Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Two 50s on a G1, do you see a difference?

Ron Evers

Ron Evers

New member
I shot the same subject with two different 50s, a Minolta 50/1.4 & a Sears 50/2.0. I had too much light to shoot either wide open so both were shot @ f2.8, ISO 100 (lowest for my camera) & 1/4000s (fastest for my camera).

1. Minolta 50/1.4 ($39 on eBay)





2. Sears 50/2.0 ($11.50 on eBay)


 
J

Jonas

Active member
I love lens comparisons. The nerd inside me... I like the Minolta lens better thanks to its better (as in smoother) bokeh making the background a notch less distracting. How good the prices were not the other way round... ;)

/Jonas
 
K

kahren

New member
i like the colors on the 2nd one more, but the first pic has better bokeh, overall i think i prefer the 2nd pic more. than again if you bought these to use wide open the story may change when you shoot them wide open
 
Jonathon Delacour

Jonathon Delacour

Subscriber Member
Jonas said:
I love lens comparisons. The nerd inside me... I like the Minolta lens better thanks to its better (as in smoother) bokeh making the background a notch less distracting. How good the prices were not the other way round... ;)

/Jonas
Click to expand...
I agree with everyone so far that the Minolta's bokeh is better than that of the Sears. But it's certainly not 3.39 (39/11.5) times better. ;)
 
A

Abbazz

Guest
Jonathon Delacour said:
I agree with everyone so far that the Minolta's bokeh is better than that of the Sears. But it's certainly not 3.39 (39/11.5) times better. ;)
Click to expand...
It's always like that for lenses: you never get twice the quality from a lens costing twice the price!

Cheers!

Abbazz
 
biglouis

biglouis

Well-known member
I can't see much of a difference. Both are very good at this size. Perhaps at a pixel peeping level they might be different. Be interested to see a comparison with the 20/1.7. The more I use that lens the less I am interested in mounting anything else.

Out of interest, what bayonet does the Minolta come in and what adapter do you use?

LouisB
 
J

jwestra

Guest
I think the bokeh on the Minolta is much better for this type of shot.
 
P

Pat Donnelly

New member
Yes, the Minolta is superior. The Sears (possibly a Ricoh?) is very good, but with one or two exceptions, all 50mm lenses are good. The additional performance by the Minolta and the wider aperture, particularly for portraiture, easily justify the price differential.

That said, a cheap, throw away, lens is always useful, if there is a chance of damage, the smaller profile size and given the lesser weight, very much in keeping with the mobility profile of m4/3.

Useful test, thanks!

Perhaps when you have time, a faster aperture for both? A polarizing filter is almost as good as an ND for allowing wider aperture?
 
Ario Arioldi

Ario Arioldi

Member
Abbazz said:
It's always like that for lenses: you never get twice the quality from a lens costing twice the price!

Cheers!

Abbazz
Click to expand...
The problem is about how to measure the quality and to asses that one is twice or just fifty percent more then the other one:)
Cheers,
Ario
 
Ron Evers

Ron Evers

New member
Thanks for the replys folks.

I honestly did not see a difference but you folks obviously do. What a treat to have "too much light" after the native lenses being so damn slow.

I have a 52mm neutral density filter that will fit the Sears but the Minolta is 49mm. I will check to see if I have a 49-52 adapter ring & try shooting both lenses wide open. I know I have a 52-58 but that is no help in this case.
 
pellicle

pellicle

New member
Ron

not as much as I saw between FD and OM both 50 1.8

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2009/06/comparing-legacy-35mm-adapted-fifties.html

and definitely not as much as between the FD 1.8 and the 1.4 (even at 2.8)

but you'll never get two lenses to look the same.

This is of course the beauty of the digital cameras, you can compare lenses and get rid of more of the variables such as film stock variation and processing. Make sure you set the white balance manually or you'll see differences there too ... I've found that surprisingly noticeable just by changing the angle of view or the composition a tiny amount when checking out lenses.

:)
 
Ron Evers

Ron Evers

New member
Thanks for that link pellicle, it was interesting indeed.

The Minolta 50/1.4 has great reviews & that is why I bought it, the Sears 50/2.0 was cheap & that is why I bought it.

I think there is a perception that if a lens is branded by a department store it is crap. Well, I am willing to take a chance for a few $ to find out. This is my third Sears lens & all cost me less than $25 including shipping (50/2.0, 135/2.8 & 80-200/4.0) & I do not regret purchasing any of them. Good fun.
 
P

PeterB666

Member
The Minolta certainly does seem a little sharper (more detailed) & does have better bokeh. Two good lenses and the Sears is certainly the bargain but considering you are getting a full stop faster lens with the Minolta, that too should be considered a bargain as that extra speed cost just $27.50. With new lenses of that focal lenght, you pay between $200 and $300 for that extra stop in speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top