Sony 50mm f/1.4 lens

chocky

chocky

Messages
380
Name
Si
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey all, just wondering if anyones got any experiences of the above lens? Im trying to widen my skill set and hopefully get some wedding gigs as an assistant (maybe......eventually) so would this suffice? Is it worth the extra cash over the cheaper 1.8? Im on a crop sensor (Sony A450) and would love it to be good on both cropped and full-frame (plans to get a full frame sony within a couple years). Or if youve got any tips on a similar priced lens then please chuck them my way :D Failing that im also considering the Sigma 50mm f/1.4.

Thanks all :)

Si
 
Last edited:
I've owned the Minolta 50/1.7 and the Sony 50/1.4 (both full frame). The Sony, which is in itself a copy of the Minolta 50/1.4, won out on sharpness at equal apartures, but only marginally, the 1.7 is a very strong performer and should be buyable for £80 or less s/h.

I think the Sigma 50/1.4 has a very good reputation, but also has a corresponding price tag compared to the others. Don't know about the new Sony 50/1.8 I'm afraid.
 
I'd love to try the Sony 1.4, I've got the sony 50/1.8 and I absolutely love it. My fave lens at the moment and is so so sharp. I'm on a cropped sensor too at the mo but likewise am looking at ff.
Keep us updated if you do get either of the 1.4s, would be interested to know how you get on.
 
Have just bought a 50mm 1.7 Minolta and im dying to get out playing with it. For myself, as an amauter i think i would have no need for a 1.4, but have noticed the prices of them slowly creeping up.
 
I find myself getting more tempted by the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 instead, the Sony doesnt look as well built, but after buying the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 there is absolutely no way im buying a cheap lens again, that thing is so quality and consistent that i could go back now so im well willing to cough up the dosh needed for another lens of similar quality.

If you could let me know how you get on with the minolta 1.7 that'd be great :)

Thanks for the replies all, and on a side note i was going to buy a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro as well but ive put that on the back burner now, instead im going to buy some studio gear, flashgun, umbrellas, reflectors, triggers and off camera flash stuff. Initially starting with a Jessops 360AFD cheapo flashgun just to learn and a reflector or two. With a goal to eventually trying to earn some money out of this stupidly expensive hobby! The only thing i feel limited by is the fact that im probably limiting myself with a cropped sensor so i may have to get a Sony A900 or the replacement for that if ones due. Be a year or so before i can afford that though.

Si
 
Changed my mind, im buying the Sony 1.4 on friday :) Out of curiosity it says its an 'A standard lens' what exactly does the standard mean? Is it a portrait lens or not?
 
chocky said:
Changed my mind, im buying the Sony 1.4 on friday :) Out of curiosity it says its an 'A standard lens' what exactly does the standard mean? Is it a portrait lens or not?
Click to expand...

Standard focal length, its neither telephoto or wide angle?
 
Went for the Sony 50mm 1.8 in the end, had to save some cash because i got tempted by the Sigma 70mm 2.8 macro so i got two new lenses instead of one :) HAPPY!!
 
chocky said:
Changed my mind, im buying the Sony 1.4 on friday :) Out of curiosity it says its an 'A standard lens' what exactly does the standard mean? Is it a portrait lens or not?
Click to expand...

The term 'Standard Lens' is a legacy of film and pre-zoom days. The lenses with a focal length of 45 to 55 mm on a full 35mm frame give an approximation of the human eyes 'perceptual' angle of view. So in days gone by all SLRs were offered packaged with a 50 'ish mm focal length lens. Nowadays the package includes a zoom that when coupled with an APS-C sensor gives a slightly wide to slightly telephoto angle of view.

I have a Minolta f1.4 50mm which is a very nice lens. Flares a bit on highlights when wide open in night shots. When coupled with the APS-c sensor it becomes a 75mm f1.4 which is a great portrait combination.

One wants a wide aperture for one of 2 reasons, A) to work in low light and B) a shallow depth of field. Now when I was a lad 100ASA was standard and 400ASA was exotic so a fast lens or a tripod was the only way to do low light photography. Now sensitivities of 3200ASA+ are commonplace and anti-shake fitted to lenses or bodies the need for hyper fast lenses has gone, but the need for shallow depth of field and flattering 'softer' focus is still there. Hence the 50mm (75mm) f1.4/1.8 lenses that are around. These are really the APS-c equivalents of the full frame 80mm f1.4 portrait lenses of the 35mm film era.
 
Is a 1.4 going to give you any real advantage over a 1.7? I only ask this, because a guy in the US has some articles on how to convert the old Minolta MD series lenses to work on Sony DSLRs. I know that you can buy adaptors, but his method involves using an M42/MAF adaptor and then doing a bit of DIY with the mount. You end up with a modified lens, which does not rely on extra bits of glass to enable infinity focusing.
 
andy700 said:
Is a 1.4 going to give you any real advantage over a 1.7? I only ask this, because a guy in the US has some articles on how to convert the old Minolta MD series lenses to work on Sony DSLRs. I know that you can buy adaptors, but his method involves using an M42/MAF adaptor and then doing a bit of DIY with the mount. You end up with a modified lens, which does not rely on extra bits of glass to enable infinity focusing.
Click to expand...

Half a stop, so not a great deal in practice.
 
I've had the Sony 1.4 for three years and it has had a lot of use. It's certainly built well, a solid little lump. Also, it's not just the extra half stop that makes the difference. Often they are sharper when stopped down. At f2, the 1.4 as quite impressive but, having never used the Minolta 1.7 or Sony 1.8, I couldn't really compare although I suspect the Minolta would come closer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top