Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[havoc315]

Very much amateur photog here with a question. I have a Sony a55 camera and among the lens I have is a Sony 50mm f/1.8. I was debating on getting a 50mm f/1.4. I will use either lens for primarily dark rides at WDW. Is there enough of a difference between the two to justify the purchase? My skills leave a lot to be desired and need more practice but I'd rather practice with the f/1.4 if it will be that much better. TIA for you comments, info and tips.

The 1.4 is a slightly sharper lens and is fractionally faster.

Whether it's worth the difference in price is pretty subjective. But in terms of getting decent dark ride shots, it won't be a big difference maker.
I'd probably stick with the 1.8.

If I then wanted to invest in another lens particularly for dark rides, get the Sony 35/1.8. Exceptional quality lens for a bargain price. And the 35mm will be better for dark rides than 50. On a crop body like the a55, the 50 isn't really wide enough.

 

[HPS3]

I agree with Havoc, the 50 is just not wide enough for me. I'm going to vote for the Sony 35 or the upcoming Sigma 30 f1.4 ART series. The Sigma 30 has great sharpness and bokeh.

 

[havoc315]

I agree with Havoc, the 50 is just not wide enough for me. I'm going to vote for the Sony 35 or the upcoming Sigma 30 f1.4 ART series. The Sigma 30 has great sharpness and bokeh.

Based on the reputation of the ART lenses, I have no doubt it's exceptional. But it could be a long wait for a-mount availability. Plus, it will cost a lot more than the Sony 35/1.8 which is an exceptional value lens. Cheap lens in a cheap plastic body, with a very very good optical performance. Center sharp wide open, and sharp corner to corner at 5.6. A little light fall off, but you won't notice that on dark rides.
When shooting aps-c on Sony, it would be hard for me to rationalize spending more than the cost of the Sony 35. Other lenses may be better, but how much better.

 

[havoc315]

Evening Sky in Crozet Suburbs by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

duplicate posting

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Very much amateur photog here with a question. I have a Sony a55 camera and among the lens I have is a Sony 50mm f/1.8. I was debating on getting a 50mm f/1.4. I will use either lens for primarily dark rides at WDW. Is there enough of a difference between the two to justify the purchase? My skills leave a lot to be desired and need more practice but I'd rather practice with the f/1.4 if it will be that much better. TIA for you comments, info and tips.

I have the Sony 50mm f/1.4 and DH has the Minolta 50mm f/1.7. I'd be hard pressed to state it would be enough of a difference to justify getting the 1.4 if you already have the 1.8 unless you had thoughts in the future of getting a full frame camera. I've use 1.4 a fair amount and do like the lens and I'm one of the few people on the boards that seems to prefer the 50mm's over the 35mm's on the dark rides, even on the aps-c camera's but the gain you'll see between the 1.4 and the 1.8 would be very minimal. The f/1.4 is not a design that's had any recent updates and is mostly based on the the Minolta version. Actually if I were looking at a 50mm 1.4 today I'd probably be getting the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM which is a more recently updated lens compared to the Sony.

The Sigma 50mm ART lens looks very very interesting but that's taking it up to another level on pricing.

 

[fractal]

 

[Hockeyman]

Havoc - The color of the sky in that picture is out of this world. Fantastic

 

[Hockeyman]

When this baby hits 88MPH your going to see some serious . . by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

When this baby hits 88MPH your going to see some serious . . by Mike Sperduto, on Flickr

Haven't seen a Delorean in years... nice shot.

 

[havoc315]

April flowers by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[fractal]

 

[Hockeyman]

Havoc, what lens did you use for that shot?

 

[havoc315]

Havoc, what lens did you use for that shot?

Minolta 200/2.8 APO.... The most optically perfect lens I've ever seen, except for CA. (The lens is 28 years old, I can take some CA!).
Bokeh is nearly perfect.
It is totally sharp across the entire frame, even wide open.

Same lens, but this was pretty heavily cropped:

leonardpark-36.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[havoc315]

Minolta 200/2.8 APO.... The most optically perfect lens I've ever seen, except for CA. (The lens is 28 years old, I can take some CA!).
Bokeh is nearly perfect.
It is totally sharp across the entire frame, even wide open.

Same lens, but this was pretty heavily cropped:

leonardpark-36.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

ok, weird.. suddenly can't post flickr images?

 

[havoc315]

same lens, extreme crop.

untitled-93.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[Hockeyman]

How much those lenses going for these days?

 

[havoc315]

How much those lenses going for these days?

Mine is the original version. Glass is perfect but the body has a superficial crack and the focus limiter knob is broken off, and I got it for $600.
Thought it was a really good price at the time, but then I just saw on the dyxum classifieds, someone sell a high speed version of the lens with no apparent flaws for $600.

Most eBay list prices are $800+, but obviously cheaper buying opportunities arise.
While a 70-200/2.8 (or the old Minolta 80-200/2.8) might be more useful and optically quite good, it wouldn't totally be able to match this lens, and would be much heavier and larger. It's about the same size as my Minolta beercan.

 

[havoc315]

The birdhouse by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[fractal]

scramble to rope-drop...