Sony Primes

[gungajim]

I'm thinking about getting my first prime and would like to pick your brain.

How is it that the Sony AF 50, F1.4 and the AF 28, f2.8 are in the $250 to $300

range while the AF 50, f1.4 appears to be about $1,000? I do a lot of street

photography and street portraiture in emerging (dare I say 3rd world)

countries. I'm using a Sony A100 right now and may get an A350 down the road.

Given the camera I'm using and the type of stuff I shoot, what would be your

recommendation? I'm not adverse to other lens brands that have a Sony/Minolta

mount.

Thx.

[timb196]

Get the 50/f1.7; the 28/f2; and the 100/f2 (if you can find one!)

 

Tim

[dave_redmann]

For street photography, wouldn't you really rather a zoom? Even if you want a relatively large maximum aperture, how about the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX Macro or the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8? Each is about $425, and much more versatile.

 

If you really want primes, I agree with the previous poster on what to get. Also, the two prices on the Sony 50mm appear to be an error; for the $1000, do you mean the 85mm f/1.4? If so, both the Sony Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 and the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 G are top-of-the line lenses in all respects, so you pay a premium. Compare the prices with the similar Canon and Nikon lenses.

[._._z]

The A350 will be noiier and no better than the A300. <p>

 

The primes are old wine in new bottles. Nothing special, unfortunately. <p>

 

For the 50/1.4, for example, photozone.de says, <i> "The Sony 50mm f/1.4 is a typical representative of the standard lenses that were designed back in the 70s to 80s. The max. aperture (f/1.4) should be generally avoided due to weak contrast, poor borders and a significant amount of longitudinal chromatic aberrations (LoCA). The image quality is already vastly improved at f/2 including a technically better (smoother) bokeh. The truly excellent peak performance is reached around f/4. As to be expected neither distortions nor vignetting are real issues but lateral CAs could be lower for a fix-focal length lens.<br>

The build quality is pretty decent and the conventional screw-driven AF is very fast although somewhat dated regarding Sony's SSM (supersonic motor) ambitions. At around 320?/US$ the lens is priced at the upper end compared to the other major brands - maybe some food for thought over at Sony. " </i>

[steve_c.5]

Jim, I picked up a rare Minolta crossed-X 50mm f1.4 on Ebay for around $250 (I lucked out). I use it very rarely, because on the A100 and A700, the mag factor makes it about 75mm, which is fine for people portraits, but a bit too zoomed for most of my wedding work. I get more mileage out of the Sigma 30mm f1.4, which I got for around $400. I can shoot small groups of people with it, and at wide apertures (usually f2.8-4) it defocuses the background nicely and makes a good prime. I shoot cake shots and other details with it too. The 8 blade aperture gives a nicer bokeh than the 7 blades of the Minolta 50mm (although it's not bad).

[douglas_ferling]

.[.Z : I think that photozone review was implying that the 50mm 1.4 is typical of other

50mm lenses, and they all are old designs. There are many Sony primes that hold up to or

beat the competition. The new Zeiss primes are in a class by themselves.

[ricardovaste]

For street photography the 28/2 Minolta is brilliant; compact, fast, sharp wide open, light. You may struggle to find one at first, but just be patient, its worth it. Someone is selling on over on www.dyxum.com at the moment infact. Another to consider would be the 35/2, equally hard to find. Or even the 24/2.8.

 

A 50/1.7 is cheap and a must by prime, but also very useful for such applications, as well as many others.

[ricardovaste]

Oh and the 50/1.4 and 50/1.7 are both excellent lenses. Their designs might be dated, but that doesnt mean much. The Sony version has the digital coating and ADI capability.

 

Many of the Sony lenses are rokkor designs, as they have been carried through by Minolta - for a reason though. They are great performers. The 16/2.8, 20/2.8, 28/2, 50/1.4, were all carried through by Minolta from the Rokkor glass into the AF era. As they were by Sony, but for the 28/2. Their are two wide aperture wide primes that have been shown by Sony at the last two PMA's. Hopefully these will fill in the gaps left by the disclusion of the 28/2/35/2 and the fact that there is nothing rectolinear beyond the 20/2.8, which doesnt get top notch reviews.

[douglas_ferling]

Richard, times are changing for me. I'm thinking about getting rid of a couple of primes! I've been doing more and more portraiture/fashion, and I'm realizing that the speed of zooms is good for that with my limited studio space, so I just, gulp, ordered the CZ 24-70mm. I've been giving it some thought, and I may just go ahead and sell my KM 28-75 2.8, KM 24mm 2.8, beercan, and CZ 85mm 1.4 and buy the darn 70-200 SSM. The 85mm will be very hard to loose, but it is not a great focal length for me in my studio, so I think I'd be ok (i could always get another one later.)

I'd be left with a KM 20 2.8, 50 1.4 for lowlight, Zeiss 135mm m42, CZ 24-70mm, and the 70-200 SSM. I don't think that Sony is gonna do a Zeiss 70-200 anytime soon, so I may as well just get the G. What do you think...other than I'm gonna be broke! lol

[ricardovaste]

hehe A big gulp from anyone putting down that kind of money!

 

Its definately a big step Doug, but certainly a nice one :). A big one some may argue, but it wont be heard to much with SSM ;-)

 

I think keeping the 50/1.4 is important for lowlight. Personally I would keep the 85/1.4 CZ, but thats just because I'm silly :-). With those two pro glass fast zooms in the similar range and with the 50/1.4 there is no real reason to keep it, unless you use that f/lenth really often.

 

Good luck is all i can say, and I wish you well with your new purchase and potential extra one!

 

As you know i was debating a 84/1.4 of some sort, but came across a 300/2.8 that I'd always wanted. Well, i picked upa 85/1.8 SMC takumar the other day and its really suprised me. Its suprisingly sharp wide open, very sharp infact! The flare control and contrast is also great. Only focusing can be a trouble on the dim A100 screen. But im starting up my B&W darkroom again, so a nice bright dynax 7 viewfinder may be quite handy quite soon :-).

 

On a 'gulp' note, I still havent paid for that 300/2.8! *Searching for funds*

 

So how have you come to be involved in portrait/fashion photgraphy? Is it a part-time basis?

[douglas_ferling]

Yeah, I do portrait/fashion part-time, and I assist for a relatively well known photographer on days off. I'm lucky to live in Los Angeles, so I think with the right dedication I can eventually make a living with it.

I really hate to sell the CZ 85mm, but I can't afford to keep it if I get the 70-200. The 85mm is a near perfect lens, but I've gotta figure out the best IQ for the money, and right now I can't afford it. Now that I'm pretty sure what I want my photography focus to be, I think the 24-70 and 70-200 will cover most of it, and I'll have to put off an all primes line-up till later.

m42 primes are a great option. I dropped a bit of money on the Haoda Fu adapter, but it activates the green focus confirmation light in the viewfinder, as well as tells the SSS what focal length the lens is, so I think it was worth it. I'll have to look at that Takumar 85.

 

--d

[gungajim]

There is nothing worse than not knowing something except coming to realize that there is more that you don't know than you thought! Thanks for heightening my awareness, I guess. I have the Sony 18-70 kit lens but I seem to struggle getting good street portraits (1 to 3 subjects)without flash in the evening on the street, during the day in shady markets and indoors. I think I will narrow my focus (to coin a phrase) to the 28, f2 and the 30, 1.4. Is there a fairly simple explanation of the practical difference between an f2 and f1.4?

[ricardovaste]

I'm sure it will serve you more than well Douglas :). Good luck with the 24-70, let us all know how it handels!

 

Yes, the Sigma 30 is not a good lens at all, the 28/2 holds quite a status amongst users.

[alberto_c]

If you don't need that f/2, give a try to the 28/2.8.

[dave_redmann]

<I>Is there a fairly simple explanation of the practical difference between an f2 and f1.4?</I><P>

 

Sure. Compared to an f/2 lens, an f/1.4 lens will only need half as much light at maximum aperture, will only have 71% as much depth of field at maximum aperture, will have a noticeably brighter viewfinder image, and all else being equal (not that it usually is!) focus faster.<P>

 

However, you may find that depth of field at f/1.4 is too shallow for many purposes. Also, IIRC the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is not too good wide open, while the Minolta 28mm f/2 is supposed to be pretty good wide open.<P>

 

If it were me, I would be asking myself whether I really need faster than f/2.8. Remember, at the long end of the zoom, the difference between your kit lens (f/5.6) and the constant f/2.8 zooms I suggested above will be as big as the difference between those zooms and the 30mm f/1.4. Given the need for depth of field, I think I would try cranking up the sensitivity; ISO 800 should be fine on any of these cameras, and some of them are fine at ISO 1600.

[._._z]

".[.Z : I think that photozone review was implying that the 50mm 1.4 is typical of other 50mm lenses, and they all are old designs. "

 

Read the reviews of OTHER lenses first.

[ricardovaste]

FWIW the 28/2RS that i own is VERY sharp, even wide open. Truely exceptional performer on APS-C.

 

If you look at the MTF graph for the 30/1.4 you will see its not really worth investnig in. Its sharpness is not what you expect of a prime lens, you need to get down to f/11 just to get some good sharpness across the frame, while most primes do that stopped down once or twice.

 

I agree with Alberto. The 28/2.8 shudnt be underestimated. Its certainly easier to find than the f/2 version and is still a very good performer.

[eric_tsou1]

There are so many wonderful primes from Minolta, my all time favorite would definitely be the 28mm f2. I will bring up one that seems to have been over looked is the 50mm f2.8 macro. The older version can be found $200 below range, is sharp wide open, and having a macro lens comes in quite handy.

[Mike Gammill]

Back in the 1990's Minolta did upgrade its Maxxum 50 f1.4 somewhat for improved performance wide open. Pop Photo tested one and it did show some improvement. The original version took 49mm filters and the improved version takes 55mm. Most of the used Maxxum 1.4s I see are the older version. Even before Sony took over, the improved version was quite a bit more expensive. Would you see much of a difference in your photos? That would be tough to answer since depth of field at 1.4 is so shallow. Apparently, very few lens makers ever bothered to improve their fast normal lenses. I never bought one for myself since I snagged a brand new Maxxum 50mm 1.7 for 30USD when Wal Mart stopped carrying the brand. FWIW, I really like the Maxxum 50mm 2.8 macro when I don't need the extra speed.

[douglas_ferling]

The newer 50mm 1.4 from the '90s also added the circular aperture for more pleasing bokeh.

[._._z]

As opposed to the spotty results from the Sony/Minolta lens, photozone says of the Canon 50/1.4, <i>"The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM showed an almost flawless performance during the lab- and field-tests both in terms of optical and mechanical quality. If I had to list a few negative points it would be vignetting and low contrast at f/1.4. So if you're looking for a lens in this class the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is a great option." </i><p>

 

and says of the Nikon 50/1.4, <p>

 

<i> the Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4 D is a very good performer. At f/1.4 the contrast is a little on the low side and the borders may be a little soft but from f/2.8 & up the performance is really superb. Distortions are detectable in the lab but not really significant enough to be relevant in the real life. CAs are very low and vignetting is a non-issue except at f/1.4 (on APS-C DSLRs). The build quality of the lens is very decent and the AF performance leaves nothing to be desired. </i>

[gungajim]

The 28/2 Minolta does indeed seem to be a rare bird, especially with a "for sale" sign on it! Thanks for all the comments.

[jamesdak]

Well, the 28/2.8 was never considered that good but the f/2.0 version is supposedly outstanding. I can also vouch for the 35/2.0. My version was incredible. Most will tell you that the 50/1.7 is a better choice unless you really must have the speed of a f/1.4. Some have mentioned the 24/2.8. Of all my primes I considered that my only one that was sometimes soft.

[m.l]

I have to agree with Jim Huddle, here above. Also the 24/2.8 I owned was not as sharp as the other primes that I got. Especially the 35/2.0, 50/1.4 and 100/2.0 are very, very sharp. As I moved to the digital camera's however, these focal lengths became less interesting to me. So I sold the 35 and the 100mm lenses and now have a 28/2.0, which also is very sharp and small. One strange fact however, my specimen shows a fair amount of flare in tricky situations. Apart from that it's a nice lens. I also can recommend the Sigma 70/2.8 and the sigma 15/2.8, both are in use by me.

[tiggerbear1]

I've been using Sony's 50/1.4 for a few weeks now and I can say that it is light-years better than the kit lens. For people-shooting, especially handheld in normal indoor light, you can't beat it. I've only put a few shots into my portfolio here, but they were all shot with that lens, if you're interested.