A55 Second Lens. Please Advise SAL35F18 SAL50F18 SAL55200-2

chlamchowder wrote:

I have the 50/1.7, and overall I liked it on the a580. It sells for less than the 50/1.8 and is built better, so that's definitely an option to consider. When used wide open, the 50/1.7 is nice and sharp in the center, but rather disappointing in the corners. That's great for portraits, because your subject will be near the center anyways.

I do have a Nikon 50/1.4 (pre-D AF version), which I use on my D600. Technically it's a very good lens, with great overall sharpness even wide open, and spectacularly sharp images stopped down. But for some reason I can't explain, I'm not really a fan of how that lens renders images at the pixel level. Looking at the whole image, it's great. But up close, I prefer the light glow of the Minolta 50/1.7 over the purple tint the Nikon 50/1.4 gives. However, the 50/1.7 wide open is only sharp near the center, while the 50/1.4 has much more even sharpness across the frame. The 50/1.7's bokeh also isn't as good (rather harsh, with rings around circles that form from point highlights).

I don't really know how the Sony/Minolta 50/1.4 renders images, but I would consider the Minolta 50/1.7 and Nikon 50/1.4 about equal for portraits, with a slight edge to the Nikon 50/1.4 for better background blur (the 50/1.7 has bad bokeh wide open).

But for portraits alone, it's hard to beat the value offered by the 50/1.7. Is a 50/1.4 worth an extra $100 over the 50/1.7 for portraits? Probably not. But considering everything I'd use a 50mm for, I'd pay more for the 50/1.4 to get the extra low light capability, even shallower DOF, and better sharpness throughout the frame wide open.

And the 85/2.8...perhaps a little long for APS-C. It'll be tight indoors. And you can get faster than f/2.8 for the price. I have no doubts that it has great optical performance, but every other prime lens discussed is also spectacular when stopped down to f/2.8. Not a bad choice, but I think there are better choices.