KEITH-C
Veteran Member
Yes I thought that was strange - how can anyone make a mistake like that if they have actually handled the lens ?
--
Keith-C
--
Keith-C
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
parallaxproblem
Veteran Member
Many thanks for the reply
Can you describe the differences you mention between images from the Takumar and the Sony lens in a little more detail, I'd be very interested in your experiences
I'm lucky in that my Takumar still seems to be clear, does yours have any of the yellowing from that dumb thorium element? I sometimes wonder if the radiation it emits can damage the sensor in any way (thinking of Cosmic Rays blasting holes in CCDs)
C
ck3
Guest
Leaving the lens (more exactly: the glass elements) in direct sunlight for quite some time is supposed to reverse the yellowing effect.
headofdestiny
Veteran Member
Somehow my Tak has avoided the yellowing, but ck3 is right on how to fix it. As far as the differences between the two, and I haven't set up any scientific comparison, but the tak seems slightly better wide open with a bit better bokeh, and the Sony seems a bit more contrasty and better at infinity. The Tak has the concave/convex fourth and fifth element, which causes the two lenses have some differences, and I slightly prefer the Tak. Interestingly, I've been considering a Summicron or Summilux, also, but I'm sure I don't REALLY need it 
parallaxproblem
Veteran Member
Thanks for the summary of lens differences... How are colour differences between the two?Somehow my Tak has avoided the yellowing, but ck3 is right on how to fix it. As far as the differences between the two, and I haven't set up any scientific comparison, but the tak seems slightly better wide open with a bit better bokeh, and the Sony seems a bit more contrasty and better at infinity. The Tak has the concave/convex fourth and fifth element, which causes the two lenses have some differences, and I slightly prefer the Tak. Interestingly, I've been considering a Summicron or Summilux, also, but I'm sure I don't REALLY need it
The problem with the 'leave it on the window in aluminium foil for a few weeks' solution to yellowing is that it's good if you're living in Southern California but in Northern Europe one's 'window time' might run into decades!
Concerning the Summicron (I have the Canadian version)... my very unscientific tests last weekend suggest that:
- the Summicron is sharper when both are compared at f2 and the Takumar is sharper when both are compared at f8
- flare control is much better on the Takumar (bad flare on the Summicron when shooting into the sun - very little on the Takumar in the same circumstances) though this could be partly due to a very small scratch on the rear element on the Summicron (but I don't think so)
- The field of view on the Summicron is noticably narrower than on the Takumar (and even then the Takumar has the same FOV as 55mm setting on my 28-135/4-4.5)
- Focusing on the A900 is easier using the Takumar at f1.4 (the subject just 'pops' into focus) than with the Summicron at f2, though there is no problem focusing the Summicron
- Summicron colours are slightly warmer than the Takumar and skin tones are fantastic... the 'glow' urban legend is real (at least want I believe ;-) ) and as long as it continues it makes me forgive all other failings of the lens. The Takumar isn't at all bad in this respect (though again, I prefer the colour balance of the 28-135) but somehow the Leica is so much better... at least in the shots I took last Sunday
- The Takumar is asthetically the wrong size/shape for the A900, but the Summicron matches it very well and both looks and ergonomics are very well suited to the body - focus movement is lighter and smoother than the Takumar, and works nicely on the A900 (particularly if the M42 adaptor is a bit 'wobbly', like mine is, so making the stiffer Takumar focus a bit clunky). Build quality on the Summicron is superb (not that I have complaints about the Takumar in this respect) but you pay for that in size and weight (kind of crazy that an F2 50mm lens should be larger and heavier than an F1.4 - and when you pull it apart and look inside there's no real reason for it)
headofdestiny
Veteran Member
Thanks, parallaxproblem. Your nice rundown of those two lenses is gonna tempt me towards that Summicron, dang it! Oddly enough, I've been shooting mostly B&W since I received the SMC Tak, so I'm not sure how the colors compare, yet. I've heard from others that the Tak is warmer than the Sony, but I can't confirmed that. Even though I have some more rangy lenses like the 24-70, I usually bring a 50mm out daily, and it's a constant battle on whether to choose the Sony or Tak...that Summicron is only gonna make things worse! lol.
Well, we've derailed this thread a bit. FWIW, it looks like the new Sony 50 1.8 is a good APS-C performer for the price.
Oddly enough, I've been shooting mostly B&W since I received the SMC Tak, so I'm not sure how the colors compare, yet. I've heard from others that the Tak is warmer than the Sony, but I can't confirmed that. Even though I have some more rangy lenses like the 24-70, I usually bring a 50mm out daily, and it's a constant battle on whether to choose the Sony or Tak...that Summicron is only gonna make things worse! lol.Well, we've derailed this thread a bit. FWIW, it looks like the new Sony 50 1.8 is a good APS-C performer for the price.
Ken_5D
Veteran Member
I know it was good news as soon as I read Barry's post.. if it had been bad.. he would have had something to say..
I noted in scanning the thread some of standard complainers are not impressed.
Go look at the Nikon 50mm 1.8 and Canon 50mm 1.8 tests and think again..
at first just looking at the test by itself I was ambivalent. Now look at other lenses in this class.. OMG!! People actually paid money for the Canon? talk about soft edges..
The Sony being an APS lens.. has .25 to .40 ev more vignetting wide open.. but is actually much better in most of the range than the Nikon..
For its class it appears to be a nice budget prime.
So nice it left Barry speechless for one post..
---------
Ken - A700 Owner..
Some of my work at:
http://gallery.cascadephotoworks.com
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
I simply provided the post for folks to have a look for themselves.For its class it appears to be a nice budget prime.
So nice it left Barry speechless for one post..
The optics look decent enough, though as ever real samples are of more use.
However the concerns voiced in the review are of AF noise and speed, like to see more on that one.
Myself I wouldn't pay £135 for a plastic mount APS only lens. I think a price of around £90 is more appropriate for this type of cheapo build lens.
I'll be sticking to the 1.7's myself
Happy with the optics, far superior build, and fast AF
;-)
parallaxproblem
Veteran Member
Very true (on both counts)
I'm glad Sony have released this lens, hopefully it will bring a bit of sanity back into the second-hand 50mm market (ie. letting me find a cheap AF50/1.4 wahay! ;-) )Oh, by the way, I'm marking the Summicron build quality down to 'almost superb' -almost everything is superb except I forgot that the built-in, pull-out hood moves in and out of the lens body in a rather shabby way ;-)
Regards!
Dave Oddie
Veteran Member
They are old designs but they do work on FF Canon's whereas the Sony won't work on a A900.
Look at the new Nikon 1.4 and also the Sigma 1.4 to see what modern design can bring 50mm lenses.
What Sony should have done is brought out a modern design 50mm full frame 1.8 or 1.7 (not a clone of the old 50mm F1.7 but a new design). Canon sell theirs 50mm for £90 and Nikon theirs for £114 (metal mount).
The Sony aps-c lens sells for £135 with its plastic mount. (All prices warehousexpress rounded up to the nearest pound).
That is a total joke. If Nikon and Canon can make and sell full frame lenses with normal metal mount construction for those prices then so can Sony.
A cheap full frame 50mm F1.7 could also let them sell a cheaper A900 kit much in the same way back in film days a standard camera package was body+50mm F1.8 lens.
I think the Sony 50mm aps-c lens is the most pointless lens ever released since digital SLR's were invented.
People bought 50mm F1.7 Minolta lenses because they were cheap not because they were 50mm.
If Sony wanted to release an aps-c prime tele then 60 or 70mm would be far more useful. If they wanted an aps-c standard lens then 28mm (that matches the diagonal near as damn it) would have been better.
Dave
Frenske
Veteran Member
There is an excellent 50mm f1.4 which is more pro like the A900 is. The 50mm f1.8 is obviously meant for the lower end market. One has to be a complete fool to couple a £1500 camera with a £100 lens.
They were not cheap (going for over £120 on ebay for a 20y old lens). I for one bought them because they were 50mm. I could not care less for a 35mm f1.7.
--
http://frenske.zenfolio.com/
carljervis
Veteran Member
Actually Dave, I disagree. Ok, the price seems high, but it is for a brand, spanking new lens, whereas the Canon has been around the block for a bit. In addition, looking at the figures and comparisons from Barry's link, it is a far superior piece of glass. As I'm sticking with aps-c for some time, then it's fine for me.
If/when I go full-frame, then yes, I'd look at a F1.4 replacement.
If/when I go full-frame, then yes, I'd look at a F1.4 replacement.
That's MSRP ... the prices are going to drop significantly, especially on ebay.
carljervis
Veteran Member
Actually, the MSRP/RRP is £160 - the £135 is discounted - even Jessops have discounted to £139.
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
Well the good news is that we can decide to buy or not to.
If the AF really is that slow (I was playing with the 1.7 and it's nowhere near 1.5 sec infinity to close up AF speed, much faster), then that alone is a deal breaker
No point having this SAM if it's not that quiet, and not that fast.
Being frank for Sony's asking price it should be better built, metal mount and FF. Take £45 the current price it's an ok buy at that, def not £135
headofdestiny
Veteran Member
This is what I've been worried about. For three years, I've seen people complain about screwdrive lenses on this forum, and now Sony is answering the call and bringing the cheap micro lens motors to the line. Now we have slower, louder lenses. Argh.
Phixel
Veteran Member
Well I did accidentally hit my head the other day, so that could explain it! Or maybe it is because Sony did a good thing with this 50mm lens. If you read my posts carefully, you will see that my criticisms of Sony lenses are very specific, and not just general bashing. High priced - poor value lenses (35mm f1.4) , poor build quality (CZ 16-80), bad rubber rib design, poorly designed hoods (70-300G), and limited APS-C lens selection are all legitimate criticisms. IMO, this new 50mm lens is just the approach Sony should be taking at this time. A reasonable price and better than average optical performance, which translates to a good value. If the new 18-50 kit lens is also optically good, then we won't be see posts complaining about the IQ of the kit lens, and wouldn't that be a nice change!
-Phil
Yes, I agree.
-Phil
Dave Oddie
Veteran Member
Only a complete fool wouldn't realise that 50mm F1.8 lenses are often the equal and sometimes better than their F1.4 stalemates. It has always been so.
I am sure there are plenty of people getting excellent results from old 50mm F1.7 Minolta lenses on the A900. A revised more modern design would no doubt be even better.
The price may have risen recently with the arrival of the A900 but when I bought my A100 they were going for half that. If £120 is the going rate now that is still £15 cheaper than you can buy the SAL 50mm for so if anyone really wants a 50mm lens because its 50mm the Minolta is still the better buy IMO.
Dave