Minolta AF 50mm F1.7 A-mount lens reviews
 marco_palomar#45802 date: Jan-1-2022 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, Pentax M 55mm f/1.8, Sony A 50mm f/1.4, Nikon af-d 50mm f/1.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | weight, bulk, price, old style Monolta colour rendition, vintage rendition |
| negative: | less sharp from 1.7 to f / 2.8 than other 50mm |
| comment: | Good lens for A-mount, with vintage character and old-style Minolta colors. Sharp from f/2.8 to f/11. |
; 36MP| ewsnc#45669 date: Mar-22-2021 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm F1.4 Konica Minolta 28-75 F2.8 |
| price paid: | $35 |
| positive: | -Small and sharp -Excellent build quality -Super cheap |
| negative: | - none I've observed. - for the price, really nothing |
| comment: | I bought one in excellent condition. As opposed to some concerns on F1.7, my copy is already very sharp wide open. Stop down only makes it phenomenon. I briefly owned its F1.4 sibling and honestly I didn't see much differences in IQ that would warrant the 3x price. Build quality is excellent. I mostly use KM 28-75 f2.8 for the past ten plus years and thought it's a good lens until I tried this little guy. Now I'm a fan of good prime. |
| A68noob#45637 date: Jan-29-2021 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 16-50 2,8 SSM |
| price paid: | 40€ used |
| positive: | +tiny, cute lens +cheap +the definition of MINOLTA COLOURS +excellent metal build +solid sharpness beyond F4 +lightweight, always in your bag |
| negative: | - good amount of purple fringing - sharpness below F4.. its just poor - all the general vintage lens jazz: filter rotating, small MF ring, AF noise (i personally like it after all the usage now), dated coatings, hazy wide open.. nothing to really worry about considering price |
| comment: | I am torn again. I bought a cheap Maxxum series lens after some horrible 2nd hand lenses.. and was instantly in love with it. Beautiful colours, the tiny size and the metal build really made me happy. It also started my love towards old Minolta gear. By far the oldest I had at that time but the best one to work with. It simply delivered beautiful pictures with the most consistent AF i had at that time. My CZ16-80 and Tamron 18-270 both had AF issues and my Sony 35 1,8 was just some piece of plastic garbage. This lens was very refreshing. BUT.. I sold my Maxxum and got a regular one again. It is even softer below F4 and I cant agree that this is an optimal lens for portrais. Too soft and i cant agree on the bokeh it provides.. i rather would use a beercan to shoot portraits with (i am dead serious). Nonetheless i recommend this lens to a certain degree: Vintage flair, size, cheap price and its fun to use. Good for beginners too. Not recommended for serious portraits. Dont pay more than 50€. Disclaimer: Ratings are based on price/performance. Pick a good location + the right daytime and step back to about 5m (APS-C) of the subject (most preferred a good looking girl), set F2,2 and enjoy the most dreamy picture you can think of. Legendary lens. |
| wbl#44509 date: May-2-2020 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 35-70 f4 Beercan Countless other lenses in other mounts |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Good sharpness Lightweight, compact Cheap |
| negative: | Flares pretty badly |
| comment: | Good sharpness, snappy focus, lightweight, compact. Acceptable sharpness at apertures wider than f2.8. Good portrait sharpness at f2.8. Very good sharpness from f4 to f11. I have a hood for it, but still wish it handled flare better. |
| alphapapaya#44200 date: Dec-16-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 5 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-55mm SAM sony 50mm Macro minolta |
| price paid: | 75 USD (used) |
| positive: | very common. Easy to fix. nice saturation of colors |
| negative: | On APS the crop factor converts to a 75 mm, so, it is not a good lens for interiors. This lens is more than 30 years old, some copies need maintenance. 49mm filter ring. |
| comment: | This is the kit lens from the Maxxum 7000, the first lens to be AF, is better than the kit 18-55mm SAM ofered by sony. It has a nice colors and little distortion on an APS, this lens is a good all around situation just to peek a place. I use this lens to travel and explore new locations instead of other lenses. My copy have oil on the blades, but there are plenty of tutorials on intenet to solve the problem, or if you have the resources, any tecnician can solve it. |
| moedius#44190 date: Dec-12-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-75mm f2.8 Minolta 50mm 1.4 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di II LD Sony DT 16-80mm f3.5-4.5 ZA |
| price paid: | 39.00 (Used) |
| positive: | Small and light Well built Super cheap and plentiful used Fast Aperture |
| negative: | PF and SA wide open Needs to be stopped down a little |
| comment: | As I've only bought these used I can only review the specific copies I've owned. An excellent low-risk ultra-budget buy. I've had two of these. They're light and well built. Focusing is fast and the sharpness is respectable wide-open, but quite decent stopped down just a hair. They're common and dirt cheap so I wouldnt pay much, but try to make sure you get a good copy. The edges are OK (on APSC) certainly no complaints for the cost. Contrast is a bit low until you stop it down a bit. There's a nifty little hidden pull-out hood which doesnt do much in terms of being a hood, but I still appreciate it and every little bit helps. If you're shooting outdoors in bright sunlight you'll probably spend some time in post cleaning up fringing, but it's nowhere near the worst for this. If you can afford a bit higher you'll get more legs out of one of the 50\1.4 lenses (Minolta, Sony, or even Sigma). They're sharper and faster in my experience, and not outrageously more expensive. |
| Phil Wood#44187 date: Dec-11-2018 | |
|---|---|
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 AF 50mm F1.4 Minolta AF 50mm F1.7 RS Sony AF DT 50 F1.8 SAM Minolta AF 50 F2.8 Macro Minolta AF 50 F2.8 Macro RS Minolta AF 50 F3.5 Macro |
| price paid: | 30 GBP |
| positive: | Build quality, size, price, wide aperture, focal length on FF. |
| negative: | My copy has back focus, only f1.7. Focusing ring is too small and fiddly for easy manual use. Hood. |
| comment: | When I bought this lens I was disappointed, it wasn't much sharper than the kit zoom (18-70). Since acquiring cameras with microfocus adjust I have discovered the problem to be a back focus issue. With adjustments the lens is impressively sharp once stopped down a couple of stops. Wide open the centre is sharp - which is what you need in most cases, corner sharpness doesn't matter if your aim is to blur the background. In comparison with the two macro 50mms it's advantages are price, size, the wider aperture and marginally better focusing. The macros are significantly sharper, focus closer (much closer) and have better contrast - and they aren't much more expensive. If the wide aperture is of interest (and it should be) then there are the Minolta f1.4 and its Sony reincarnation (which I don't have experience of) and the Sony f1.8 DT. This latter lens is APS-C only and only out performs the f1.7 in terms of flare control - but the 1.7 is not bad in this respect, I honestly don't see a good reason to buy the Sony in preference to a well-adjusted copy of the 1.7 (unlike mine). To be honest the Sony is the least successful A-mount prime I've experienced - partly because of the comparison with the cheaper, better built, better performing 1.7. The other issue is that 50mm is not the most useful prime on an APS-C body, I'd opt first for the excellent 35mm f1.8 DT, which offers the equivalent 'standard' lens angle of view on APS-C. The 1.7 works as a good short portrait lens, but the other great low cost Sony prime, the 85mm f2.8, is even better (and works as a short portrait on full frame). However, f1.7s are available for under 50GBP and you won't get a much better lens for that sort of cash. If you own a full frame A-mount body you probably already have one of these lenses or an f1.4, if you haven't then you may well not own a prime of any length. I recommend you get one ASAP! The discipline of shooting with primes is well worth experiencing (and you can join Dyxum’s Week 50 Challenge). UPDATE I have recently completed the week 50 challenge. I set out with the intention of sharing the week between all my 50mms - but the two that spent most time on my A900 were the f2.8 macro (I love that lens) and the f1.7. I have to say that I like it a lot more than I did at the start of the week, it really is a very good lens. UPDATE 2: I have acquired an original version Minolta 50mm f1.4 and have to say that overall I prefer the f1.7. The f1.4 vignettes quite badly wide open on FF - which I find very off-putting. The f1.4 may be the better APS portrait lens and my copy does focus well on my A58 (unlike my f1.7) but I'll stick with the f1.7 on my A900 unless I really really need the narrower DOF. The hood on both lenses is the same - fiddly and useless - if only there was a way to retrofit a hood bayonet mount on them! UPDATE 3: The f1.4 has grown on me, the vignetting seems less important, the wide aperture more important. Sadly the f1.7 spends more time on the shelf. UPDATE 4: I acquired an RS version of this lens, for two reasons I use the RS far more - it does not require microfocus adjustment (luck of the draw) and the built-in hood locks out, making it much more useful. |
| ThomasMac#44085 date: Jun-12-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm f14 |
| price paid: | 50 USD used |
| positive: | Color, contrast and sharpness |
| negative: | Built in hood not good for flare control. |
| comment: | This is my second copy of this lens. I purchased my first one in 2007 to use on my Sony a100. I prefer this lens over the copy of the Minolta 50mm f1.4 I had. I use it as a short portrait lens on my a77 with outstanding results. Highly recommended. |
| JeanChristophe#41975 date: Dec-28-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Every zooms. |
| price paid: | 50 EUR |
| positive: | - "Old school" prime lens, simple but effective - Sharp - Portrait, with a general cold tone (not yellow tones of the old Minolta lenses). |
| negative: | None, except its a prime. Not metal built. |
| comment: | Good lens for portraits. One of the best choice (Minolta) for indoor photography, reasonably sharp after f/3.5. An affordable prime to have in your collection. |
| John McK#39904 date: Jul-31-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | none |
| price paid: | €90 used |
| positive: | Sharp Very quick AF I like the feel of it on the camera |
| negative: | very small built-in hood |
| comment: | A great little prime lens which I don't use nearly as often as I should. I have used it on a Sony A390 & Sony A-68. |
| transiently#36827 date: Apr-12-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 50/1.4, Canon EF 50/1.8, Nikon AF 50/1.8, various Minolta MC and MD 50/1.7 (this lens is optically the same as the last type Minolta MD 50/1.7) Chinon 50/1.7 M42 (a very good and often under-rated lens), various Zuiko 50/1.8 (these vary a lot but on average are a little better than a typical Minolta 1.7), Zuiko 50/1.4 (avoid early lenses with chrome-rimmed fronts), various Takumar 50/1.4 and 55/2 and 1.8, Yashica standard lenses etc etc |
| price paid: | I cannot remember. |
| positive: | Good central sharpness at all apertures which extends outwards to most of the APS-C frame area, but not its corners. Good general control of aberrations. Images have a nice Minolta look to them. Lens is quite well-made compared with eg the Canon EF MkII or budget Sony lenses and is noticeably nicer and easier to focus manually than those two lenses. Edit: I sold my original one and later replaced it with one which works perfectly and looks good but looks fairly soft all over at 1.7 (looks like spherical abberation), gradually improving to be very good indeed at f4 and superb at 5.6 and 8. Second edit (July 2023) I just picked up another example from a charity shop. It's in totally mint condition but unfortunately has the dreaded oily blades. Wide open (the only way I can currently use it) this example looks better than others I've had, particularly the one mentioned in the previous edit, and definitely in the same league as typical 50/1.7 or 1.8 lenses from other makers. |
| negative: | Relatively poor corner sharpness (and I am talking about APS-C here; it isn't going to be any better on full frame!). Stopping down to at least F8 helps. Corners are never quite as good as the better lenses or indeed, to be brutally honest, as good as most 50mm's; this is the main drawback of this lens. Flare control, while better than Minolta zooms, is somewhat inferior to that of most good primes and much of the 50mm competition. |
| comment: | Inferior corner sharpness to most other 50's, yes, but it's not really bad enough to be problematic for most users under normal photographic use with most 3D subjects. Sharpness away from the corners is good overall, not very far behind the Canon and Nikon 1.8 lenses or the best 1.8 Zuikos, and not by any means poor wide open. This lens gives less spherical aberration wide open than the Canon 50/1.8 although the Canon has better corners and sharpens more quickly as you stop down. Edit: I sold my original one and later replaced it with one which works perfectly and looks good but looks fairly soft all over at 1.7 (looks like spherical abberation), gradually improving to be very good indeed at f4 and superb at 5.6 and 8. In my view the Minolta look and build quality make it preferable to the Sony 50/1.8 lens which feels a lot less pleasant in the hand and doesn't have the Minolta look or bokeh quality, let alone build quality. The Minolta 50/1.4 which I also own is slightly but clearly/demonstrably sharper at every normal shooting aperture, and more than slightly sharper in the corners. I have a suspicion that the 1.4 has more problems with bokeh fringing than this lens, though. I get a strange aperture scale anomaly with this lens on my A37; there are two clicks that both give the read-out F1.7. From what I've read recently about the MD 50/2 (which I never owned), it seems surprising that Minolta didn't make that lens their standard AF 50mm offering, as I've seen it suggested that it is a lot better at wide apertures than their 50/1.7 lenses. No matter, though, this lens still has plenty to offer. Be careful, if buying, to ensure you don't end up with a lens with oily diaphragm blades which will eventually stick open, or a lens which has been left unused in a too warm climate whose blades may have already jammed open. Other than this, I'm not aware of much that can go wrong. |
| wiewior#36818 date: Apr-4-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | s16-50/2.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | sharpness from 2.5, build, weight, size, quick AF, colors |
| negative: | sometimes not accurate AF, sharpness at 1.7-2.0, contrast |
| comment: | great, small and cheap lens, quick but not accurate AF, small contrast and sharpness at 1.7-2.5 in comparison to s16-50/2.8 |
| ElijahBKing#33748 date: Jan-6-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Nikon Series E 50/1.8 Nikkor AF 50/1.8 Pentax SMC-M 50/2 |
| price paid: | was given to me |
| positive: | Small and light Great all-metal build quality Distance and DOF scale Very sharp stopped down; relatively good at 1.7-2.4ish Very cheap (not that I'd truly know) and widely available |
| negative: | Flare control is not very good, but that's to be expected Focus ring quite small and thin |
| comment: | I received this lens along with a 7 this past summer as a gift. It is a fantastic first lens for film or full frame, as it's fast, sharp, rugged, and has a DOF scale on it. Compared to other nifty-fifties, it is in the same league sharpness-wise as at least the old Pentax 50/2 design and the old Nikon 50/1.8 design (not including the present 1.8G). Back in August, I shot a set of senior portraits with it on the 7, and it focussed very quickly. However, the manual focussing ring is small and less convenient to use than a manual focus lens (but it does turn very smoothly). Its flare control is also less than stellar, as one can expect from a lens of this vintage. This is a common problem with older Minolta lenses, as their coatings were never quite as good at handling flare as, for instance, those of Pentax or Canon. Despite this, it's a great little lens, and everyone should have it in their bag. |
| Dotsch#31697 date: Oct-14-2016 | |
|---|---|
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 Minolta 70-210/4,0 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Great lens. Pushed down by one or two stops really sharp in the center, corners will be great > f4. Light weigt |
| negative: | Fiddly lens hood |
| comment: | Great lens. A must have for Sony and Minolta users. |
| Miranda F#30694 date: Oct-1-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm f1.7 RS Minolta 35-70 f4 Minolta 28-80 f3.5-5.6 Minolta 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 Minolta 28-100mm f3.5-5.6 Sony 35mm f1.8 Sony 50mm f1.8 Sony 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 Sony 18-135mm (tried, not owned) Sony 55-200mm f4-5.6 Sony 55-300mm f4.5-5.6 Soligor 60-300mm f4-5.6 Tamron 90mm f2.8 Sigma 28-200mm Tamron 28-200mm aspheric Various other wide angle and tele lenses plus MF primes & zooms. |
| price paid: | £50 |
| positive: | It's a prime, it has a wide aperture, and it's cheap Good Bokeh, especially on APS-C |
| negative: | colours, build, distortion, flare, CA/PF. |
| comment: | There are plenty of other reviews of this lens, so if you don't like or agree with mine, just ignore it and read the others! See also my review of the RS version which is (I assume) optically similar, but this was a lens I wanted to like, but couldn't. Here's just a few reasons why I didn't: I didn't feel the lens was especially sharp, and it was pretty bad at close-ups. I've been doing closeups with MF 50mm lenses for decades and have always had them sharp, but results with either of the two Minolta 50mm f1.7 AF lenses were always disappointing, on APS-C certainly. On film it was okay, but today I mostly take views with film, which are less challenging. CA and PF may perhaps be no worse than older MF lenses I'm used to, but they aren't up to modern standards either. Flare control is predictably bad, and although if I'd been reviewing this when the lens first came out it would have got a good rating, today its performance is not good in comparison to even cheap modern lenses now available. Now I know Minolta's early lenses consistantly get good marks for build, but I have marked this one down because the focus ring is difficult to operate without a proper lens hood (the built-in one is ineffective and useless anyway because it is difficult to pull out and doesn't stay out) and impossible to MF with one fitted, and that's just not acceptable to me. I expect to be able to use MF when necessary, with a hood, and it often is. Paradoxically the RS version has a much wider and nicer rubber focus ring which is easier to turn, but they raised the AF gearing on it too so it becomes much more difficult to get accurate MF. The RS version also has the ability to lock the hood open, though it is still difficult to get it out in the first place unless you focus it closely first. Many people are very enthusiastic about Minolta colours but I really didn't like the colours on this lens; they made evening pictures look so unreal I had to change them in PP. In hindsight I realise I could have done more to correct this with WB and saturation before taking the picture, but whereas the colours with my 18-55mm dt lens (and others) were almost always wonderful without any fiddling, they weren't with this lens. You may think I just don't like Minolta glass but that's not true. I like the 24-105 and the 28-100, and I think the 35-70 F4 is excellent. So although I'm not suggesting this lens was or is a waste of money, neither did I feel like keeping it. I traded it in for the Sony equivalent which I like a great deal more. Edit: To be fair I should have commented that the bokeh is very good, with lovely smooth circles on distant lights in night shots. This is especially true on APS-C, since the much larger image circle of the FF lens doesn't squeeze/crop the circles near the edge of the frame as APS-C lenses do. Thus the Minolta gives much nicer circles than the Sony 50mm f1.8, which (like most APS-C lenses, and some FF too) crushes these into lemon shapes near the edge unless you deliberately shoot wide and crop. |
| Magnumúrfi#29680 date: Aug-30-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 50 3,5 Macro Helios 58/2 Industar 50/3,5 Canon 50/1,8 |
| price paid: | 100 |
| positive: | Sharp F 1,7 Light Cheap Good build! Very good color. Full Frame Very good CA |
| negative: | No fast autofocus No good manual focus Flare |
| comment: | Very good Lens! This is amazon Sharp in F 1,7! Very good resolution. 24 MPx is no problem this lenses. No Light fall in Full frame and excellent color! No good flare control |
| Southern Dad#29664 date: Aug-23-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-55 Minolta 75-300 Minolta 80-200 |
| price paid: | $35 & $29 both eBay |
| positive: | Shooting with the lens, I get clear crisp lines and great color. When I want to blur the background on a portrait, it is easily done. The lens seems very fast. |
| negative: | This lens seems susceptible to flare. |
| comment: | My 13-year-old daughter shot my camera with this lens and spent her own money to buy one on eBay the next night. She is willing to give up zoom for the shot quality. |
| QuietOC#28610 date: Jun-18-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 40 F1.7 Konica AR 40 F1.8 Canon EF 40 F2.8 STM Pentax-M 40 F2.8 Pentax-DA 40 F2.8 XS Pentax-FA 43 F1.8 Limited Samyang AF 45 F1.8 FE Tamron SP 45 F1.8 USD (VC & non VC) Minolta MD 45 F2 Rokinon 50 F1.2 Zeiss 50 F1.4 Planar Yongnuo 50 F1.4 Canon EF 50 F1.4 USM Sigma 50 F1.4 EX DG HSM Minolta MD & AF & Sony AF 50 F1.4 Minolta MD & AF 50 F1.7 RS Sony FE 50 F1.8 Canon EF 50 F1.8 STM Fotasy 50 F1.8 Konica AR 50 F1.8 Vivitar 50 F1.8 Sony DT 50 F1.8 SAM Sony E 50 F1.8 OSS Minolta MD 50 F2 Sony FE 50 F2.8 Macro Neewer/Meike 50 F2 Sony A 50mm F2.8 Macro Minolta AF 50 F2.8 Macro RS Minolta MD 50 F3.5 Macro Minolta AF 50 F3.5 Macro |
| price paid: | 22 USD (used) |
| positive: | Small and light Smooth focus control Minimal distortion |
| negative: | Haziness/axial CA Some lateral CA Hard to nail focus Busy bokeh 49 mm filter size |
| comment: | This is a very clean copy purchased on eBay. "JAPAN" This is a small lens. It even makes the Sigma 24 f/2.8 Super Wide II look big. The front element is very recessed so it probably could have been even smaller. The outer plastic cover and inner aluminum frame seem to be identical to the Minolta/Sony 28mm F2.8, but the inner barrel of the 28 mm prime sticks out further. The little built-in hood doesn't lock into place like the similar hood on the RS version. It certainly has depreciated less than most Minolta lenses. It was selling just above $50 when original released. The current Sony DT 50 1.8 SAM is $170. It is definitely heavier than DT prime despite the lack of a SAM motor. The focal length is noticeably longer than the Sony DT 50 F1.8. It is a pretty sharp lens at least when stopped down, but the corners remain a bit soft. Both of my copies of the DT 50 mm prime are much sharper and show more contrast. The built-in hood is very small--probably sized more for the 28 mm lens. I'd prefer a large reversible hood like the one included with the later versions of the 50 f/1.4. On the A58 it has two aperture settings both of which report as f/1.7. It goes 1.7, 1.7, 2, 2.2, 2.5, 2.8, etc. The iris definitely closes down some on the second setting. The camera also selects different exposures on the two "1.7" aperture settings. The closed down "1.7" might actually be a 1.8 aperture setting. Just like the RS version the 7 aperture blades are basically straight and show as a polygon even at the first partial step down. Manual focusing is very smooth with just a little mechanical noise. Auto focusing is quite loud. It definitely displays what some call focus shift with stopping down. The sharpest appearing focus wide-open is a bit off when stopped down. Overall very decent performance--better overall image quality than the zooms at the same settings. |
| Pirate#27593 date: May-31-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL-50F18 DT Minolta AF 50mm F/3.5 1:2 Macro (+ RS model) Minolta AF 50mm F/2.8 1:1 Macro (+ RS model) Minolta AF 50mm F/1.7 RS |
| price paid: | £20.00 (used/bundle) |
| positive: | Excellent construction Wonderful colour rendition + bokeh Compact size |
| negative: | An almost pointless retractable lens shield |
| comment: | This is an old kit lens from the Minolta AF SLR days and is still going strong today. Virtually everyone will no doubt have owned a copy at some stage, yet it sill delivers quality results with digital cameras. The retractable lens shield is almost pointless, but as the front element is buried deep into the body, it will offer some additional shielding from light. There's not much not to like about this lens as it's a very capable prime whether on full frame or APS-C and it's robust metal and glass construct makes it a tough little nut to crack. There are however much better options, and for around the same price you can buy the Minolta AF 50mm F/3.5 1:2 Macro which is much sharper and would be my recommended lens model of choice if you're looking for a 50mm prime, though buying one for the sake of having a 50mm prime isn't a real reason to buy this specific model lens, but that's just me. The RS versions of all the Minolta 50mm primes are better still and again, some can be bought for the same money as the metal/glass originals. In conclusion, this lens is a well built and of solid construction which produces pleasing results and is a very capable optic in it's own right. Would I recommend it? Well no, simply because there are better alternatives for similar money for full frame users and the dedicated SAL-50F18 DT prime is also a superb performer for APS-C cameras. |
| Krzysztof_#27590 date: May-29-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL18-55 (kit) Minolta 70-210 f3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 300 PLN (ca 76 USD) |
| positive: | Very sharp at F2.8 Size Fast Bokeh Very cheap! |
| negative: | No lens hood |
| comment: | I love this lens! Great bokeh, sharpness at f2.8 perfect. I'm using this lens for basketball and small concerts. |
| MarcoZ#25517 date: Mar-4-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Non ho altri 50mm Minolta |
| price paid: | €15 |
| positive: | Nitidezza, contrasto, superlativi da f2,8 in poi. Colori ottimi, sfuocato piacevole. |
| negative: | Niente da segnalare |
| comment: | Obiettivo ottimo in ogni situazione, dal reportage alla macro. Leggero,luminoso,robusto,maneggevole. Fondamentale in ogni corredo. |
| Caiman#24473 date: Jan-23-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-55mm SAM II, Minolta 100mm F2.8 macro, Minolta 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 50 USD (mint) |
| positive: | lovely bokeh, small and light and build like a tank |
| negative: | soft at full-open |
| comment: | For the price I paid I can't get better lens |
| overeema#23460 date: Dec-29-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 100 F2 Tamron Di II 60 F2 macro Vario-Sonnar 16-80 F3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | € 82 (used) |
| positive: | Beautiful Bokeh, compact, sturdy, nice minolta colors, fast screw drive autofocus |
| negative: | no ADI, a bit soft at full aperture, no lens hood |
| comment: | A small jewel considering its price on used lens market. Compared to Tamron 60 it focuses faster and more reliable, in particular when taking moving objects, but it lacks the ADI-function, making the proper use of flash more difficult. As a macro lens, the Tamron also has a much better MFD. Compared to the Minolta 100 F2 it is almost a match in sharpness. Compared to the Vario-Sonnar 16-80 F3.5-4.5 it has 2 full stops more aperture. This lens is very small, so can be added with little impact on overall size and weight of the bag. |
| j_alberto#21419 date: Nov-12-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | DT 35mm f1.8, Nikon DX 35mm, MD 50mm f1.7 |
| price paid: | £65 |
| positive: | Small, build quality, look of images, colours, sharpness, ease of use |
| negative: | 49mm filter thread, 55mm would be better, thin focus ring |
| comment: | This is the lens that most often finds its way on to my a900. Possibly bias review as it is the lens I have owned the longest, but when this lens is on my camera it feels like natural. The Minolta 50mm is a tiny well built lens that most Sony people have in some form. Except for the centre it may not be tack sharp wide open (though that adds to centrally composed portraits), but stop it down between f2.8-5.6 and it delivers with saturated colours, low distortion, and nice contrast. Having shot the lens in high contrast lighting, like sun on the sea, reflections and through leaves, I have found little CA to be worried about. Its colours are classic, neutral and well matched to other early Minolta AF lenses. Bokeh is smooth, pleasing and makes the 50mm a good option for indoor portraits. Focus is usually spot on, but the focus ring is still a bit fiddly for manual focus. If the ring was wider I would MF more often. Despite initial impressions the lens is very well built. I dropped mine attached to an a100 on to concrete and neither suffered any damage except for a small dent to the focus ring and a shattered UV filter. The lens is as sharp as ever and focuses smoothly. Don't use a UV filter on this, you'll get green blobs everywhere when around point light sources. The front element is recessed enough for 'protection'. My lens is 30 years old with not a scratch to the front element. The Sony DT 35mm is a good alternative on APSC, but with more purple fringing and modern coatings, the Nikon 35mm DX looks good but I couldn't get used to the focus ring that isn't really coupled to the body and the colours aren't as nice. The lens is very similar to the MD f1.7, just with one more aperture blade and the MD version has a nicer focus ring, being MF and all. This makes a nice walk around lens on full frame, though some may want wider, and is fun for learning on APSC. |
| CKL#20391 date: Oct-18-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta 20/f2.8 - Minolta 24/f2.8 - Minolta 28/2.8 - Minolta 35/f.20 |
| price paid: | 50 Euro (in 2003) |
| positive: | - Very sharp - Only 50 Euro... |
| negative: | - None |
| comment: | There seems to be lot of variation with the 50/1.7. I had to tune the autofocus of my A300 with the back focus charts, but when that has been done this lens rocks. Center sharp at f2.0, corner sharp a f2.2 Edit: Did a test on the A7 full frame. The edge of the frame is little bit softer. At f4 it's razor sharp across the whole frame. No micro adjust was needed. |
| Collingsandheal#19377 date: Oct-15-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF20. Sigma super wide 2. Minolta AF28f2. Minolta AF35f2. Zeiss FE2,8/35. Minolta AF50. Sigma 50mm f1:4. Zeiss FE1,8/55. Sony 2.8/85 SAM. Minolta AF135. |
| price paid: | £65.00 |
| positive: | Everything. Back to back this lens is sharper (just) than Zeiss FE 1,8/55 on the a7r. That says it all. |
| negative: | You may need to buy and sell a couple of these to get a great one. |
| comment: | My version outperforms my Zeiss 55mm. Only just but it does. Ok I need to use it with the LA-EA4 adapter on the a7r but the combination is way cheaper than the Zeiss. The colours are marginal better also. In my opinion the best bang for buck lens there is.... |
| LAZER#14246 date: May-11-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 35-70mm F4 Helios 44-2 58mm F2.0 (USSR manual lens) |
| price paid: | 50 USD (used) |
| positive: | * Sharpness at f2.8> * Cheap * Great colors * Good build quality * Solid appearance * Fast focus |
| negative: | *Small focus ring *Soft at 1.7 |
| comment: | Solid and cheap 50mm lens for Sony Alpha. IMHO it's best buy fix for APS-C. Superior build quality and very good image result. |
| Photopia#12052 date: Dec-9-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 18-250 DC HSM Minolta 70-210 f4 Beercan Minolta 28-85 Sony SAM 18-55 kit Sony SEL 70-210 f4 G OSS Sony SEL 35 f1.8 OSS |
| price paid: | $50 used |
| positive: | Pretty sharp from f4-f8. Decent bokah. Alluminum body. Metal mount. |
| negative: | Noticable CA wide open with backlight subjects near high contrast Areas. |
| comment: | Pretty good lens to carry or for portraits. |
| Mr Ed#11950 date: Aug-15-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Beercan, tokina 28-70, tokina 80-200, Minolta prime 24, 75-300 mm Minolta cheapo zoom, oddball Russian Mir 1b 37mm, classic takumar 50mm f1.4, Minolta 28-105, Minolta 500 mirror, Tamron 90mm macro, crappy kit lens. |
| price paid: | don't remember |
| positive: | FF prime, cheap |
| negative: | Prime, but not 1.4. Get a 1.4 and be done with it! Note: A bit long on APS frame cameras. |
| comment: | So many reviews so no point in more useless details. Just a note that I have a manual Takumar m42 50mm f1.4 that I prefer over this autofocus. If you need AF, OK, but the manual Takumar has something special about it that shines in low light. Its more 'arty' than the Minolta, the bokeh to die for. Consider it. Otherwise the Minolta is a good prime, maybe a little soft wide open, don't use it much. I have never tried the Minolta 1.4, maybe its the way to go if you have no other 50mm. |
| del23#11937 date: Aug-4-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50f1.4 |
| price paid: | 65 GBP |
| positive: | f2.8 razor sharp, fully open not so good. Classic minolta beautiful colors Fast AF on A700 and even faster on A850 Build like a tank |
| negative: | Flare Hood almost not useful MF ring is tight |
| comment: | If you dont have prime in arsenal, minolta 50mmf1.7 is lens for you! Cheap, fast AF, very good @ f2.2, beautiful colors..... Ok, hood is not very smart made and they have flare and CA problem but hey, you can buy this for aprox. 60 GBP or even cheaper..... |
rating summary
- total reviews: 421
- sharpness: 4.62
- color: 4.78
- build: 4.57
- distortion: 4.74
- flare control: 4.17
- overall: 4.58
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login