Differnce between AF 50mm f1.7 & f1.4 for 7D and lens recommendations?

[Jochen_S]

O.K. usually it's one of the dumbest beginner questions... Should I

get a 50mm f1,4 or is the f1.7 good enough? The 7D will be my 2nd

DSLR system. I want to use it for available light shooting and have a

good macro 50mm for the other DSLR. What I'll need will be sharpness

especially from wide open to f5.6, which is mentionable with the 6MP

sensor. I doubt I'll buy any film body to shoot very high resolution

film.

 

Are there any reviews of the minolta lenses online somewhere?

 

What would be other lenses to get? Sigma 24mm f1.8? what would be a

fast and good long lens?

 

Any superb zooms around? (very wide and fast medium preferred, maybe

a useable telephoto too.)

 

I'm not really rich yet, but I suppose I want this camera because of

the antishake.

[meddler]

<p>I have the 1.7 and it is very nice indeed, though Im very tempted to trade it in for the 1.4 because it is sharper.

</p>

<p>

I managed to pick up my 1.7 from Ebay for about ?20, though they do tend to go for a litte more. The 1.4 is more rare on Ebay and tends to go for between GBP80 to GBP100.

<p></p>

If you are on a budget, then for the wide end the Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX is a very reasonably priced lens new. I picked one up from warehouseexpress for GBP149

<p></p>

Another good second hand buy is the Minolta 70-210 f4, its chunky, but nice and sharp. That sells for about GBP75 in the second hand shops and you can sometimes get a bargain on Ebay.

<p></p>

I also have a Minolta 24-105 f3.5/4.5 D that I bought with the camera. It performs well when there's lots of light and its a good walkabout lens, but its not my favourite by any means.

<p></p>

I also have sigma a 70-300 DL Macro, its not anywhere near as sharp or fast as the 70-210 and Im thinking of selling it and getting the 170-500 for the longer range stuff.</p>

[Jochen_S]

Am I getting Paulo right? It's worth buying the 50mm f1.4 for a visible gain in sharpness? Where can I view samples?

 

About feeling "being on a budget"; My bottle bottom collection is surely already big enough, so I'm after good glass.

 

By the way: does anybody believe a 400mm f6.4 Mamiya Sekor is worth buying a screw mount adapter?

[lens_four]

I dumped my Canon AF system (D30s) for the KonMin 7D in Jan-05. I've used the Canon AF 50/1.4 & 1.8. And the Nikon manual 50/1.8. And now own the Min 50/1.4

 

I knew before I did it that the f1.7/f1.8 versions always rate better than the f1.4s. But I did it anyway. It was a daft thing to do. Nothing wrong with it, I don't use it much. May even sell it. E-mail me if you are interested, link on my website. Its brand new, unused since Jan-05.

 

But I'd still say get either the 50/1.7 or a Sig wide f1.8. This was my thought. Do I get the 50/1.4 or 1.7 or get a Sig 20/24/28 f1.8 EX. I've wante one of the Sig f1.8s for ages. Wish I had done.

 

Given your AS on the KM7D and the AS. I'm getting 1/4 & 1/8 with the 24-105! ... see here for some slow shots: http://www.lensfour.com/4day/4day.htm

 

Is there really a need for a fast fast lens, apart from the super limited depth of field. I wish I'd got one of the Sigmas instead. The 28/1.8 is the cheapest. And 28mm is our standard lens:

http://www.lensfour.com/word/1p53x.htm

 

But for me the 24/1.8 is the better bet, its closer focusing.

 

Consider also a used Min 28/2 as another option

 

Q - what other lenses do you have?

Q - what sort of thing do you shoot?

 

I used to use my Canon 50/1.4 as a night lens. Now I'd happily use my 17-35/2.8-4 for that purpose now I have the AS.

 

Think hard. Consider the 50mm as a short portrait lens. And perhaps look hard at the 50/1.7.

[lens_four]

Superzoom. The Tok 24-200 gets rave reviews at www.FredMiranda.com

 

Personally I would get a film lens rather than an APS-C/digital sized lens.

[elijah_free]

I have the newer version of the minolta 50 1.4. What I truly love about this lens is the ubelievable bokeh. it is truly outstanding and beautiful. some of the lovliest I have ever seen. It is a circular aperature and is an outstanding lens. For that alone, it is worth the price IMHO.

[Jochen_S]

I have neither the 7D yet nor anything fitting Minolta, if one doesn't count Mamiya screwmount 50mm f2.0 and 400mm f6.4 + 1000mm Russian mirror lens and well Tamron adapt alls like 90mm, 75-150 and 70-210. But as far as I know none of these would allow metering wide open or auto aperture, so I don't take them serious.

 

I've been a Pentax shooter and want to keep this as my main system, backup or whatever to call it, but I feel limited without AS. My Pentax line up *istD, 14mm Sigma, 20mm Soligor bottle bottom, 24mm Exakta, 28mmm f2.8 50mm f1.7 90mm Tamron adapt all, in manual focus with metering wide open. 28mm f2.0 Kiron, 35mm f2.0 manual focus and stopped down metering. 50mm f2.8 macro, 100mm f2.8 macro, 135mm f2.8 in AF mount. AF zooms: 35-80, slow but useable, 28-70 Sigma slow, less pleasant, 70-300 Sigma bottle bottom. + the usual array of manual film bodys, manual zooms like 28-80 both Pentax consumer and Sigma, 35-70 f2.8 Tokinas, Tamron 75-150 & 70-210 f3.5s, some other 50 and 135mm. I've been shopping for backup when it was possible and appeared cheap.

 

At the moment I prefer shooting primes when possible, but I really like AF. I want to picture friends and co-workers indoors and maybe some concerts again. Covering dark pubs and similar locations without flash is also very tempting for me at the moment. I love portrait lenses as a focal length. That's why I want to start Minolta with a 50mm. The next step should be a fast 24mm to be used when needed; I'd use the Pentax with Exakta in bright light. 3rd thought would be something longer like 85 or 90mm, of course fast! - maybe I'll skip this to get a 180mm macro first - I have non yet and the AS is a good argument to mount it on a 7D...

 

Using zooms is sometimes tempting, but I hope to get around it till improved ones become available, most of the ones I have are rather dissapointing.

[dw fletcher]

When they're both wide open, the 1.7 is sharper than the 1.4. I can't tell the difference when both are stopped down, though.

 

I wish I had a new 1.4 because I believe it has circular blades, but they're pretty damn expensive for a 50mm lens. I got the "old" version used for $50 and gave the 1.7 away shortly thereafter.

[bill_tuthill]

Samples of the 50/1.7 seem to vary a lot, because mine was terrible.

I traded it for a 50/1.4, which is wonderful. Elijah is right about

bokeh. I'd like to say Dustin is right, but the hi-res MTF charts

say he's wrong. Here are the lo-res MTF charts, showing below 100lpm

the 50/1.7 is slightly sharper at f/1.7 than the 50/1.4 is at f/1.4,

but it's quite a bit less sharp at all apertures, especially f/5.6

and f/8 where you might want to use a lens for greater DOF.

[bill_tuthill]

Sorry, I got confused while pasting GIFs together. Please swap

"lo" and "hi", 130 and 100.

[Jochen_S]

Thanks a lot for the charts, Bill.

[mbroom]

I wonder can I pass blind test on 1.4 and 1.7.

 

I'd recommend f1.7, cause it is about 1/5 price of f1.4.

you may grab 50mm f1.7 around 30USD at eBay.

[meddler]

IIRC Someone posted a site on dpreview where he compared the 1.7 and the 1.4. The 1.4 looked visibly sharper at 1.7 than the 1.7 did wide open.

 

I can't find the web site or the thread at the moment. I have to say though that I love my 1.7.

[tapani_rauha2]

The 1.4 Bokeh IS beautiful. You will love the out of focus textures when shooting wide open at 1.4.

[weatherman]

I have had both, 1.4 obviously better. Between f1.7 - 2.8 bokeh is obviously better with 1.4. Photos look sharper with 1.4. I might be fooled though, my 1.4 is brand new and 1.7 was used and a bit dusty.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The charts at not MTF curves. The look like resolution versus F stop; taking standard Line pairs/mm; and multiplying by them by two; ie cooking the books; marketing BS. <BR><BR>The 50mm F1.7 Minolta Maxxum AF lens I have tested is just fair wide open; about 25 lines per mm on axis at F1.7; with about 45 line pairs per mm at F4 then up to a peak of 60 line pairs per mm at F8 and F11 on axis. Proper optical engineering uses line pairs per mm. A doubled number to cook the books is abit a fraud. This type of "multiplying by two" to make bigger numbers was never done in the past; and is a recent thing.<BR><BR>The graphs look actually correct; if the vertical axis numbers are divided by two; so they are jive with the rest of the worlds usage. Graphs like these are wrong; like a shoe store say they sold 100 shoes; really meaning 50 pairs<br><BR>The F1.7 must vary in "build" quality. The one I have is abit poor wide open; even when manually focused. When stopped down; it makes a decent shot. I have seen others work with a F1.7 wide open; and it appears radically sharper. the one here must have some element tilt problems; or just issues. <BR><BR>MTF is a different graph; showing response (contrast of the image) versus spatial frequenct (cycles per mm). in moer laymans terms; contrast versus resolution. Other MTF charts show contast versus off axis image position; with curves for several spaical frequencies in lines pairs /mm. MTF can be measured or calculated. Also beware how the curves are labeled.<BR><BR>