Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm f1.4 or Canon FD 50mm f1.4
Maybe you can try to compare these shots :
Well, the canon FD 50 didn't seem to show its best on most of these shot so it may be not representative.
This guy has tested a lot of lenses !
anyone else want to share an opinion?
I can buy the Rokkor-X for about $60 vs the Canon FD for about $130 (BOTH in "Mint or Excelent condition)
I always read the Canon is super sharp, but I havent read much about the Rokkor-X, its about 1/2 the price.
Im a noob on Photography I am no PRO
I have the Canon, and can say its a great lens. The depth of field is super shallow, but with the NEX's MF assist its not hard to get a sharp focus. It is quite hefty in weight though, I am not sure how heavy the Minolta is, but the Canon definitely feels of quality. Plus I love the way it looks with my NEX-5.
Here it is, I will put up some samples later.
I have some Minolta Rokkor lenses from the old film days. I have ordered an adapter to use with the NEX5 and will have a better idea of how good or bad they perform shortly. I can tell you however, that the Rokkor lenses had a good reputation years ago and I had very good luck with them.. both in color and contrast. I have the 50mm 1.4 MD lens that is smaller and lighter (49mm filter) than the previous MC versions. These later lenses should have good coatings and perform well. I am sure that the Canon would be an excellent lens as well. It is interesting how things have changed... I couldn't sell a sack full of these a year ago for little or nothing. Prices are on the rise.
I suspect they are both great.
KEH has the older FD Canon 50 1.4 in EX condition beginning at 105. The lighter FD is a little more. When KEH says EX they appear to mean it. Even what they call bargain is usually very good. They have a EX FL Canon 50 1.4 for 72. I say all this because there are different possibilities for Canon as there are for Minolta. I love my Canon FL 55 1.2 as others do on this forum. I have kept by Minolta in a box since using this Canon. It can be found for only a little more . . .
I'd get the cheaper lens. I don't know about the Canon 50mm specifically but I know it's hard to find a crappy 50mm in general.
Maybe get one or get 'em both. You can always sell the one you don't like (and you won't lose much money) or keep 'em both, as I would do. ...if I own both.
Here's let me entertain you with a pic taken with the Minolta MD Rokkor-X 50/1.4, wide-open:
(I didn't use MF assist--that would have taken more time; this is as candid as a candid photo can be.)
some additional options to throw into the fray:
50mm / f1.4 SMC Takumar (pentax / m42 screwmount)
50mm / f1.8 Olympus OM (OM)
there's literally a slew of excellent 50's that can be had for dirt cheap.
if you haven't, checkout flickr as well as these forums for images taken with them to get a feel for characteristics of each.
I own the Rokkor 50mm f/1.4. I purchased it off of ebay (near mint) for $55. So far, I am very impressed. It is a fairly sharp lens with incredible bokeh (especially considering the small price tag).
It feels like a tank. Very heavy and mostly all metal as far as I can tell.
I don't have any pics to post at the moment, but I will post some later. I was able to get some great portrait type shots of my pups on day one. I have only had it for a couple of weeks.
Google Ken Rockwell. I trust his opinion and he says that this particular lens is an incredible buy for the price.
Hope that helps...
in re-learn mode