Photoclubalpha

Hi everyone

Thinking of buying 50mm for my A700 and have seen both up for sale 2nd Hand.

Cant make my mind up which one to go for, the metal body of the minolta or the plastic of the Sony (price difference £20).

After looking at dyxum there does not seem much diferrence between them image quality wise

Any opinions would be appreciated

regards

paul

Depends what is more important to you...

The Sony 50/1.8 is a bit better optically. Sharper wide-open, less flare, ghosting, and CA. The Minolta 50/1.7 has a bit better build quality and is full-frame compatible.

I have both and prefer the Sony 50/1.8 on the A700 (the 50/1.7 is for my A900). Like the 30 macro, i don't find the build quality bad at all. Nice and light, compact, and smooth. If the lens somehow breaks, i'll buy a new one. Until then, I'd rather have the better image quality IMHO.

The Minolta every time for me. I disagree with the above the build quality is poor on the Sony lens..cheap and nasty. There is no way it's going to last as long as the older lens.

I've rarely had any CA problems or ghosting with the 1.7, and have shot it wide open with very usable results indeed..not playing about now..paid for serious work..and I'm fussy. The 1.8 has more vignetting it's APS-C only and the AF isn't as fast as the screw drive lens..it also costs more than it should..it's IMO a £60 lens at max..

Go with the Minolta 50mm, even at the same price. The focal length isn't particularly favored for APS-C sensors, but at least with the Minolta you can use it on a full-frame body. Always go for the larger image circle in prime lenses.

KevinBarrett wrote:...Always go for the larger image circle in prime lenses.

Allow me to disagree, Kevin. How about the Macro 30/2.8 SAM?

Dr. Harout wrote:

KevinBarrett wrote:...Always go for the larger image circle in prime lenses.

Allow me to disagree, Kevin. How about the Macro 30/2.8 SAM?

Got any other options for a 30mm macro?

No, and I don't think there would be any on FF. That's a strictly APS-C lens.
And except for the 50mm do you have any other examples for prime lenses as APS-C and FF options?

Nope, just principles.

KevinBarrett wrote:Nope, just principles.

Nice one

Who needs a 30mm macro? Hardly ideal for some subjects. We could have had a nice FF 35mm f1.8 instead..that would be much more useful to some folks. The only thing going for the 30mm is it's cheap ish..but then it should be if it's got the build of the 50mm f1.8
Whilst we're at it a good 85mm f1.8 would go down well too.

And I'm not talking about plastic mounts, APS-C only (pointless for primes) and noisy SAM motors

bfitzgerald wrote:Who needs a 30mm macro? Hardly ideal for some subjects. We could have had a nice FF 35mm f1.8 instead..that would be much more useful to some folks. The only thing going for the 30mm is it's cheap ish..but then it should be if it's got the build of the 50mm f1.8
Whilst we're at it a good 85mm f1.8 would go down well too.

And I'm not talking about plastic mounts, APS-C only (pointless for primes) and noisy SAM motors

I need that for my job. More practical than my 50/2.8, which I like most.
I have no intention yet to go FF, so 30/2.8 is a right choice. I do suffer with lens lust, but this one is not in the list.

I go for the Sony 50mm f1.4. The purpose of this lens for me is low light (I have the 50mm f2.8 macro as well). For low light use every bit of opening you can get is an advantage.

And the 50mm f1.4 is certainly better than a SAM lens for durability and build. Has the newer coatings that Sony uses too.

Walt