denis_connolly Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maury_cohen Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpursley Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate_macdonald Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan_dzo Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_polley Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 I really shouldn't comment because I don't have both lenses, but...I absolutely LOVE my 1.7! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherman Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_at_vividoptic.com Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 <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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_buss Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherman Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minoltaguy Posted December 11, 2005 Share Posted December 11, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhua Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
machts gut Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_thorlin Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomHildreth Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Question for responders: How is it you can provide answers when Dennis hasn't identified the camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_tuthill Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherman Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denis_connolly Posted December 12, 2005 Author Share Posted December 12, 2005 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherman Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 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> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherman Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 Another example<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_tuthill Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomHildreth Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherman Posted December 13, 2005 Share Posted December 13, 2005 oh ok, I automatically assumad minolta AF lens from what he said first... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolan_ross Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now