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!

50mm/f1.4 Sony vs Minolta

LoSenior

New member
I'm thinking about buying a 50 /f1.4 lens. I'm going to buy a Sony or a used Minolta. I've read a couple reviews and they seem to be pretty close in the ratings.
I have a lead on a Minolta for $225.00.
I'm asking for your experience using either of these lenses and if you would be able to post some pictures.

Thanks, Jerry
 

douglasf13

New member
I traded my original Minolta 50 1.4 for the Sony, because it is a bit better wide open, and it has a circular aperture. I've never used the Minolta RS version.
 

gsking

New member
There are three versions...two Minolta and one Sony.

The first Minolta version has a 49mm filter and a built-in hood. Due to the proximity of the front element to the front of the lens, and the unusual filter size, I'd avoid this one.

The RS version, like the Sony, has a 55mm filter thread and a bayonet hood. The Sony has better coatings and ADI. In my tests, the two lenses were identical in performance.

$225 is decent for an RS, if it has the hood.

Greg
 

LoSenior

New member
Doug&Asking,
Thanks for the information. The Minolta is a Maxxum 50mm /f1.4. How can I tell if it's a RS version? I guess you can tell the difference by the filter size? It looks just like the Sony.
The Minolta is about 50 miles from where I live and is suppose to be in like new condition. The pictures of the Minolta look very good, but no hood.
Jerry
 
Last edited:

gsking

New member
Yea, the tell is the filter size...but from far away, you can tell if the glass is flush with the front (old model), or slightly recessed (new model).

LOL..."asking". Darn, I gotta tell them to quit underlining my name and cutting off the tail on the "g". Makes me sound less wise. ;)

Good luck!
Greg
 

edwardkaraa

New member
There are probably no visible differences in performance between the latest Minolta version and the Sony, except for ADI and better coatings as mentioned by Greg. The only additional advantage of the Sony I can think of, which for me is quite important, is that the product is current and under warranty.
 

roweraay

New member
Note that there was a post from a user who noted that having ADI compatibilty not only provides ADI flash compatibility but also fine-tunes the response of the SSS (super-steady-shot) mechanism by using the distance information transmitted by the 3-extra contact points of the D-type (or ADI compatible) lens.

Also, unlike the original design intent (ADI flash compatibility), there are additional functions that the 3 extra contact points of a D-type lens does, including allowing the back-and-forth communication necessary with an SSM lens. Obviously this means that AF is also being fine-tuned via the distance information transmitted via the D-type lens.

Bottomline, I personally would pay the additional money for a D-type lens, if I have a choice. Obviously when it comes to the 100/2 or the 35mm f/2, there is no D-type alternative and hence there is no choice there.

Among the Alpha 50mm f/1.4 lenses, only the Sony version is D-type with all others being non-D. Among the 50mm f/2.8 Macro alternatives, the Sony is D-type and the later KM alternatives were also D-type.
 

LoSenior

New member
Thanks to all that responded, I decided to go with the Sony.
But, I got a little off course at this time. A Forum member was selling a CZ 85 and I just couldn't pass it up. The Sony is next, I should have the CZ 85 by Monday.
Again, Thanks.
Jerry
 
Top