What's your preference: 50 1.7 or 50 2.8 macro for landscapes?

[kelsey george]

Hi everyone,

When shooting stationary subjects with plenty of light (like

daytime landscape shots) what would be your preference between the

Minolta AF 50mm 1.7 and the AF 50mm 2.8 macro? I am especially

interested to know how you guys think they compare for sharpness.

For my next tramping (hiking) trip down here in New Zealand I was

wondering which one I should take with me (as I don't think there is

a real need to carry the wieght of both). The macro would be nice to

have for flowers and insects but I'd rather have the lens that is

going to give me the sharpest landscape shots with me.

Cheers, Kelsey

[bubba_clinton]

I'm not sure why you're thinking about 50mm for landscape. Either one mentioned by your post is a very good lens, but they are not suited for landscaping work in my mind. They are just not wide enough to capture the grandeur of mountains and oceans. I prefer the 24mm f/2.8 prime lens for landscape.

[Brian]

This is veering off topic, but not every landscape shot has to be wide angle. It very much depends what you're looking at. I would find a 50 just as useful as a 24. Re the two 50s, I can't tell you which is "sharper" but if you have in mind to do close-ups as well, the macro seems like the better choice.

[kelsey george]

I guess I should have kept it simpler. What I should have asked is: "When shooting stationary subjects in adaquate light, or with a tripod, which lens of the two mentioned above produces sharper results from your experience (particularly when using small aperatures to achieve a large depth of feild)?" Or maybe I should have asked "which is sharper? A or B?", but I thought I'd bring some background to the question.

 

I didn't mention that I'll probably have my 24-85mm along on the trip, so I'll have a 24mm option if I choose to shoot that focal length. I know that it's almost a convention to shoot landscapes in wide angle, but I often prefer a less 'curved' perspective to outdoor shots. Also like Brian pointed out, it makes a difference what you're looking at: in his photo "Pilings at East Head" he used a 28mm lens while "Hills above Ullswater" he used a 58mm lens. Both photos are fine examples of landscapes.

 

But back to the origninal question, which do you think produces sharper images? -Kelsey

[bacsa]

All 50mm lenses are very sharp; the macro is made sharp for very short object distances at *large* apertures. With a tripod, stopped down lens (f/8, e.g.), a lens hood and landscape (distant objects), i don't believe there's a difference between the two 50mm's. If you have the cash for the macro, buy it - for those"flowers and insects". If you have a bit more, buy the 50/1.7 too - for the extra speed.

[bacsa]

Oh yes - and be sure to buy a GOOD and SLOW film, otherwise it's not the lens that will limit your sharpness.

[guy_mansford]

If you have a slow transparency film, on a tripod with a cable release (and don't forget mirror lock up), then the macro is considerably sharper across the picture. Not much difference in the centre, but towards the edges its a lot better. I've tested both, and the 2.8 macro is about the sharpest lens I've ever tested (as good as the contax g lenses). Its a beautiful lens, but its a lot heavier, gives a dimmer view for focusing but does do macro (too close for insects though). With hand held photography i'd go for the lighter lens, unless macro is vital, but then I'd take a 100mm macro.

[kelsey george]

Thanks for your input CSAB' and Guy. I think I've got a better idea about what to take now. I don't have a tripod yet, that'll be my next purchase. As for film I was thinking either Reala or Velvia. As I'm using a Maxxum 7000, it doesn't have mirrow lock-up and I don't have a cable release for it. What do you guys think about using the self-timer instead? Would it effectively be the same as using a cable release? Cheers.

[ujwal]

Well, if the question about sharpness get the 50mm 1.7

For the landscapes only why spend extra money on the macro.

 

In terms of sharpness, the 50mm 1.7 is razor sharp. Infact, as far as i can recall, this is known to be one of the sharpest lenses ever tested by some magazine lens testing departments. But cannot claim that about the 50mm macro. (macros are inherently sharp ...no need to read lens tests).

Just get one of these lovely lenses and start shooting...even if you spend much less, the 50mm1.7 is an amazingly sharp lens Corner to Corner from 5.6.