2.8, excellent stopped down. Much better, than very good 1.7 version. |
| guynamedjames#11514 date: Dec-2-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | sony 16-50 2.8 tamron 70-300mm DI USD minolta 35-105 |
| price paid: | $200 |
| positive: | -sharp! my sharpest lens -awesome low light performance -quick focus -small and light -classic colors |
| negative: | -lower contrast than newer lenses, film era coatings -not a huge advantage over much cheaper 50mm 1.7 -loud AF |
| comment: | this lens is tack sharp! Like many others, I had a very hard time deciding between the minolta 50mm 1.4 and 1.7. In the end I made my choice, but have never used the other so I can't say definitively whether I made the right choice or not. This is among the most affordable 1.4 lenses you can own, for any camera system, so that was ultimately what drove me to purchase this one. I haven't ever regretted my choice. Although it often sits in my bag, I believe every photographer should have a nifty fifty on hand, for the occasional low light or portrait session. |
| bennygsr#11471 date: Nov-11-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28 f2, 50 -1.7 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Great sharpness, and wide open still reasonable. LIght weight, strong build. Typical minolta colour. Better than 1.7 version |
| negative: | Flare control |
| comment: | missing |
| milan33#11448 date: Nov-7-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | MAF 50 2.8, MAF 50 1.7, SAL 50 1.8 |
| price paid: | ex.150 EUR (used) |
| positive: | Very low light f.1.4. Good metal build. You may use it at night photography (no flash needed). |
| negative: | Mot as sharp as it should be. No Macro. Difficult to find, expensive. None others. |
| comment: | Good low light lens, Difficult to find, expensive. |
| Krichton#11403 date: Oct-25-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Quantaray 28-80 Minolta 50mm 1.7 Tokina 35-200 Sigma 18-250 sony 35mm 1.8 |
| price paid: | 142 |
| positive: | Sharp at f2 and beyond AF is fast Good build quality Nice bokeh |
| negative: | Purple fringing Extremely soft at f1.4 Not the best at flare control |
| comment: | Very soft at f1.4. It's so soft that it's almost pointless to shoot anything at this aperture and consider it a keeper. It's really useful at night when you need a faster shutter, but I question just how useful this is when your images come out soft and hazy. If you stop down to f2 or more images become much sharper. However, when compared to the Sony 35mm 1.8 it's not as sharp at similarly large apertures. The 35mm wide open beats the Minolta 1.4 at f1.8-2.8, and maybe even oh so slightly at f4, which shocked me. I did not have time to do a more thorough test, but these are the results I came away with so far. Bokeh is very nice though, and literally crushes the 35mm in that regard, but no different than the 50mm 1.7. The 1.4 is so similar to the 1.7 that I see no point in owning the 1.4 if you already have the 1.7 or intend to purchase the 1.7. |
| teejay#11382 date: Oct-11-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Sony 50/1.4 - Sony 50/2.8 M - Minolta 50/1.7 RS |
| price paid: | 150 E |
| positive: | - Image quality from F2 onwards - small, light, unobtrusive - quick focus - Minolta color |
| negative: | - bokeh wide open is harsh - flare and loss of contrast when shooting against the light |
| comment: | Compared to both sony lenses cited above, this lens has less contrast and doesn't work as well in back light situations, due to the 1985 coatings. At f1.4, veil hazing gives a dreamy look to pictures, contrast is low, while bokeh is harsh (the same can be said about the sony 50/1.4). However, used from F2 onwards, images are very nice, bokeh is smoother with heptagonal highlights (this gives a 'vintage' look to photos), and color and contrast are pleasing. While pixel-peeping at landscape apertures f5.6-f11 at infinity focus, the image centers seem softer than the image periphery on aps-c, this may be due to some field curvature issue. Overall a very nice portrait lens for APS-C shooters, which can be had for less than any other AF 50/1.4. |
| adroit_fan#11285 date: Aug-3-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 16-50mm f2.8 Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 |
| price paid: | 200 USD (used) |
| positive: | Low light capability Small and light IQ Bokeh |
| negative: | Some flare |
| comment: | This is one of my favorite lenses on both APS-C and full frame. Such a simple lens produces such wonderful images even wide open. Forget your flash? Not a problem. This lens is my standard I use to judge other lenses. Reminds me that zooms make me lazy. This lens is always in my bag. Hard to believe this lens is as old as it is. Minolta got it right. |
| pwkk#11244 date: Jul-12-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 50 1.7 |
| price paid: | 200 AUS (used) |
| positive: | Sharpness Build Size |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | Found this little gem in a second hand market, and i knew i had to have it. The lens initially had a lot of dust inside the inner elements which was concerning, but i bought it anyway. Ended up pulling it apart, after a strong coffee and some courage (since I've never done it before) and found it very easy to clean out. It is a little soft at f1.4 and has fringing, but it all clears up at f2. Much sharper at f1.7 than the Minolta 50 f1.7 model wide open. It definitely is an upgrade from the other model and if at a good price, should be bought if found. |
| Milan33m#11153 date: May-31-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | MAF 50 2.8, MAF 50 3,5 MAF 50 1,7 |
| price paid: | 155 EUR (used) |
| positive: | Very lighty, 2.8 aperture. |
| negative: | Nothing found |
| comment: | Very nice Prime lens. Metal very was very good. I used it for water fountains in the nightlife. Water flow was great. Useful lens, but a much less sharp than MAF 50 2,8 and 50 3,5. I sold it and changed for MAF 50 2,8. |
| Bassplayer#11145 date: May-28-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 151 ukp |
| positive: | Fast Compact; Minolta colours; Flare control is fine with aftermarket hood; Razor sharp at f/4 Better than average sharpness at f/1.4 |
| negative: | Well the integral lens hood is fiddly to extend and utterly useless when in position. Flare (unless aftermarket hood fitted) |
| comment: | Bought from e.bay about three months ago and has become a must-have in the camera bag. Only three of my 14 lenses go everywhere with me and this is one of them. As mentioned above the integral lens hood is a joke and as a consequence flare can be a problem - however I bought a three position rubber extendable hood (again on e.bay) for just a few pounds and it's done a fabulous job of eliminating flare pretty much completely. A great lens for extremely low light work and indoor flashless photography. The usual superb Minolta colour rendering is here but this lens, I find, is also particularly excellent as a tool for high contrast black and white work. |
| edhoku#10968 date: Mar-11-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 50mm F1.4 |
| price paid: | 250 |
| positive: | Solid build, great low light lens. Good old Minolta Color |
| negative: | focus ring |
| comment: | They don't build like these anymore... Old but still a great lens build to last. |
| alfa65#10927 date: Feb-17-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 2 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 1 overall: 2.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 50mm f 1.4. Is for a bit more money a much better lens for an aps-c camera. |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Cheap Sharp above f2 |
| negative: | Flare! Especially compared to newer Sony lens. Not optimised for aps-c. Less lively colors as newer Sony lens. Lens hood is not food. |
| comment: | missing |
| Freddan_6#10673 date: Nov-8-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta Af 50 1.7 Sony AF DT 18-55 3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 179 USD |
| positive: | Concert and indoor no 1 lens. Very nice bokeh, perfect for portraits on APS-C. Stepped down to f=2 then it is very sharp in the middle. Corner sharpness is good at f=4 - f=5.6 |
| negative: | sharpness at full open. Flare-prone. |
| comment: | Bought at swedish ebay (tradera) for 1200 SEK = 179 USD. |
| berlin steve#10584 date: Oct-13-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | KM 50mm 1.7 & 2.8 macro Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro |
| price paid: | eur 155 |
| positive: | cracking lens great in low light |
| negative: | not noticably sharper than 1.7 model |
| comment: | This is a cracking lens if you need low light flash free. Typical Minolta colours, which so many of us love. I was a little disappointed that it wasn't sharper than the 1.7 model. If you don't need 1.4, then I'd save the cash and get the 1.7. You won't need both in your collection. If you need sharper, and don't need quick focusing the 1.4 gives then get 2.8 macro which is better. But having the pair of them is also recommendable. The 1.4 for indoor snaps with kids- and the 2.8 for planned or staged work as well as macro. Again, if you don't need 1.4, then the 1.7 is IMO as good on sharpness and colour. |
| N_Raged#10354 date: Jul-3-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Minolta 50mm f/1.7 Minolta 85mm f/1.4 G RS Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 |
| price paid: | $200 CAD (used) |
| positive: | +Very good bokeh when stopped down to f/2.0. +Center resolution @1.4 is very usable. +Great colour. |
| negative: | -Some fringing at large apertures. -Not the sharpest prime overall. -Busy bokeh around f/1.4-1.7. |
| comment: | All the common fringing issues associated with old Minolta lenses is present. Purple and Pink fringing plague highlight areas of the image, but goes away when stopped down to f/4. Lateral chromatic aberration is minimal throughout. Very similar to the 50/1.7 here. Contrast is a bit low at f/1.4 with some veiling that doesn't obscure detail, but firms up nicely by f/2.0. Much better than the 50/1.7 in this regard. Absolute sharpness (aka. micro-contrast) when stopped down to anywhere between f/2.8-8 isn't this lens' strong suit. The kind of sharpness can be described as more "pleasant sharp", rather than "pixel peeping bleeding sharp". Makes it great for portraits. On par with the 50/1.7. All that being said, I always wanted to upgrade my Minolta 50/1.7 because everything above f/2.8 was just hideous. Now I'm quite happy with this 50/1.4. A very pleasant image maker. Bokeh at f/1.4-1.7 have a slight outlining effect to them which makes it look busy. At f/2.0 the bokeh is completely uniform and blends together oh so nicely to make seamlessly creamy background transitions. |
| Guy#10252 date: May-31-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta 50/1.7 - SMC Tak 50/1.4 |
| price paid: | 200 EUR |
| positive: | + sharp even wide open + small + good price |
| negative: | - bokeh is not so good |
| comment: | Not much to say. The bokeh could be better wide open, but I guess you can't have everything for this much money. Good for street shooting on FF, not so suitable for portraits due to bokeh issues. Sharpness is OK all over the FF frame. I had the opportunity to use 2 lenses for some time, and their variations was marginal. |
| Doublejayz#10235 date: May-25-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 2 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50 f1.7 Minolta 24 f2.8 Minolta 28 f2.8 |
| price paid: | 224 USD (Boxed) |
| positive: | Everything it is! |
| negative: | Built-in Hood (but good for me) Flare Not very sharp wide open |
| comment: | Everything is great with this little len At f1.4 is usable sharp and so sharp from f1.7 to very very sharp from 2.8 Worth upgrade from a cheaper 50 f1.7 Unless you love this generation design of Minolta lens, grab RS version instead with more working hood (I think) *edited Flare control is kinda terrible |
| JamieZ#10036 date: Mar-19-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 28-70 f2.8, Minolta 28-85 (mini beercan) Sony 18-55 kit lens. Minolta 50 f1.7 |
| price paid: | 125 |
| positive: | This is a goto lens for me at work. Low light and vivid color is what I am shoting as a Lighting designer. Even when jumping range with it by adding a 1.4X or 2x tele adaptor. |
| negative: | a little soft a f1.4, but that would be it. |
| comment: | I have had this trusty little guy forever. It has always given me great shots. It has gone from my first real SLR a 400si, onto a 600si then a A100 and now a A580. It is always with me, on camera or in the bag. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 122
- sharpness: 4.68
- color: 4.80
- build: 4.65
- distortion: 4.77
- flare control: 4.11
- overall: 4.60
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login