50mm f1.4 or 1.7?

[denis_connolly]

It's coming up to Christmas and I'm thinking of asking Santa (wife)

for something special, a 50mm prime lens would be my preference and

I'm just wondering if you guys reckon the 1.4 is worth the extra cash

over the 1.7?

 

Although I have a Sigma 28-70 zoom which I was happy with, having

witnessed the sharpness of my Minolta 24mm f2.8 I think I have 'seen

the light' regarding the quality of Minolta primes.

[maury_cohen]

1.7 likely sharper. 1.4 faster and more "impressive". Stopped down to 3.5 or 4 the 1.4 may not be far behind the 1.7 in sharpness.

[jpursley]

If you really need that speed for something like nightclub shots, the extra cash could be worth the half-stop of speed. But if you're more into landscapes and/or larger DOF, you could snag a decent tripod and head with that cash. Or maybe a set of ND grad filters, a mid-range flash, extension tubes, lots of practice film, or whatever...

<br><br>

Also, keep in mind your DOF at 1.4 is <i>really</i> small.

<br><br>

Unless you really need that half-stop, the extra cash would likely be better applied elsewhere.

[nate_macdonald]

The 1.4 is sharper, faster, has a circular aperature and has a 55mm filter thread.

 

That said, I think the 1.7 is a better value, but the 1.4 is a better lens.

[ivan_dzo]

My 1.7 was dirt cheap and is an incredibly sharp lens, beaten in the Minolta line up only by my 50mm macro 2.8. The 1.4 I've got is a sad thing, and doesn't get in the same ball park as the 1.7 until stopped down to f8. I suspect I've got a worse example than many but the 1.7 is brilliant value and a brilliant lens.

[bill_polley]

I really shouldn't comment because I don't have both lenses, but...I absolutely LOVE my 1.7!

[weatherman]

If you are interested in bokeh(f1.4-f2.8), than 1.4 is your best bet. It simply is a better lens(I had both). I can not notice the difference in sharpness. So answer depends on how much money you are(she is) willing to spend.

[chris_at_vividoptic.com]

<p>Here are some review links</p>

<p>5x reviews of the f1.4:  <a href="http://www.maxxumeyes.com/Standard/50mmFastLink.htm" target="_blank">http://www.maxxumeyes.com/Standard/50mmFastLink.htm</a> </p>

<p>4x reviews of the f1.7: <a href="http://www.maxxumeyes.com/Standard/50mmLink.htm" target="_blank">http://www.maxxumeyes.com/Standard/50mmLink.htm</a> </p>

<p>If you click the tag on those pages you get to see the spec., then most

of the little tags on each page link to an explanation.  </p>

<p>The f1.4 is the "wish list lens", whereas a f1.7 is certainly a

very special lens: price/performance, but you said you wanted something special

from Santa</p>

<p>If you are talking new there is a BIG price difference there.  Being a

lover of circular aperture and having a big preference for manual focusing and

for a treat, I would say 50/1.4. </p>

<p>That said, I had the 50/1.4 NewRS at the beginning of the year and sold it

because I just didn't use it, my wides and teles got lots of use the 50/75mm

f1.4 didn't.  I probably only took 200 shots with it over 3-4 months, so I

sold it.   Now I'm moving into lens test geekyness for MaxxumEyes

website I certainly respect the perfromance of the lens.  And you can use

f1.4 and get really creative.  </p>

<p>For the sheer love of bokeh and using the 50/1.4 at f2/f2.8/f4 and still

getting the circular aperture.  I'd say:  it sure is "something

special"</p>

[dennis_buss]

The 50mm f1.4 is an excellent lens. However, wide open at f1.4 it is VERY disappointing. I intend to try my f1.7 wide open to see if it, too, has a simlar soft image. Nevertheless, both lenses stopped down deliver beautiful crisp images.

Dennis

[bill_thorlin]

Like the other Bill said perhaps I should not comment as I do not own a 1.4 however I did have the use of one for a short while. I have to say the difference seemed minimal to me and not really worth the difference in price ( either new or used ).

 

The 1.7 is a great lens and from all that has been said the 1.4 is also so whichever you get you will not be disappointed and it is up to you to decide if the price difference is worth it or perhaps spent on another little Minolta gem.

[weatherman]

I have to say that there is noticeable difference in rendetion of out of focus areas. If one buys a fast lens like this one, for this purpose(which I did), then f1.4 is way better. Light fall off at f1.7 is also less noticeable with f1.4 lens. I have tested these. I wish I had the samples to show now. Believe me f1.4 is different bokehwise, it is simply the better one. I'd never go back to f1.7 version.

[minoltaguy]

I really like the 1.7 as far as sharpness. I gave my 1.4 to my wife. She likes it, In all honesty The only real benifit I see is a brighter viewfinder. Sometimes I wish I had the 1.2 lens.

[zhua]

I used the 1.4 with a 7D, results were not satisfactory: serious backfocus. Posted the problem on a Minolta forum and they told me the problem is known, Minolta services would be able to adjust camera and lens. Planning to try that soon...

[machts gut]

I had boith lenses and my vote is for the 1.4. It has a very beautiful bokeh at apertures from 1.4 to 2.8 (even the old version without circular aperture) and in my opinion it's the best 50mm lens I ever worked with (my list includes both 1.7 Rokkor and Af, 1.8 and 1.4 Nikkor lenses and Pentax 1.7-M). Stopped down I found it to be sharper than the 1.7.

 

Here's an example at f1.4:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00CE5O&photo_id=3369535&photo_sel_index=0

 

Stefan

[bill_thorlin]

Seems to me that in the end we have reached a virtual dead-heat - "you pays your money and you takes your pick" - either way you will not be disappointed.

[TomHildreth]

Question for responders: How is it you can provide answers when Dennis hasn't identified the camera?

[bill_tuthill]

I was disappointed with my 50/1.7, now sold. Whereas the 50/1.4

(with extension tube) replaced the 24-50/4 as my preferred macro lens

due to higher sharpness close to the DOF planes, and better far-field

bokeh.

[weatherman]

Tom, does the camera matter anyway, when one is talking about bokeh comparision at least? Even when the image is cropped with say 7D body, bokeh is still there (I know, I have dynax 7 and dynax 5D). You see the character of each lens anyway. Yes only difference is light fall off is nicely cropped by 1.5 crop factof of sensor. But again body is irrelevant for comparision of f1.4 versus f1.7 IMO

[denis_connolly]

Tom asked, "Question for responders: How is it you can provide answers when Dennis hasn't identified the camera?"

 

just to clarify I will use the lens on a Dynax7 most of the time, 800si a little less, these are my colour/ mono bodies. My favourite films are Portra 160 in the 7 and FP4 or EIR in the 800si.

 

I was a bit slow and the 1.4 I had seen advertised has been bought by someone else, lots of 1.7's on sale elsewhere but no 1.4, either not many were sold or the users love them and don't want to part with them.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[weatherman]

I use f1.4-f2.8 range a lot. Ok I'll here are some bokeh examples from new f1.4 version. I don't have the f/1.7 ver. anymore but the point is from my experience those nice full cicrles(from 1.4 version) would be donuts with 1.7 lens. Edges of out of focus objects would be pronounced which looks too complicated and is distracting.<div></div>

[weatherman]

Another example<div></div>

[bill_tuthill]

Ersagun's second example shows the advantages of Minolta's (better)

lenses. Note how objects near the DOF planes, both back and front,

are accurately represented though out-of-focus. This accuracy

gradually fades away into softness. The 24-50/4 has this character,

which is why I sold all my other lenses in that range, including the

50/1.7, which I hated. But I liked the 50/1.4 even more for this

accuracy/bokeh effect. In comparison, all Nikon 50mm lenses show

harsh transitions from the DOF planes to out-of-focus, and ugly

softness far from DOF.

[TomHildreth]

It makes a difference because if I spent an hour making a comparison of my MC and MD lenses for Denis I doubt it would impact him very much at all. And it would waste my time now, wouldn't it?

[weatherman]

oh ok, I automatically assumad minolta AF lens from what he said first...

[nolan_ross]

Yes the extra few dollars would be worth it. I doubt if there would be much difference in overall performance but the bigger glass is a nice aid in focusing in dark situation. If you buy one I would suggest the Rokkor-X f1.4 with a 55mm filter. The 58MC f1.4 is a nice choice also but is pretty much not regarded at all giving up a lot to the expensive f1.2.