the performance of my 50/1.7, along with the V4 upgrade, has me in no hurry to upgrade to this lens before others...

Thanks again for giving a balance and objective review.

Hapster

I think this lens is for those who just want that extra performance and a bit nicer upgrade. So for some it is hard to justify the cost, which I understand-yet it is nice having that extra performance.

Carl

Personally if I was stuck on an island with only one lens, it would be the 50 f1.4

I love this little prime.

The one thing I took from this article was the comparison between the 50/1.4 and the Zeiss 24-70 zoom. I don't look at the prime as having the resolving power of the Zeiss as the Zeiss having comparable resolving power to a prime lens! Amazing.

Since many photographers want the Zeiss glass anyway (and judging from the online availability of the lens, they all do), would it be safe to say that the Zeiss could be a satisfactory stand-in for the 50 prime if you wanted only one lens? Obviously the prime has better low light capability (and at about 1/6th the cost), but would the Zeiss wide open (2.8) be as sharp as the 50 stopped down to f2.8?

Normally zooms dont compare to Primes, but that was then and this is now. I think the Ziess will still out resolve the 50mm 1.4 but not by much. The Ziess is really the new standard in all lenses in my opinion for sharpness, it is completely amazing. But it is nice to know the 50mm 1.4 a comparably older design-can still hang with it in resolution. When looking over all my images from the A900, I was amazed how close both lenses looked in sharpness at the 50mm focal length (@ f5.6).

The 24-70 is an excellent one lens choice (besides macro). But the Ziess doesn't offer the softer apertures of the 50mm 1.4, or the light weight, or price. Decision time :).

Carl

Carl
Thanks for the review but I don't understand why you didn't compare this lens to the Minolta 50mm 1.4. Wouldn't that have been the more obvious comparison? Many of us still have this old warhorse from our Minolta film cameras.
Ken

I don't have a Minolta 50mm 1.4 to compare too, for starters. But my main reason for comparing to the 50mm 1.7 is because many hold out buying the 1.4 because of the used deals with the 1.7 on the net. Therefore I thought it best to compare to this lens so that buyers could get a feel on what they are gaining or losing when purchasing either lens. Since the Minolta 50mm 1.4 isn't much different in build or optical quality, I don't see much to compare too. To my knowledge the only difference between the Sony and Minolta 1.4 is the 8 pin connector (ADI encoding), but I could be wrong.

Carl

Have had this lens for about 2 weeks now. Using on the A350 and really enjoy it. Also nice and light and easy to use. Thanks for the in depth look at this.
TB

Hi Carl, excellent review. I was reading it on my iphone today while I was walking in the park. It was a good entertainment.
I really love that lens and I can only completely agree with what you wrote. Especially the part regarding Sony that should upgrade it with a better coating. Obviously is very sharp, but a bit too contrasty. It still miss that feel of the Zeiss and some Canon L. Maybe It is something on the coating, I do not know, but those lenses got a special feel in their contrast, which is gentle but with some strong body. In any case the way you describe as it should be upgraded, would make it an 800/1000$ lens. But I would pay for it.

Hi Carl

Thank you for your review - it just adds to your great, easy-reading practical reviews on your site! I realyl enjoy the fact that you dwell on the outputs rather than the technical stuff you can find in the specifications page from the manufacturer. Your comparison does give a point of reference, and when comparing the 50 f1.4 to the 50 f1.7, you created a very easy benchmark. Many people have the 50 f1.7, and this brings it home very nicely.

I am not sure that I would be upgrading to an f1.4 at present - I am trying to find myself a decent 100mm macro!

Thanks again....

Good job Carl,
I have both, the minolta 1.7 and the Sony 1.4.
I started with the 1.7, as the kit lens on my Minolta 3000i/7000i, when i bought a Sony and started reading forums i rememberd the minolta 50mm 1.7 and started using it again.
When i bought the A700 i did buy a 50mm 1.4 with it. Now the minolta 50mm 1.7 is in my bag most of the time. (or my dad uses it at his A350) The Sony 50 mm 1.4 is a great lens for (indoor) natural light work. Use it a lot.
Outside however my A700 tends to overexpose a lot and i use M-settings most of the time.

Thanks for a great review ...

Hubert

P.S. and i won't sell my Minolta 50mm 1.7

I agree, won't be selling my 50mm 1.7's either :)

Interesting on the A700, mine typically underexposes by about .3 ev, but I use A mode most of the time.

Maybe ill get back to using M mode more.

Carl

An exceptional and very timely article I must say, as I am contemplating this exact same issue. Is the SONY 50:1.4 worth the up-charge over my existing Minolta 50:1.7? I've packed a 50mm for thirty plus years and only now have I even thought of using it! However, you answered all of my questions without having to rehash it all in a forum. Thanx for your observation/opinion.
I've got a few hot bucks burning a hole in my pocket since I am NOT going to upgrade to the A900, I'll start to shop around at the usual SONY lens hangouts here locally and see if I might snag one of these 1.4's for my own.

Minolta 50:1.7
http://stv.smugmug.com/photos/394067422_cprNV-X2.jpg

Most people will agree the 1.4 is the better lens. Though samples do vary of course.
Half the problem with the 1.7, is just like the beercan, it WAS once really cheap, and it's not such a great bargain any more. Still it's a logical option for those who want to spend less.

I still think the Rokkor 50mm's are the champs overall..have to say. On a pure optical level

Thank you for your website and also for your reviews. I had bought an A300 and Sony 50mm Macro lens based on your review and they became my favorite. I visit your site at least once a day for the reviews and discussions in 4rum, the site is very useful. I saw that you've compared Sony 50 f1.4 vs Min 50 f1.7, can you compare it to Sony 50 f2.8 macro? Yeah, it's may not at the same league (Normal vs Macro) but how about Portrait and Landscape; is 50 f1.4 @f2.8 as sharp as 50 macro @f2.8, is the bokeh as good as 50 macro? How about the low light situation in Landscape? Thank you very much.
Nhan Trinh

Really glad you like the site and it is useful to you, that makes us feel great. We certainly try!

On the lenses, I believe the 50mm 1.4 is sharper at its peak f-stop than the 50mm macro, yet the 50mm Macro is still an extremely sharp lens. The 50mm 1.4 is better I believe for portraiture since it doesn't have such a flat focus plane like the 50mm 2.8 (it is mor curved), and really is designed more for that. I believe the two lenses are near as sharp @ 2.8, the edge however goes slightly to the 50mm 1.4 there if I had to choose. The 50mm 1.4 is also a better choice for landscapes given its higher max resolution at say f5.6-f8.

They are really different lenses though and comparing them is really futile. They are meant and designed to do different work and both perform excellent for what they are designed to do. The 50mm 1.4 won't touch the magnification power of the 50mm 2.8 of course, but the 50mm 2.8 can do low light and do it pretty well. You have an excellent lens, it has never dissapointed me.

Carl

Well, I finally got my copy of this lens. Did I really need it or not? Well, that's up to debate in my mind alone. However, if I need a low light performer I have one now. My Minolta 50 f1.7 was good, but this lens is sharper at f1.7 centrally and definitely at the edges. f1.4 isn't too bad itself......softer, yes, but somewhat even across the frame which surprised me. www.photozone.de did a test on this lens and they say that the edges are only fair in terms of sharpness. I disagree based on my test.

I have only one concern though. It seems that my copy had some focussing issues at f4 and maybe f5.6. It simply was softer than the Minolta 50 f1.7 centrally particularly at f4. I suppose it was misfocussing (regularly) since I was able to manually focus the lens for a tack sharp image at the center. I was in low light though and will have to retest in "proper" lighting. But, at f8 everything is back to normal. Any guesses as to what the problem might be? Front Focus, Back Focus, or just me?

Anyway, the lens is nice.

The main plusses: f1.4 aperture, ADI flash support (the Minolta does not have this), a real lens hood (Minolta 50 f1.7 has that little pull out hood.....blah), sharper at the edges than the Minolta at the wider apertures.

The Main Minusses: at f4 maybe f5.6 also the lens tends to miss focus when compared to the Minolta at times. I don’t know why. It is almost like a slight back focus problem? I don’t think its front focus. When I manually focus everything seems fine (when my eyes work that is). I can not account for this since at the wider apertures (1.4 through 2.8) and f8 seem to auto focus just fine. It needs more testing in well lighted conditions and not dim light which was the conditions I was testing the lens in.

Regards,
NIKO

UPDATE: The focussing problem is still there even in outdoor light. However, I noticed that when I use the left or right outside sensors instead if the middle and surrounding sensors and recompose the image as before focus is more accurate. Do I have a problem with my sensors and not the lens? I'm going to have to try this lens on my Maxxum 5D and see what happens there.

UPDATE 2: Well, it's official, I do have a back focus problem. I went to exchange the lens at my local Sony Style Store. However, they only had the demo. Good Lord, it had the same problem. I showed the sales guy and explained to him what Back Focus is and he agreed. I got a full refund and did not pay a restocking fee (Thank GOD). We had a good discussion though. He claimed that he would call Sony and explain the situation then let me know of the outcome; we'll see. The lens however is a great lens. I wanted to keep it. However, to have to go through the motions for getting the Back Focus corrected just rubs me the wrong way. Make sure you get to test the lens before your purchase.

I have the Sony 50mm f 1.4 lens and like it. I don't know how to tell if I have "Back Focus" or not?

Dave

Dave,

Back focus is simply this: You focus on an object, but your camera/lens combination focuses behind the object that you are focusing on a certain distance. The more it focuses behind the object the worse the back focus. This is most noticeable when the depth of field is very shallow.

Front focus is just the opposite.

The lens I bought and returned as well as the demo I tried both had back focus. I was focusing straight on to a page on the wall at f4 when I noticed that the page wasn't as sharp as it could be. I switched to manual and got a noticeably sharp(er) image. I tried AF again and it was as before....soft. Then I created a test bed of sorts. I used a rather large can with a label that had a lot of text on it. I put it on a table and set up the camera quite a bit more than minimum focus distance to it and aimed straight to the center and took a few shots with AF. I was right. The text at the closest point of the cylinder where I focused to was soft, but text around the bend on both sides of that point increased in sharpness then faded away with the defocused areas. When I manually focused I got that closest point of the can tack sharp with no effort at all and everything around the bend on both sides faded into the defocused areas. Then I went back to auto focus and the problem was back. It was very consistent. I noticed the problem initially when comparing the Minolta 50 f1.7 and the Sony 50 f1.4 with the page on a wall test.

I hope my explanation helped. Give the test a try. It's a very interesting one to do with any lens. I might add, none of my other lenses tends to back (or front) focus.

Regards,
NIKO

I wandered into my local camera shop today hoping to find a nice used Minolta lens. While they had a decent beercan and a really mint 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 (overpriced too), I walked out with a 50mm f/1.7 in near flawless condition for $65. The glass is perfect, the only sign of use is a small abrasion on the grip that's not visible from more than 12" away. As my first prime lens, I'm impressed. This lens is razor sharp at f/4 and smaller. I'm sure the Sony 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens and will outperform the old Minolta 1.7, but I'll put the $285 left in my pocket towards something else... ;)

Does anyone know a cheap place in Sydney Australia, to buy the Sony 50mm 1.4?

Here is a review on the Sony 50 f1.4 lens: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sony_50_1p4_m15/page4.asp

As I feared, the Back focus issue was not just a fluke on the sample that I bought then returned as well as the demo at the Sonystyle store. Looks like Sony has some fixing to do.

I really liked this lens too. I just didn't want to have to deal with sending it in and praying that it would work correctly when I got it back.

And for you.

It would be nice to see a review done where several samples of the exact same lens were used all focused on the same target to verify the differences in quality, in a test you could see.

Dont you think?

Carl

Yeah, it would be great if they had at least 3 samples of the 50 f1.4 to see if one was better than the other in terms of this back focus issue. In fact, I read a review (I wish I remembered where) a guy went to Sigma in New York and got 3 lens samples of the same lens and definitely from different batches and tested them. All were very precise in focus. Though, admittedly, one was ever so slightly better than another when the aperture was wide open. But, all were excellent and were fine under real world applications. I found that to be very encouraging (for Sigma that is).

I found the review here: http://www.sigmauser.eu/content/view/79/9/

Just for people's info Jessops is having a sale at the moment and the 50mm 1.4 is currently (28th Dec 08) £195.73- £58.73 off. Puts this lens a bit closer in price to the Canon and Nikon offerings.

Link here: http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/KeywordSearch.html?keyword=sony%2050mm&pageIndex=1&sortDirection=Descending&sortProperty=Relevance

I don't work for Jessops so don't worry I'm not pushing it, but it seems like a good price.

Interesting that no-one has mentioned the Sigma 50mm f1.4 prime lens - I've heard that it's an incredible lens and comes in the Sony/Minolta mount.

Has anyone tried both? Any preferences or other thoughts?

Good review! I purchased an A350 a week ago, and have been reviewing as many articles on the SAL50F14 as I possibly can. Being a newbie to digital photography, I am glad that I chose to buy the A350. Now that I am convinced that the SAL50F14 is the right lens for me to use while getting familiar with my new camera, and with digital photography in general, I will be buying one this weekend. Cheers!

Is twice as heavy and nearly twice as large, costs about 50% more, has less of a magnification ratio (1:7.4), and optically cannot perform as good as the Sony past f1.8. So tell me why anyone would want this lens versus the Sony model?

Carl

The Sigma is perhaps a little more consistent but the Sony is definitely no slouch. Looking at the test data on DPR you can see that the Sony is considerably sharper in the centre but the extreme edges are a little soft (this is on FF and is comparing the A900 and SAL 50f1.4 to the EOS 1DsMK3 and Sigma 50mm f1.4). On APSC the Sony lens seems down right better (comparing the A700 and Sony lens to the EOS XSI and Sigma lens).

It does genuinely appear to be one of the very best 50mm lenses.

Hi Carl!

This is my first post here on your great website; I'm also new in the field of DSLR photography, although with some lingering experience thanks to my old Chinon and Pentax dinosaurs...

I am thus currently trying to establish a second & third lens strategy, in order to complete my new kit already composed of a new fantastic A700 which came with the infamous 16-105mm. My ambitions for the next few years are: family (indoor gathering plus pics of young daughter), arts & nature (museum, paintings, toy models, outdoor scenaries), and travel (mix) purposes...

Here are the most tempting options right now:

-> A Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro, for versatility & overall sharpness
LOWEST LOCAL PRICE FOR NEW = $350 TX INCL.
-> AND/OR a Sony 50mm f/1.4, for candid shots & clarity minus back focussing (?)
LOWEST LOCAL PRICE FOR NEW = $386 TX INCL.
-> AND/OR just a Sony 70-300mm G, for handy reach, AF speed, and sheer IQ
LOWEST LOCAL PRICE FOR NEW = $665 TX INCL.
-> Haven't said anything yet about the 28mm f/2.8, the CZ 85mm, etc.
-> And by the way, should I still mull over the possibility of getting a CZ 16-80mm / or even a Sony 18-250mm (24-70mm way to expensive!) if truly worth it, in spite of lovely 16-105mm in conjunction with the above scenarios??? Breaking my 'kit' would really break my heart, whereas duplicating my effective range unduly would definitely break my budget...
LOWEST LOCAL PRICE FOR NEW SONY CZ 16-80mm is $683 TX INCL.
LOWEST LOCAL PRICE FOR NEW SONY 18-250mm is $540 TX INCL.

Any shock-treatment suggestion VERY WELCOME!

Daniel (aka Marathonianbull)