Sony 50 f/1.8: cheap, sharp, and good bokeh

I too love it for lower light situations.

I like this lens as well, below is just a cat picture bit you can get an idea of the smooth bokeh at 1.8




Esme, scratching her ear: a6000 + SEL5018



--
JohnK
Off the record.

exapixel said:

NEX-7 + 50mm f/1.8

What's not to love about the OSS 50mm f/1.8 for the APS-C format E-mount?

Click to expand...

Yup, my favorite mainstay lens.

I think the main drawback is that it is a bit redundant. 75mm equiv is just too long for general usage. Kit lens is alright but its pretty slow. So for a general use prime, the SEL35F18 is a lot better choice with 50mm equiv. Some might prefer a 35mm point of view, but those are F2.8 which loses 1 and 1/3rd stop.

If I have a 50mm equiv prime, I probably dont want to get a 75mm prime of the same speed unless I am really into portraits. Or I'd just use a longer lens and get further back. My 55-210 works pretty well for portraits at max range with a pretty good background blur. Not ideal, but usable.

I wound up getting a Minola Rokkor F1.4 58mm for portraits for 30 bucks, plus a 12 dollar adapter. Also Ive stuck a 1.7X teleconverter onto the SEL35 which sort of works.

I was planning to add a post with my results of these.

Joseph Mama said:

I think the main drawback is that it is a bit redundant. 75mm equiv is just too long for general usage. Kit lens is alright but its pretty slow. So for a general use prime, the SEL35F18 is a lot better choice with 50mm equiv. Some might prefer a 35mm point of view, but those are F2.8 which loses 1 and 1/3rd stop.

If I have a 50mm equiv prime, I probably dont want to get a 75mm prime of the same speed unless I am really into portraits. Or I'd just use a longer lens and get further back. My 55-210 works pretty well for portraits at max range with a pretty good background blur. Not ideal, but usable.

I wound up getting a Minola Rokkor F1.4 58mm for portraits for 30 bucks, plus a 12 dollar adapter. Also Ive stuck a 1.7X teleconverter onto the SEL35 which sort of works.

I was planning to add a post with my results of these.

Click to expand...

To each his own. I use 35mm and 85mm as my main full-frame lenses, and prefer the narrower field and depth at the longer end to isolate subjects and simplify compositions, and 85mm is just more flattering for portraiture.

I think that it's misleading to try to think of a 50mm crop lens as a 75mm full-frame small format equivalent.

i would wager it (50SEL) sells more lenses than every other native E mount non kitlens combined .. pity Sony doesnt learn from those sales numbers

the sigma 30mm f2.8 is a prety decent quality value lens as well

I agree. This is a very good lens, and I wish I could use it more....

Joseph Mama said:

I think the main drawback is that it is a bit redundant. 75mm equiv is just too long for general usage. Kit lens is alright but its pretty slow. So for a general use prime, the SEL35F18 is a lot better choice with 50mm equiv. Some might prefer a 35mm point of view, but those are F2.8 which loses 1 and 1/3rd stop.

If I have a 50mm equiv prime, I probably dont want to get a 75mm prime of the same speed unless I am really into portraits. Or I'd just use a longer lens and get further back. My 55-210 works pretty well for portraits at max range with a pretty good background blur. Not ideal, but usable.

I wound up getting a Minola Rokkor F1.4 58mm for portraits for 30 bucks, plus a 12 dollar adapter. Also Ive stuck a 1.7X teleconverter onto the SEL35 which sort of works.

I was planning to add a post with my results of these.

Click to expand...

Redundant? Wouldn't that describe any lens that offers the same FL as the 18-55 kit? (or 16-50 if you prefer ...)

I quite like the 50 on my NEX7, as it is a FL I use a lot. The 35 gets a pass from me only because it is a FL I seldom settle on -- I wish the 24 was priced at half of what it is, as that's a length I like and the lens looks terrific. If Sony surprizes me with a 16 1.8 I might just have to scrape together the coin ...

Hoping for a 16 1.8 and maybe an 85 1.8 for the APS-C mount -- I'd be a happy shooter. Meanwhile the 50 1.8 delivers terrific results at what looks like a bargain price.

Cheers,
GB

exapixel said:

To each his own. I use 35mm and 85mm as my main full-frame lenses, and prefer the narrower field and depth at the longer end to isolate subjects and simplify compositions, and 85mm is just more flattering for portraiture.

I think that it's misleading to try to think of a 50mm crop lens as a 75mm full-frame small format equivalent.

Click to expand...

Huh? We are talking about E format lenses for the A6000 and the like. nothing about A7 or full frame.

When referring to the "full frame equivalent mm length", it is generally understood that this is only referring to apparent distance of the frame. Nobody is trying to say that a 50mm APS-C is somehow equivalent to a full frame 75mm lens from an image quality or background blur point of view, especially at the same aperture value.

If I was rich, then yeah...Id have an A7R with an 85mm full frame lens. Lacking that, the OP is saying that for 200 bucks, the 75mm equiv Sony lens works very well.

I am simply saying why I didn't get that lens...cuz I got the 50mm equiv as my general purpose lens. I would have LIKED to have gotten a F1.8 35mm equiv as general purpose and the 75mm equiv for portraits, but that wasn't a good option with teh native lens selections.

RGBaker said:

Joseph Mama said:

I think the main drawback is that it is a bit redundant. 75mm equiv is just too long for general usage. Kit lens is alright but its pretty slow. So for a general use prime, the SEL35F18 is a lot better choice with 50mm equiv. Some might prefer a 35mm point of view, but those are F2.8 which loses 1 and 1/3rd stop.

If I have a 50mm equiv prime, I probably dont want to get a 75mm prime of the same speed unless I am really into portraits. Or I'd just use a longer lens and get further back. My 55-210 works pretty well for portraits at max range with a pretty good background blur. Not ideal, but usable.

I wound up getting a Minola Rokkor F1.4 58mm for portraits for 30 bucks, plus a 12 dollar adapter. Also Ive stuck a 1.7X teleconverter onto the SEL35 which sort of works.

I was planning to add a post with my results of these.

Click to expand...

Redundant? Wouldn't that describe any lens that offers the same FL as the 18-55 kit? (or 16-50 if you prefer ...)

Click to expand...

I am certainly not poo-pooing the SEL50 at all. I wanted one and had planned on it. I am simply pointing out that my first priority was a good general purpose prime lens. 75mm was too long for that, particularly for indoor shots. So my only other reasonable choice was the SEL35 at F1.8...OR get a ~20mm and lose 1.3 FStops.

I therefore got the SEL35F18. Thus, it made the SEL50 less desirable simply because it is relatively close to the SEL35.

I was just answering the OPs question as to why the SEL50 was not a shoo-in for me to get immediately.

Joseph Mama said:

RGBaker said:

Joseph Mama said:

I think the main drawback is that it is a bit redundant. 75mm equiv is just too long for general usage. Kit lens is alright but its pretty slow. So for a general use prime, the SEL35F18 is a lot better choice with 50mm equiv. Some might prefer a 35mm point of view, but those are F2.8 which loses 1 and 1/3rd stop.

If I have a 50mm equiv prime, I probably dont want to get a 75mm prime of the same speed unless I am really into portraits. Or I'd just use a longer lens and get further back. My 55-210 works pretty well for portraits at max range with a pretty good background blur. Not ideal, but usable.

I wound up getting a Minola Rokkor F1.4 58mm for portraits for 30 bucks, plus a 12 dollar adapter. Also Ive stuck a 1.7X teleconverter onto the SEL35 which sort of works.

I was planning to add a post with my results of these.

Click to expand...

Redundant? Wouldn't that describe any lens that offers the same FL as the 18-55 kit? (or 16-50 if you prefer ...)

Click to expand...

I am certainly not poo-pooing the SEL50 at all. I wanted one and had planned on it. I am simply pointing out that my first priority was a good general purpose prime lens. 75mm was too long for that, particularly for indoor shots. So my only other reasonable choice was the SEL35 at F1.8...OR get a ~20mm and lose 1.3 FStops.

I therefore got the SEL35F18. Thus, it made the SEL50 less desirable simply because it is relatively close to the SEL35.

I was just answering the OPs question as to why the SEL50 was not a shoo-in for me to get immediately.

Click to expand...

No worries Mr Mama -- I just don't get the word 'redundant' in there! In usage there seems to be fair distance between a 35 and a 50 on an APS-C camera, and if you like the 35 angle of view, it is doubtless the lens for you. Those looking for a 'portrait length' tele may well prefer the 50, as I did.

Cheers,
GB