Minolta AF 5014 or 5017

[dirk]

Hi,

I am looking for a FFL with 50mm. I would like to hear your experiences between these two lenses: the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.7, both AF

I would be intersted above all in the image quality. Which is better and is this difference significant or almost not visible?

Construction/robustness is a second issue. I also plan to use it often in manual focus mode and rarley in AF. Is it difficult to use it in MF or still acceptable?

Thanks in advance

Dirk

 

[Jim]

Hi Dirk,
I am also looking for a comparison between these two lenses. I have 2 zoom lenses I purchased with my Maxxum 7 but would like to have a single lens of this size for general use. I am also interested in use of a Macro but have heard 100mm or above lenses are better for this. Not sure why, though. Can anyone help here?
Thanks,
Jim

 

[honenshonin]

I use the 50mm 1.4, and it is excellent in both MF and AF situations. The MF is particularly useful, given the narrow depth of field at 1.4. I like to do candids of my friends in incandescent-lit pubs without flash (using 1600 speed film), and having that wide aperture really helps in making the most of available light.

Unfortunately, I've never used the 1.7, so I can't give you any useful comparison. I noticed that the price differential is quite significant, though. I'm curious to hear more on this from someone who has tried them both...

 

[luiz]

Hi guys!
I have used the 50mm 1.4 MD lens for more than 20 years and it is perfect (used in my XD7 and X700 cameras)
I bought the 50mm 1.7 AF together with my Maxxum 7. No claim. It is also easy in both MF or AF.
However, the one I am in love with is a 85mm 1.4 that I bought some weeks ago.
Besides all technics, it is extremely beautiful!!!

God bless you all!

Luiz

 

[honenshonin]

Luiz,

I'm right where you are. I just bought the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.4 with my new 7--needless to say, I'll be broke for some time to come. But I'm taking the best pictures I've ever taken. And the 85mm really is sexy, what with all that glass...a bit slow, but the best things come to those who wait.

 

[dirk]

I read in some tests, that both, the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.7 are too soft in the image when shooting at biggest aperture in available light. Also the image quality would drop significantly from the center towards the corners.

Can anybody confirm this? With which aperture I get really good results? I want to use the lens for available light shots only and need very good image quality at 1.4 with a ISO 100 film (Provia 100F).

If I would use higher ISO, then image quality is decreasing just because of the film and above Iso 400 it is not nice anymore.

Any comments are welcome...

 

[honenshonin]

Dirk,

I think you ought to be O.K. with the 1.4, 100 speed film, and available light, but only if it's not too dark!

It's a great leans. I think the "softness" factor is mostly the concern of obsessive-compulsive types with loupes. The depth of field issue is, I feel, a much bigger issue in practice. It is as much a liability as it is an asset. I love taking pictures in dimly-lit places, but it gets annoying having to put all of my subjects in the same plane.

 

[tgoldy]

Dirk, I try this lenses.

For me a better is a 1,7/50 AF second generation... A 1,4/50 first generation is good but very expensive !

In MF lenses, I use 2/50 MD (little price, big quality !!!!) and the wonderful 1,4/58 MC Rokkor-PG. A better Minolta 50mm for me.

Thierry from France