fast 50 for A900

[Hank Graber]

I have the Minolta 50/2.8 macro which I absolutely love but would like a 50/1.4 for low light and I really don't care for the look of the Sony/Minolta 50/1.4. This is a lens I'd only be using instead of the macro in the f/1.4 - 2.8 range so wide open performance and bokeh are the only selection criteria.

Any fast 50's available with mount conversions that have auto-focus?

I could go manual with a Leitax converted Leica R Summilux -a lens I like very much. Leitax also does Contax but I don't care for the bokeh in the Zeiss Planars I've seen.

Any other suggestions?

 

[pegelli]

Only other AF option I know is the Sigma 50/1.4 HSM.
Generally considered a bit "better" (whatever that means) than the Minolta/Sony 50/1.4 but quite a heavy and big beast.
What is it you don't like about the Sony 50/1.4, bokeh?

 

[Hank Graber]

What is it you don't like about the Sony 50/1.4, bokeh?

Yes all the images I've seen from the Sony/Minolta 50 wide open look god awful to me. I've had at different times a Canon 1.4 and the old Pentax 1.4 and liked the look of both very much. I had the old version 50 M Summilux and loved that as well. Something along those lines would be perfect.

I'd forgotten about the Sigma. It is really ridiculously huge and heavy for a 50. It's the size of a fast 85, which is why I didn't get it last time I looked.

But having considered the available alternatives I think I might be willing to live with the size as the images from the Sigma I've seen look really, really good. It's probably sharper wide open then the Canon I used and the OOF areas I've seen look as smooth or smoother. I've got the Sigma 70 macro and it's excellent.

 

[FlypenFly]

The Sigma 50mm F1.4 also has onion bokeh which I can't stand.

The R-Summilux 50mm F1.4 is probably your best bet or the legendary Rokkor 58mm F1.2, probably the best bokeh I've seen from a 50mm.

The ZF Zeiss 50mm F2 also has quite nice bokeh and the conversion is much easier than a C/Y lens.

 

[Hank Graber]

The Rokkor looks very interesting. Is there a mount conversion or adapter available?

 

[pegelli]

The Rokkor looks very interesting. Is there a mount conversion or adapter available?

<link removed since it is obsolete>

 

[Paratom]

whats so bad about the Sony 50/1.4?
I just bought one and first images didnt look bad to me.

 

[pegelli]

The 50/1.4 has a bit busy and swirly bokeh, so it's a matter of taste.
I have an old Minolta 50/1.4 and it behaves similar but a bit less strong.
Sharpness and resolution is very nice but busy backgrounds can distract.

If I want smooth bokeh I'll put my M summicron 50/2 on a Nex.

 

[Hank Graber]

whats so bad about the Sony 50/1.4?
I just bought one and first images didnt look bad to me.

It's very subjective. With the Leica 50's I preferred the look of the old Summilux even though the new one wiped the floor with it in every objective measurement.

You get fast lenses to shoot wide open, otherwise what's the point of the additional cost and weight. At those apertures a lot of stuff is out of focus in the image and you really need to like the look of those areas for a lens to work for you.

 

[kit laughlin]

Hank, I can tell you that the Sony 50/1.4 absolutely sings on my A850. No conversion, no problems, and it just works. What don't you like about the way it looks, if I may ask?

 

[glenerrolrd]

I have had a lot of great fast 50 s . Based on your criteria ..the Leica Summilux R 60mm is as good as it gets . One of the few lenses I haven t kept and wished I did . I like the rendering as much as the 50 1.4 asph on the M.

But if its bokeh and wide open performance you might consider the 80 summilux R . Wide Open its very similar to the Noct 1.0 and yet as you stop down it is as brilliant as the modern asph . You can convert either lens with the Leitax adapters .

Normally I always start with the desired FOV but few lenses can match the bokeh of the 80 summilux and for available light portraits the 80 works exceptionally well.

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Another option is a Pentax SMC 50/1.4 with an M42 adapter. Mine is slightly soft wide open, which flatters portraits, but at any reasonable shooting aperture it's impeccable. Bokeh is smooth and soft. I think I paid $35 for mine, and it works just fine with a $10 adapter.

 

[Hank Graber]

I have had a lot of great fast 50 s . Based on your criteria ..the Leica Summilux R 60mm is as good as it gets .

That was my standard lens on my old Leica R. One of my all time favs. But that's a 2.8 macro and I have and like the Minolta 50 2.8 macro. I need something around 50 that goes to f/1.4.

My issue with the Sony is I have seen quite a few wide open shots with bokeh that was really not to my liking. It's all down to personal taste. I looked around for more Sigma 1.4 shots wide open and found some disturbing examples of the what FlyPenFly called onion ring bokeh in a Kurt Munger review.

I think I might give the Rokkor 58/1.2 a go. The Minolta macro 2.8 will remain my walking around lens but I wanted something fast and smooth. Specialized for low light wide open stuff. It sounds like just the ticket. I do like the look of many of the old Minolta primes.

 

[kit laughlin]

Hank, I know what you mean, but I shoot mine wide open (where the DOF is really a bit to shallow to be effective if we're talking head and shoulders); and between ƒ2–2.8 otherwise. I am always a bit careful about backgrounds anyway, so I have not noticed this problem. Cheers, KL

 

[pegelli]

Look at the left lower corner of this picture. Not even the busiest background but still a bit funky:


For instance the 135/1.8 does a lot better with the same background:


On the other hand, especially when focussing closer the Minolta 50/1.4 can be very smooth, don't have anything post ready, but could PP some if there's interest.

 

[kit laughlin]

Hello pegelli, I'd like to see an example; I would like to show one or two myself, but I am on the road at present and do not have any of those images with me. cheers kl

 

[pegelli]

No problem Kit, unfortunately all my good examples of closer focus/smoother bokeh are with my A700, so APS-C. It still gives some impression I hope.

Sony 50/1.4 @ f2

Sony 50/1.4 @ f3.5

Minolta 50/1.4 @ f1.7

Minolta 50/1.4 @ f2.8

Minolta 50/1.4 @ f4

Minolta 50/1.4 @ f4.5 (some funkyness creeping in)

 

[glenerrolrd]

Hank. I was referring to the 50 1.4 summilux with the 60mm filter thread. This came out a few years before the M 50 asph . The rendering is just a notch less crisp than the M lens. Look at e puts report on the lens.

But if you prioritize bokeh wide open the 80 lux R has a Noctilux like rendering. For available light portraits this would be my first choice.

That was my standard lens on my old Leica R. One of my all time favs. But that's a 2.8 macro and I have and like the Minolta 50 2.8 macro. I need something around 50 that goes to f/1.4.

My issue with the Sony is I have seen quite a few wide open shots with bokeh that was really not to my liking. It's all down to personal taste. I looked around for more Sigma 1.4 shots wide open and found some disturbing examples of the what FlyPenFly called onion ring bokeh in a Kurt Munger review.

I think I might give the Rokkor 58/1.2 a go. The Minolta macro 2.8 will remain my walking around lens but I wanted something fast and smooth. Specialized for low light wide open stuff. It sounds like just the ticket. I do like the look of many of the old Minolta primes.

 

[Paratom]

It's very subjective. With the Leica 50's I preferred the look of the old Summilux even though the new one wiped the floor with it in every objective measurement.

You get fast lenses to shoot wide open, otherwise what's the point of the additional cost and weight. At those apertures a lot of stuff is out of focus in the image and you really need to like the look of those areas for a lens to work for you.

I dont have enough experience yet with the Sony 50/1.4
However the first shots even at f1.4 didnt look that bad to me bokeh wise.
I had other lenses (Nikon 50/1.4d for example) which looked worse to me.
I also have the Sigma 50/1.4 and the bokeh might be a little smoother but I am not so sure about the color.
And yes....I am also one of those who doesnt find the new 50/1.4asph clinical.

 

[JimU]

I had the exact same problem as you. I didn't find anything really bad about the Minolta 50/1.4 AF, it was just too plain jane for me. Here's the chronology of my journey:

January 2007: Sony a100
March 2008: Minolta 50/2.8 RS
August 2008: Minolta 58/1.2 MC Rokkor PG
October 2008: Sony a900
July 2009: Leica 50/2 R E55
November 2010: Zeiss 50/2 ZF.1
June 2011: Leica 50/1.4 R E55

The Minolta 50/2.8 is decent, contrast, resolution, but cool colour and slow.

The Minolta 58/1.2 is beautiful, lush colour, but dizzy bokeh until f/2 and my copy is low resolution & no contrast wide open

The Leica 50/2 R is technically very good, but slow and despite a mandler design lacks the "glow"

the zeiss 50/2 is all about resolution & contrast. Despite the astronomical hype I don't think I like the zeiss colour. I don't see the "3D" holy grail.

The Leica 50/1.4 R definately has the glow. I'm still learning it in terms of contrast, resolution colour, but it is everything I expected.