Minolta 50mm 1.7 or 1.4?

[andrew_rose]

I've seen these two Minolta lenses online one is a 50mm f1.4 and the other is a 50mm

f1.7. They're both AF (Maxxum/Dynax) lenses and I've heard anecdotal reports that

there is a substantial difference in favor of the 1.4, is it enough to merit the almost

$200 price difference? On eBay I have the opportunity to buy a 1.4 for only $70 more,

would that be worth it? Any help would be appreciated. I am a semi-amateur

photographer, just getting into serious shooting with a Maxxum 7 and I want a good

"everyday" lens to accompany the spectacular AF 100mm f2.0 lens that is on loan

from my father. Any help would be appreciated.

[michael_hohner]

$70 for the 50/1.4 sounds like a good deal. Both lenses are excellent performers, and they're virtually indistinguishable when stopped down 1 to 2 stops. If you want higher speed, get the f/1.4. If you want lower price, get the f/1.7.

[max zappa]

I have the 1.7 it ROCKS. Cant speak for the 1.4 however if are interested in a few opinions and trust reviews go here http://www.photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Primes/PLS_3111_770crx.aspx You will see that the f1.4 gets an average score of 4.95 out of 5, with 19 reviews in total. Whilst the f1.7 receives an average score of 4.5 , with 22 reviews in total.

Clearly both lenses are very very good, but if you trust reviews, looks like the f1.4 might just be worth it.

 

Max Zappa

[dkloi]

I've got both, bought the 50mm/1.7 first but couldn't pass the up the opportunity to get the f/1.4 version a few months later. I use the f/1.4 on the Dynax 7 as my main lens (along with the superb 85mm/1.4), and the f/1.7 on my backup 9000 (my beater camera, no worries about taking this combination out for all sorts of "hazardous duty".)

 

I prefer the f/1.4 for most situations as it does have that extra 1/2 stop and I do use it wide open sometimes. More importantly, I find its bokeh to be more pleasing than the f/1.7. Sometimes the f/1.7 can appear a bit harsh in the out-of-focus areas, whereas the f/1.4 is a bit creamier.

 

I'd get the f/1.4 and wouldn't look back, but you couldn't go wrong either way.

[at]

Cant speak directly to your question but I once owned a Minolta

7000 with a few primes, the 50mm f1.7 was one of them. It was a super

performer. I'm sure todays model is just as good. Now back to your question...(sort of) I currently shoot Nikon. I own a Nikon 50mm f1.4 and a Nikon 50mm f1.8. The f1.8 costs 1/3 of the f1.4 and is a better performer. The 50 f1.4 is soft wide open and once I stop it down it serves no better than the f1.8. Today my choice would be the f1.8. Any brand of 50mm (at f1.4) will have such little depth of field that most of your images may appear soft execpt for the very very narrow critical plane of focus. If at all possible shoot a roll of film with each lens at your favorite photo shop and see which one you like better.

[John Seaman]

One point is that there are two versions of the f1.4 lens. The Mark 2 version is supposed to be slightly better than the Mark 1.

 

I think the main advantage of the 1.4 would be seen when using it at apertures around 2 to 2.8, whereas the 1.7 would be nearer to its maximum aperture and potentially softer.

[phillip_p._dimor]

I can only speak of the Minolta 50mm f1.7. I bought it used, to replace the lens which came with my HTsi. (an awful, awful zoom lens)

 

For about two years, this was the only lens I used. The f1.7 is AWESOME. The bokeh is amazing, contrast is great. Sharpness is great. I couldn't find anything wrong with it, other than it being an autofocus lens in a plastic barrel. It's small and light, too.

 

BTW, I've never felt the need to purchase another lens.

*shrug* just my .02 cents.