Sony 50/1.4 Review on DPreview.

[Yagil Henkin]

Couple of suprising conclusions:
1. On APS, it's leading the 50mm bunch in term of sharpness - even better than the Sigma 50.
2. On full-frame it's the other way around - the corner sharpness makes the Sigma much better performer.
3. Most surprisingly - the Sony 50/1.4 had higher resolution and CA when compared to the Minolta 50/1.4. They suggest that ADI and new coating may make a difference - but they tested only one copy each, so it may be just a sample variation.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sony_50_1p4_m15/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[InTheSky]

I have took a lot of shot since i have the A900 with the 50mm F/1.4 and i can say that the lens is performing very good even at F/1.4. Yes it is not as sharp as when you stop down to F/2.8 and more ... but in good focus, you are not seeing to much lost of sharpness in the middle.

But this is true, there is a lot of 50mm 1.4 with focusing problem. Actually i had 3 lens on my hand last week, and only one was really good at focusing without calibration on the A900. Even the best one, i have just tweaked a little -2 correction to it (under tungsten , this is where I'm using it a lot).

50mm are 50mm when you but it on the camera , you feel that this is made to be the prime of all usage on your full frame camera. When i have put it on my A900 the first day, i was thinking: Do i have put my 28mm on it ? (remembering the feeling 28mm give on A700). 50mm on A700 feel more like the 85mm 1.4, but on Full frame this is another lens. (i know who are shooting 35mm film in the past will think what he is talking about ... , but I'm reffering to people like me who has started to shoot SLR first on the Minolta 7D or 5D ).

For the size, the weight, and the good design of the hood (to be store in reverse), i cannot see any of other brand equal to what Sony/Minolta can offer.

Regards,

Frank

[[SiC]]

Seems great, but I think I'll stick to my cheapo 1.7 until that damn lottery starts working

[Dr. Harout]

Frank, if I ever change to FF it will be solely to keep my mind in a relaxing state, and not to calculate which focal length is which. I still didn't get used to the APS calculating system. And each time I mount a lens on A700 I calculate the respective focal length on 35 mm (or FF).

[bakubo]

Frank, if I ever change to FF it will be solely to keep my mind in a relaxing state, and not to calculate which focal length is which. I still didn't get used to the APS calculating system. And each time I mount a lens on A700 I calculate the respective focal length on 35 mm (or FF).

Hey Doc, it keeps the mind agile! Think of it as mental exercise.

[Dr. Harout]

Frank, if I ever change to FF it will be solely to keep my mind in a relaxing state, and not to calculate which focal length is which. I still didn't get used to the APS calculating system. And each time I mount a lens on A700 I calculate the respective focal length on 35 mm (or FF).

Hey Doc, it keeps the mind agile! Think of it as mental exercise.

And that's one of the reasons I'm not upgrading

[sparaxis]

I think it is safe to say that the Sony lens is reformulated compared to the Minolta lens. The A100 was introduced a few days after the European ban on lead in consumer products went into effect. Thus they would not have been able to get a waiver to continue selling a lens with leaded glass. This probably explains why a number of beloved lenses disappeared. Any lens designed after the late 1990's is probably lead free from the get-go, as the industry had plenty of warning that this was coming. Which probably is why an odd-ball lens like the STF surviced and other "obvious" choices did not.

There are "direct replacements" for many common lead glass types. And no replacements for some of the exotic glasses. The direct replacements usually match the leaded version with respect to the Index of refraction, but the dispersion usually differs slightly. So the trick would be to replace the lead-bearing elements with lead free glass, and then perhaps tweak the formula to restore the performance. The 35 f1.4 was a lens that was obviously reformulated as well. The Hybrid aspheric element was replaced by a glass molded one.

Two interesting facts about the lead-substitute glasses. They are usually lighter, and also harder than the glasses they replace. Schott glass has a lot of info on their web site.

Alan