Now you really have me thinking about this lens. UGH!!

The idea is to inform, to help satisfy your needs :).

Glad it was helpful, and thank you for letting me know.

Carl

I have this lens and it is great. Also an excellent portrait lens.
Most of the macro shots I do are not animals so, I prefer the versatility of this lens as a 50mm.

I love the 50mm range on my a100 and now a700, i often find myself using the 50 1.7 Minolta (Original) for portrait type stuff and have been dying to get a new 50mm toying between the sony 1.4 and the macro. I already have and love an older version of the Tamron 90mm macro for 'real macro' work. So the question is, in your opinion, which of the 3 50mm lenses is best for portrait work? and are they good enough to bother replacing the 50 1.7 or should i just keep saving for the eventual 85 CZ and 70-200G?

Love the site and thanx for the reviews! It surely is not helping the lens lust in my world.

~brian

Carl,
I just landed the 50M and should have it in a week or two. Luck would have it that a guy I offered to buy another lens from was interested in selling this and the CZ 135 to me. This will fill a couple of holes in my lineup ;) Hopefully, other people are as interested in these two as I am!

A great lens to have in the lineup. I mean the 50mm yeah, of course ;)

Carl

First of all I agree with 95% of everything you say regarding the 50mm f2.8 AF macro. I have the older version, but they are all great lenses and everyone should have one, not only for macro work but when the need arises to photograph flat artwork. These macros excel at even, distortion free, corner to corner coverage because of their flat field of focus design.

Where I differ with your opinion is the use of this lens in portraiture. Technically, YES, any lens can take a portrait and a flat field of focus is not a bad idea if you are trying for a soft focus of facial features with sharp detail of the eyes. But that particular technique is almost exclusively for photographing women and infants.

A sharp portrait of a male subject is usually the preferred methodology in portraiture and almost impossible with the shallow depth of field inherent in flat field of focus macro lenses. Thusly that is why I also carry a 50mm f:1.7 which can perform the task very well and a bit longer like an 85 would be even better.

So Yes any lens can take a portrait but not all lenses can take a good portrait. ;-)

Just had to state that! It goes back forty years to my formal education. . .

disagrees with me about something! :)

I see your points, and they are valid. Wasn't implying it's main purpose should be as a portrait lens, so I'll be more careful next time around with how I word "usage". I agree, the focal plane of the 50mm 1.7 is better suited for such :)

I think you mean to say if you were going to choose a lens for professional portraiture, you wouldn't choose the 50mm Mac rather the 50mm 1.7, is that correct?

Thanks for opening up your thoughts here!

Carl

I understood what you were looking at when you made the statement but as we already agreed it is not my first choice when it came to portraits and yes that little 50 f1.7 is really an under appreciated lens I think. Particularly when it becomes a 75mm effective focal length on our Alpha cameras.

The statement in the review saying that this lens "never flares or ghosts" makes me suspect that an issue (though a somewhat obscure one) has been overlooked. I and others have documented a known problem with the earlier Minolta and Konica Minolta versions of this lens that can lead to bright circular sensor reflections in the center of the image when used with DSLRs. My article on this can be seen at [http://thesybersite.com/minolta/sensor-reflection]. The test shots made with my KM 50mm f/2.8 Macro (D) tell the story. There's little reason to think that Sony's version is dramatically different from the earlier ones, so I believe it is equally vulnerable to such sensor reflections if tested under the right conditions.

I believe the Minolta version was designed prior to digital coatings a that are now applied to the new Sony lenses.

If you can duplicate the problem with the Sony lens I would be suprised, and would like to see a sample and how you did it. (ghosting)

By my statement I am not suggesting that it is not possible to do the afformentioned, I'm saying in my experience to date (and I've had a lot with this lens) I have yet to see that happen (ghosting). I am sure that if one wanted to make the lens flare they could aim it at the sun and duplicate that. But based on it's inherited deeply recessed design, merits it is very difficult to duplicate even a lens flare.

Carl

"I believe the Minolta version was designed prior to digital coatings a that are now applied to the new Sony lenses."

My theory is that the reflection is being precisely focused onto the sensor by the concave surface of the rear element, so I have doubts that improved anti-reflective coatings can overcome that.

"If you can duplicate the problem with the Sony lens I would be suprised, and would like to see a sample and how you did it."

I can't test the Sony version, since I don't own one. ;)

However, you could test yours. I described exactly the conditions that produce sensor reflections in the article that I referenced above. I too would very much like to see the vulnerabilty of the new lens either proved or disproved.

I scored a Minolta 50mm 1.7 on ebay a couple weeks ago for $100.00. What a great purchase. This is my first prime lens and I'm very impressed with the quality and brightness of it with my A200. I've always shot with a zoom of some kind because of the flexibility and I typically take pictures on trips and like a "swiss army knife" set up. I purchased this lens mostly because of what I've read on this and other sites and I wanted to photograph our baby that is coming in a couple weeks. For people that enjoy tuning their setup and getting a little creative I would say it is a must. I know all you "old pros" probably live by primes but they are a little rare among the "newbie’s".

Just my two cents. Take care you guys and keep the pointers coming for us new folks!

Are prime lenses fun?

And they have an unlimited zoom, your legs! ;)

Creative, yes a must. Must play with a prime. It forces you to use the right side of the brain. Never been happier being forced into anything in my life!

C

Yes, I'm having a lot of fun. Here are a couple shots that I would like comments/guidance on:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24893096@N03/2392924860/sizes/l/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24893096@N03/2392923540/sizes/l/

I do not do any "post-shot" editing other than a crop here and there.

I have been so happy with this new lens, and for the cost I couldn't beat it.

Thanks again,
Zach

This was the first lens I got after the typical kit and 75-300mm lens.

I use it whenever I can and I love it. I got it mostly for macro shooting, but I figured I'd use it to start doing urban abstract work. I love love love it!

But I'd still go with the 85 for portraits any day.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jswaby/2536756300/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jswaby/2536756300/

Took that shot this morning with the 50mm macro in RAW (or ARW). I thought it turned out very very well.

...thanks for the great review and great site! I dont even know how I found this site... but glad I did!
I am new to DSLR, so please excuse if my question is naive.

I have recently purchased the A200 and I am extremely happy with it and results. Now the question... maybe due to me 'newness' but I am happy with the supplied 'twin lens's'. I am however interested in a Macro lens. The 100mm was my first consideration... but out of budget. I am also interested in a quality prime lens.

Am I correct in thinking that the 50mm macro will meet my needs but the 1.4 is better in low light and faster autofocus, but each will produce similar result when considering portrait and/or landscape (if I can accept the slow AF)???

Thanks again for the great site and I look forward to your advice.

Pete

but we are glad to have you aboard! :) We aren't a year old yet so it is going to take a bit longer for us to be more accessible and apparent to the industry.

The 50mm 1.4 serves best as a portrait or sharp landscape lens over the 50mm 2.8 Macro. It is a bit sharper from anything over f4 than the macro, but not by a lot. However, the macro will do something the 50mm 1.4 cannot, and that is zoom in to a 1:1 ratio (captured area is the same size as an APS-C sensor).

Id say the 50mm 2.8 would be a better macro and landscape lens than a portrait lens, but depending on your tastes in image quality it does that well also. It has a flat focal plane compared to the 50mm 1.4 and many prefer the softer edges the 1.4 gives to the look of portrait over the 2.8. I have both and rotate them according to my personal tastes. Even though they share the same focal length, you don't really feel they are redundant, they act much different.

The 1.4 is faster focusing as you assumed, and is just a great indoor event lens overall. Family shots or low light, I go for the 1.4, when I want to focus close I get the 2.8 out. Prior to owing the 1.4, I used the 2.8 for all of it and was pretty darn happy. The 1.4 just gave me more versatility in my kit is all, and one of the sharpest lenses in the Alpha lineup over f4. It is TACK sharp.

C

Thanks heaps Carl,

I guess I may have phrased my question poorly. I can appreciate the sharpness of the 1.4, but given that my primary interest with this lens will be the macro (1:1) aspect, my query was how this lens will perform for 'other than macro', maybe compared to the standard lens supplied (18 - 75 & 75-300). I am assuming that it would suffice pretty well as a good 'compromise' and that the landscape (for example) results would still be pretty good and sharp..

Thanks again Carl

Pete

Ahh, well the 2.8 for its focal length will be sharper than the 18-70 Kit lens at just about any f-stop, and if both lenses could do 50mm the macro again would be sharper :). It is a really sharp lens, and until I got the 24-70 2.8 or 50mm 1.4 for review it was one of the, if not THE sharpest lens in my kit. You won't be disappointed in sharpness (just keep it under f8) ever, and given you like the focal length for landscape, you won't be disappointed there either (f 5.6 would probably be best for landscapes from this lens, I believe that is the peak f stop from memory). Just remember it translates to 75mm on an APS-C sized sensor so the field of view is rather restrictive for landscapes.

Carl

Thanks again Carl,

Being new to DSLR I really appreciate your advice.... thanks heaps.... Pete

( http://www.flickr.com/photos/cloudspace/ )

There seems to be a consensus that smaller sensors have greater depth of field than larger sensors. This is only true for a given framing. At the same magnification, depth of field is the same, irrespective of focal length, subject distance and especially sensor size. Well, in reality it is exactly because the focal length and the subject distance combine to give the magnification that depth of field remains the same for a given magnification, but the sensor size is just a crop.

That being said, I have the latest Minolta version of the 50 mm macro and it is a very fine lens. I bought it because the 200 mm macro is too big for traveling, and because the extra subject distance is sometimes a problem. It's not my most used lens (or even close), but I don't regret for a moment that I bought it.

Hi! Newbie here. How big is the difference between the 50mm 1.4 and the 50mm 2.8 Macro at f2.8? Thanks!

Sharpness/color/bokeh? Magnifying power? Or just in general?

Carl

Again, good review.
Thanks Carl. Really enjoy reading your reviews. (not always agree)
I don't own a 50 2.8.
But with this review, the questions and answers i know i don't need one to.
I got the 50 1.4 and just LOVE it.
Must admit, use it for indoor (family) shoots most of the time.
For the macro work i stick with my Sigma 105, Maybe one day get the Sony 100mm.
But anyway, thanks for a good review.

Hubert

hows difference in sharpness, color, and shading?

Thanks to your review I could decide me to buying it.

Hi,

I am looking into getting a macro lens but I am still stumped at what I should get. I love taking macro pictures but which lens should I get. I am still a beginner, and I need something to tide me over until, my skill level increases, and I can save money for a full frame camera. I currently own a a100 and an a300 but upgrading to a full frame I will not be able to use the same lenses? I don't have a huge budget but I would love to get a nice macro lens for now.

milgwimper

You may want to checkout the 50 2.8 Minolta @ KEH for a lil over $200. I have this lens & have been very pleased with it, however, the wife says i am no longer allowed to take portrait shots of her with it LOL, it does bring out the detail.
As Carl suggested, the 50 2.8 is overlooked because of the 100 2.8 & i would never consider selling my 50 unless someone offered an outrageous price.

Ronnie

I was going to get a 100mm but I have read such good things about the 50mm I am waffling. What is KEH? 200 dollars is a great price, and actually my pocket book won't be cringing so much! LOL Well I don't take portraits that much at this point, but I will remind myself that it might be a little too detailed! LOL Thank you!