Reading mode: Light Dark

Do you use the Sony 50mm 1.4 wide open? (A900)

Go to last post
T

tom e

Veteran Member
Messages
2,895
Reaction score
1
Location
US
I see 2 reasons to own the Sony 50/1.4; small size and wide aperture. OK, it's not too expensive as lenses go. That's 3 then. I don't think anyone is claiming that it's the greatest and sharpest lens for Sony.

Anyway, the combo of small and wide aperture is of course appealing. However, if this lens must be stopped down to 2.8 or smaller, then it loses some appeal since my Zeiss 24-70 can do that.

I see comments about it being better stopped down, but how do you rate it for "real world" shooting wide open? Do you use this lens on the A900 ? Are you reasonably satisfied with what you can do with it wide open? Or do you consider it a mistake to shoot at 1.4?
--

 
IMO. using my A-100, it's hard to use at f1.4. But, at f2.0 it's fine. There are a lot of shots at f2.2 or faster here:

http://aehass.zenfolio.com/p536582336

And, here's a couple more at f2:

A100, f/2 @ 50 mm, 1/125, ISO 200



A100, f/2 @ 50 mm, 1/250, ISO 200



--
AEH
http://aehass.zenfolio.com/
Question: What do you do all week?
Answer: Mon to Fri. Nothing, Sat & Sun I rest!
 
Stan_P said:
Don't get fulled by similar number.

f/2.8 effect from faster f/1.4 lens is not same as f/2.8 from lens that has f/2.8 as max opened diaphragm.
Click to expand...
I do understand that, but you are right to point it out. I am considering carrying a small fast lens as part of a small kit; I am thinking through what exactly this lens would do for me.

--

 
Ed at Ridersite said:
IMO. using my A-100, it's hard to use at f1.4. But, at f2.0 it's fine. There are a lot of shots at f2.2 or faster here:
Click to expand...
"Hard to use" meaning it's too soft, or it's difficult to focus. At very wider aperture the DOF is razor thin of course.

--

 
The Sony 50's performance is dreadful wide open even on A700, I try to never use it below f/2. I haven't used it on an A900, but I imagine I'd only use it at f/2 when I didn't care about edge sharpness, and generally would try to keep it at or above f/2.2-2.5.

If I had an A900, I'd think I'd prefer the Sigma 50/1.4 over the Sony.
 
I know the Siggy gets good review, I was interested to see if the small Sony could be used effectively at 1.4 or 1.8. Looks like a bad idea.
--

 
I love using all my old Minolta lenses on my A900 (16mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2.0, 100mm f/2.8 macro and 28-135mm f/4-4.5.

50mm f/1.4 taken @f/1.4 w/A900 (below image is w/o any crop)



Below image is 100% Crop



Also threw in a shot taken w/my 35mm f/1.4 taken @ f2.0 (focused on the pink towel). You can best see the focus (DOF) go in and out on the doily.



--
Portraits: http://wdcgraphic.com/portrait2.htm
http://curtindale.blogspot.com http://picasaweb.google.com/BillCurtindale
 
Once I got my Sony 50mm's backfocus adjustment dialed in on the A900 (-10 setting,) it's really pretty good at 1.4, although I generally use the lens at f1.7 or smaller apertures in daylight, and I feel comfortable kicking it down to 1.4 when the light goes down. It really just depends how big you're printing. I would say my CZ 24-70 really only keeps up with the prime at f4 and beyond.
 
For dreamy portraits 1.4 , (I would prefer option for 50mm F1.2)
For normal shooting absolute minimum is F1.7

--
My gallery -> http://kubica.deviantart.com/gallery/
A900/A300/SAL50 1.4/S 12-24:70-300APO/T28-75
 
1.4 looks really good if you manage to focus well.

I don't have any online; the only one I have is f2, but it really is not losing much ground at 1.4 comparing to 2.0



--
http://www.supernovak.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogic

FED-S (my father's) > Canon AE1 (my brother's) > Minolta Maxxum 3xi (my first precious) > Minolta Dynax 400si (hello Canada) > Minolta Dimage 7i (darling) > Konica Minolta 5D (first DSLR) > Sony Alpha A100 (killer baby) > Sony Alpha A700 (serious tool) > Canon 5DMkII (great computer with average lenses)
 
novak977 said:
but it really is not losing much ground at 1.4 comparing to 2.0
Click to expand...
Disagree here.. f/1.4 vs f/2 with this lens is a major difference anywhere but the dead center.
 
For the price, weight, quality optical, D system, this is a no brainer for a A900 owner, buy it.

And yes this is a very good mix to get the 24-70 2.8 + the 50 1.4. On very good useful lens with a backup very good portrait lens.

The 50 1.4 is part of my concert kit : 14 2.8, 28 2.0, 50 1.4, 100 2.0 200 2.8.

I could probably found some shot at 1.4, by I mostly set it at 1.6, where all the very small defect of 1.4 gone.

But, if you don't target to make a very big print , the 1.4 will be perfect for most of the time.

Regards,

Frank
--
Frank



Proud member of http://photoclubalpha.com
 
on a700

f1.4 is soft (wide open)

Stopped down, even a little bit (f1.8) looks really good for portraits. Beautiful Bokeh.

And things sharpen even further as you get to f2-2.8. Max sharpness is around f5.6 iirc from the reviews.

To say it's not sony's sharpest lens, as you put it, may be accurate, but it's got to be up there amongst the sharpest.

This is one sweet lens.

On full-frame, I can't imagine wanting to use f1.4. DOF is way too shallow. But at f2, it has to be better than most other lenses, including the 50 f1.8.
 
Undah said:
To say it's not sony's sharpest lens, as you put it, may be accurate, but it's got to be up there amongst the sharpest.

This is one sweet lens.
Click to expand...
Not having used this lens, I was making an uninformed comment.

--

 
"tom e" said:
Do you use the Sony 50mm 1.4 wide open? (A900)
Click to expand...
Yes, sure I do.

At f/1.4, central sharpness is not great but okay, edge sharpness fall-off is visible, vignetting is very pronounced ... but in typical available-light situations, all this is acceptable. In some situations you don't even see all the lens' shortcomings in the final image.

Of course I do stop down to at least f/2.2 or f/2.5 whenever I can. But sometimes you simply need f/1.4 to get the shot. I consider the 50/1.4 or 50/1.7 lenses a must-have ... err, any of them, not both. By the way, I have the old Minolta AF 50 mm 1:1.4 (49 mm filter size). The Sony 50 mm 1:1.4 is said to be a slightly revised design, with slightly better performance.

According to reviews, the Sigma 50 mm 1:1.4 EX DG HSM is better than the Sony SAL 50 mm 1:1.4 at full aperture but not as good at medium apertures. So specifically for available-light use, you may consider the Sigma. For general use however it's not the best choice.

Regards,
Olaf
--
Olaf Ulrich, Germany
 
William Curtindale said:
I love using all my old Minolta lenses on my A900 (16mm f/2.8, 20mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, 100mm f/2.0, 100mm f/2.8 macro and 28-135mm f/4-4.5.
Click to expand...
that's a great set of lenses. i'm a former minolta film shooter (maxxum 7!!) who's thinking of a return with a full-frame sony. how have the old classics performed on the a900? my favourites were my 28/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 100/2.8 macro and 200/2.8 HS...i've been curious if they would be just as sweet on high rez digital. what's your experience been? and how has that old war dog the 28-135 performed? god that was optically a great lens that had a truly tragic minimum focus distance.

--
dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top