Some love for the nifty fifty (FE5018)

[Lee Croft]

I haven't heard too many great things about this lens and it doesn't seem to be well regarded amongst Sony users so I thought I'd share some positive thoughts about it. I think the reason it isn't that well regarded is not really because the lens is bad but because of the wealth of other 50mm options which are better. However, the FE50 1.8 has a few things going for it and some things that were complained about in the past are not as big dealbreakers on newer bodies, namely autofocus.

Here are some pros:

• It's cheap. Can be had used for about £120. Probably one of the cheapest FF lenses available on E mount.
• It's very lightweight and not too big.
• It has comparable image quality to the highly regarded 55mm 1.8. It's slightly worse but not much.
• I think it has a nice rendering. This is subjective but I feel it less clinical than a lot of modern lenses yet still remains sharp.

Neutral:

• Autofocus. This used to be a real negative and a reason why I believe most people stayed from this lens. I've used it on both the original A7 and the A7c and there is is a huge difference. On the A7 it is both noisy and slow. On the A7c it's much quieter and a lot faster. It tracks well with real time tracking.

Negatives:

• It doesn't have the best build quality. It's expected for the price. It has a metal mount but the rest is a lightweight plastic. I haven't had any problems with the build but if you're someone who is rough with their gear or likes the feel of a well built lens, stay away from this one.

Honestly I think this lens would make a good kit lens option. I have the 28-60mm which is a decent lens but I only use it about 10% of the time. I guess because I like having some DOF control and it's one of the main benefits of a FF camera.

Here are some recent shots with the 50mm 1.8:

























Thanks for looking.

 

[Willy81]

I feel your review is right on (actually mine on the A7RV is very sharp).

I purchased mine new on sale from B&H for $198 (my least expensive lens - recommended).

 

[SafariBob]

amazing Photos!

I haven't heard too many great things about this lens and it doesn't seem to be well regarded amongst Sony users so I thought I'd share some positive thoughts about it. I think the reason it isn't that well regarded is not really because the lens is bad but because of the wealth of other 50mm options which are better. However, the FE50 1.8 has a few things going for it and some things that were complained about in the past are not as big dealbreakers on newer bodies, namely autofocus.

Here are some pros:

• It's cheap. Can be had used for about £120. Probably one of the cheapest FF lenses available on E mount.

true, but people complained it was 2x the ef and f mount equivalents

• It's very lightweight and not too big.

yes

• It has comparable image quality to the highly regarded 55mm 1.8. It's slightly worse but not much.

imo, the 55 is much better in the corners wide open, particularly at infinity. In terms of character and centre, I think the 50 is better, the 55 is cooler and more contrast

• I think it has a nice rendering. This is subjective but I feel it less clinical than a lot of modern lenses yet still remains sharp.

agree, this is true of nearly all 50s though

Neutral:

• Autofocus. This used to be a real negative and a reason why I believe most people stayed from this lens.

true

• I've used it on both the original A7 and the A7c and there is is a huge difference. On the A7 it is both noisy and slow. On the A7c it's much quieter and a lot faster. It tracks well with real time tracking.

didn’t know that, thanks for sharing.

Negatives:

• It doesn't have the best build quality. It's expected for the price. It has a metal mount but the rest is a lightweight plastic. I haven't had any problems with the build but if you're someone who is rough with their gear or likes the feel of a well built lens, stay away from this one.

I think the build quality is fine, definitely a step up from the canon ef, and lightness is appreciated

Honestly I think this lens would make a good kit lens option. I have the 28-60mm which is a decent lens but I only use it about 10% of the time. I guess because I like having some DOF control and it's one of the main benefits of a FF camera.

I used to use a 50 as a walk around on apsc, I think 65mm on full frame is about right. Impressed that you caught a fox!

have only seen 6 foxes in my life, three of which were in Latvia last weekend.

Here are some recent shots with the 50mm 1.8:













Thanks for looking.

 

[Lee Croft]

I feel your review is right on (actually mine on the A7RV is very sharp).

I purchased mine new on sale from B&H for $198 (my least expensive lens - recommended).

Glad to see there are more people that recommend it. Thanks Willy.

 

[Lee Croft]

amazing Photos!

Thank you!

I haven't heard too many great things about this lens and it doesn't seem to be well regarded amongst Sony users so I thought I'd share some positive thoughts about it. I think the reason it isn't that well regarded is not really because the lens is bad but because of the wealth of other 50mm options which are better. However, the FE50 1.8 has a few things going for it and some things that were complained about in the past are not as big dealbreakers on newer bodies, namely autofocus.

Here are some pros:

• It's cheap. Can be had used for about £120. Probably one of the cheapest FF lenses available on E mount.

true, but people complained it was 2x the ef and f mount equivalents

Ah didn't know that. Is it still true? I feel like the Sony has come down in price.

• It's very lightweight and not too big.

yes

• It has comparable image quality to the highly regarded 55mm 1.8. It's slightly worse but not much.

imo, the 55 is much better in the corners wide open, particularly at infinity. In terms of character and centre, I think the 50 is better, the 55 is cooler and more contrast

Yeah I read that too. Sharp corners at 1.8 isn't particularly useful to me but might be to some.

• I think it has a nice rendering. This is subjective but I feel it less clinical than a lot of modern lenses yet still remains sharp.

agree, this is true of nearly all 50s though

Neutral:

• Autofocus. This used to be a real negative and a reason why I believe most people stayed from this lens.

true

• I've used it on both the original A7 and the A7c and there is is a huge difference. On the A7 it is both noisy and slow. On the A7c it's much quieter and a lot faster. It tracks well with real time tracking.

didn’t know that, thanks for sharing.

Negatives:

• It doesn't have the best build quality. It's expected for the price. It has a metal mount but the rest is a lightweight plastic. I haven't had any problems with the build but if you're someone who is rough with their gear or likes the feel of a well built lens, stay away from this one.

I think the build quality is fine, definitely a step up from the canon ef, and lightness is appreciated

True it isn't that bad.

Honestly I think this lens would make a good kit lens option. I have the 28-60mm which is a decent lens but I only use it about 10% of the time. I guess because I like having some DOF control and it's one of the main benefits of a FF camera.

I used to use a 50 as a walk around on apsc, I think 65mm on full frame is about right. Impressed that you caught a fox!

have only seen 6 foxes in my life, three of which were in Latvia last weekend.

The fox photo was cropped. He wasn't shy but 50mm is still not really long enough. I think I had about 10 mpx left after cropping so this is about 75mm. An 85mm lens would've been better and I'm actually thinking about purchasing the Sony 85mm 1.8 as my next lens.

Here are some recent shots with the 50mm 1.8:



Thanks for looking.

 

[SafariBob]

amazing Photos!

Thank you!

I haven't heard too many great things about this lens and it doesn't seem to be well regarded amongst Sony users so I thought I'd share some positive thoughts about it. I think the reason it isn't that well regarded is not really because the lens is bad but because of the wealth of other 50mm options which are better. However, the FE50 1.8 has a few things going for it and some things that were complained about in the past are not as big dealbreakers on newer bodies, namely autofocus.

Here are some pros:

• It's cheap. Can be had used for about £120. Probably one of the cheapest FF lenses available on E mount.

true, but people complained it was 2x the ef and f mount equivalents

Ah didn't know that. Is it still true? I feel like the Sony has come down in price.

probably still true, but today the relevant comparison is Rf and z, which is presumably much more expensive

• It's very lightweight and not too big.

yes

• It has comparable image quality to the highly regarded 55mm 1.8. It's slightly worse but not much.

imo, the 55 is much better in the corners wide open, particularly at infinity. In terms of character and centre, I think the 50 is better, the 55 is cooler and more contrast

Yeah I read that too. Sharp corners at 1.8 isn't particularly useful to me but might be to some.

agree. It’s maybe a bit different if you are using it as your one and only and don’t have ibis though

• I think it has a nice rendering. This is subjective but I feel it less clinical than a lot of modern lenses yet still remains sharp.

agree, this is true of nearly all 50s though

Neutral:

• Autofocus. This used to be a real negative and a reason why I believe most people stayed from this lens.

true

• I've used it on both the original A7 and the A7c and there is is a huge difference. On the A7 it is both noisy and slow. On the A7c it's much quieter and a lot faster. It tracks well with real time tracking.

didn’t know that, thanks for sharing.

Negatives:

• It doesn't have the best build quality. It's expected for the price. It has a metal mount but the rest is a lightweight plastic. I haven't had any problems with the build but if you're someone who is rough with their gear or likes the feel of a well built lens, stay away from this one.

I think the build quality is fine, definitely a step up from the canon ef, and lightness is appreciated

True it isn't that bad.

Honestly I think this lens would make a good kit lens option. I have the 28-60mm which is a decent lens but I only use it about 10% of the time. I guess because I like having some DOF control and it's one of the main benefits of a FF camera.

I used to use a 50 as a walk around on apsc, I think 65mm on full frame is about right. Impressed that you caught a fox!

have only seen 6 foxes in my life, three of which were in Latvia last weekend.

The fox photo was cropped. He wasn't shy but 50mm is still not really long enough. I think I had about 10 mpx left after cropping so this is about 75mm. An 85mm lens would've been better and I'm actually thinking about purchasing the Sony 85mm 1.8 as my next lens.

still amazing!

Here are some recent shots with the 50mm 1.8:

Thanks for looking.

 

[ahaslett]

Great images!

Where is #8 from?

thanks

Andrew

 

[Lee Croft]

amazing Photos!

Thank you!

I haven't heard too many great things about this lens and it doesn't seem to be well regarded amongst Sony users so I thought I'd share some positive thoughts about it. I think the reason it isn't that well regarded is not really because the lens is bad but because of the wealth of other 50mm options which are better. However, the FE50 1.8 has a few things going for it and some things that were complained about in the past are not as big dealbreakers on newer bodies, namely autofocus.

Here are some pros:

• It's cheap. Can be had used for about £120. Probably one of the cheapest FF lenses available on E mount.

true, but people complained it was 2x the ef and f mount equivalents

Ah didn't know that. Is it still true? I feel like the Sony has come down in price.

probably still true, but today the relevant comparison is Rf and z, which is presumably much more expensive

I don't think z mount has a nifty fifty. It's a premium 1.8 lens. Canon does but I don't know how it compares.

• It's very lightweight and not too big.

yes

• It has comparable image quality to the highly regarded 55mm 1.8. It's slightly worse but not much.

imo, the 55 is much better in the corners wide open, particularly at infinity. In terms of character and centre, I think the 50 is better, the 55 is cooler and more contrast

Yeah I read that too. Sharp corners at 1.8 isn't particularly useful to me but might be to some.

agree. It’s maybe a bit different if you are using it as your one and only and don’t have ibis though

True

• I think it has a nice rendering. This is subjective but I feel it less clinical than a lot of modern lenses yet still remains sharp.

agree, this is true of nearly all 50s though

Neutral:

• Autofocus. This used to be a real negative and a reason why I believe most people stayed from this lens.

true

• I've used it on both the original A7 and the A7c and there is is a huge difference. On the A7 it is both noisy and slow. On the A7c it's much quieter and a lot faster. It tracks well with real time tracking.

didn’t know that, thanks for sharing.

Negatives:

• It doesn't have the best build quality. It's expected for the price. It has a metal mount but the rest is a lightweight plastic. I haven't had any problems with the build but if you're someone who is rough with their gear or likes the feel of a well built lens, stay away from this one.

I think the build quality is fine, definitely a step up from the canon ef, and lightness is appreciated

True it isn't that bad.

Honestly I think this lens would make a good kit lens option. I have the 28-60mm which is a decent lens but I only use it about 10% of the time. I guess because I like having some DOF control and it's one of the main benefits of a FF camera.

I used to use a 50 as a walk around on apsc, I think 65mm on full frame is about right. Impressed that you caught a fox!

have only seen 6 foxes in my life, three of which were in Latvia last weekend.

The fox photo was cropped. He wasn't shy but 50mm is still not really long enough. I think I had about 10 mpx left after cropping so this is about 75mm. An 85mm lens would've been better and I'm actually thinking about purchasing the Sony 85mm 1.8 as my next lens.

still amazing!

Truth be told I've never been that close to a fox before. I only see them at night from a distance usually.

Here are some recent shots with the 50mm 1.8:

Thanks for looking.

 

[Lee Croft]

Great images!

Thank you!

Where is #8 from?

It was taken in Cambridge, UK.

thanks

Andrew

 

[ahaslett]

Great images!

Thank you!

Where is #8 from?

It was taken in Cambridge, UK.

thanks

Andrew

Pembroke Street, opposite the Fellows’ car park?

A

 

[leonche64]

I am with you on this one. It is a fine lens that yeilds fine results.

 

[Lee Croft]

Great images!

Thank you!

Where is #8 from?

It was taken in Cambridge, UK.

thanks

Andrew

Pembroke Street, opposite the Fellows’ car park?

A

Hi, I'm not actually sure. It was near King's college is all I remember.

 

[Lee Croft]

I am with you on this one. It is a fine lens that yeilds fine results.

Nice shots!

 

[clarnibass]

It's one my main lenses, I really like small and light lenses. I just wish AF was better. It's not terrible, but a bit clunky and not as quiet as even the other cheap f/1.8 primes. I'm trying to replace it for a couple of years but there is no other 50mm lens with enough features I want that can replace it.

 

[Russar]

Both of us, you and myself, have something in common – depth of focus control in taking pictures. It is a touching and special for the photography feature (practically no depth of focus in classical paintings or engravings. The images below are the three of yours Nifty Fifty posting I like the most.





--
Alexander

 

[Lee Croft]

Both of us, you and myself, have something in common – depth of focus control in taking pictures. It is a touching and special for the photography feature (practically no depth of focus in classical paintings or engravings. The images below are the three of yours Nifty Fifty posting I like the most.

Thank you. Yes I'm a fan of using shallow dog to add some depth to the photo. I like foreground blur so the eye moves through the photo. Doesn't always work of course but it's good to experiment with it.

 

[Alphaville]

I don’t care about the corner sharpness wide open and build quality is perfectly fine and lightweight