Cheap prime recomendation

[ST1100]

Posting for a fren.

i don't use minolta stuff, so would appreciate some help.

Looking for a cheap minolta prime, something like Canon's 50/1.8, ~$140. Is there an equivalent minolta version? How much is it, and (better still) anyone want to let go of one? Thanx.

 

[Zerstorer]

Minolta AF 50mm f1.7 with 49mm filter thread. Sharp even at f1.7 but mild light falloff which disappears when stepped down 1 stop.

Not sure of current price.

 

[Nightshade]

I'm afraid the following prices are in USD, but that's the best I can do.

Retail, the 50mm 1.7 is $75, and the 50mm 1.4 is $220.

Used, (esp. on Ebay) the 1.7 is $35 and I purchased the 1.4 in excellent++ condition for $75. Well worth it for both, as they are exceptional lenses.

Hope that helps.

 

[ST1100]

Originally posted by Nightshade
I'm afraid the following prices are in USD, but that's the best I can do.

Retail, the 50mm 1.7 is $75, and the 50mm 1.4 is $220.

Used, (esp. on Ebay) the 1.7 is $35 and I purchased the 1.4 in excellent++ condition for $75. Well worth it for both, as they are exceptional lenses.

Hope that helps.

Thanx Nightshade. More or less exactly what i'm looking for. Will hunt around the shops locally.

 

[bja]

yea... the 50mm 1.7 was my first prime and after that, i don't even touch my zoom lens anymore!!
the 50mm 1.7 is a really good buy... if ur fren's budget is limited then just get the 50mm f1.7 instead of the f1.4.. the difference will only when there's extreme low light...

 

[Snowcrash]

Brand new about $175... since it is not as hot selling as canon one

 

[TME]

Originally posted by ST1100
Thanx Nightshade. More or less exactly what i'm looking for. Will hunt around the shops locally.

Try 2nd hand if u can get it. The f/1.4 does not have a metal mount I think. The f/1.7 has the metal mount. It's more durable I guess. I got a very new f/1.7 for $160 from TCW. So u decide if u want the metal mount or a faster f/1.4 lens for slightly more.

 

[Juvelyn]

this is quite a basic qn:
Understand that 50mm prime lens supposed to mirror exactly what your eye sees

Does this mean 50mm prime would produce different image (larger/smaller, prob brighter cos' of larger aperture) than 50mm on a 35-70mm lens?

Thanks

 

[forbytes]

Originally posted by TME
Try 2nd hand if u can get it. The f/1.4 does not have a metal mount I think. The f/1.7 has the metal mount. It's more durable I guess. I got a very new f/1.7 for $160 from TCW. So u decide if u want the metal mount or a faster f/1.4 lens for slightly more.

I have a full metal mount and barrel 50/1.4 with the 49mm diameter. So it does exist. No offence please.

 

[ST1100]

50mm prime and 50mm on 35-70 (or 28-300) same angle of view - 50mm, theoretically. Differences would be due to degree of distortion, optical quality, flare, etc.

Generally, primes much faster, cheaper, and sharper when stopped down.

 

[TME]

Originally posted by forbytes
I have a full metal mount and barrel 50/1.4 with the 49mm diameter. So it does exist. No offence please.

Point taken. I was not sure since that was what i was told when I was scouting around for the 50mm.

 

[Snowcrash]

Originally posted by ST1100
50mm prime and 50mm on 35-70 (or 28-300) same angle of view - 50mm, theoretically. Differences would be due to degree of distortion, optical quality, flare, etc.

Generally, primes much faster, cheaper, and sharper when stopped down.

And it is Brighter too when you view thru your viewfinder on a 50mm f1.7 compare to 50mm (f3.5~f4) on a normal f35-70mm zoom.

 

[TME]

Yupe it's brighter since the SLRs always default to the largest aperture before the shutter is released.

 

[Nightshade]

Ach! Don't spread such filthy, filthy lies about the 1.4!! : ) lol, jk. But it's definitely a metal mount, as it's sitting on the desk next to me.

Yes, a 50mm lens mirrors what your eye sees, be it on a 50-500, a 24-105 or a fixed 50, with one notable exception:

the viewfinder on most cameras will shrink the image down. So what you -see- is smaller than what the camera is actually going to record. That is all. Trust in the lens. hehehe

 

[TME]

Originally posted by Nightshade
Ach! Don't spread such filthy, filthy lies about the 1.4!! : ) lol, jk. But it's definitely a metal mount, as it's sitting on the desk next to me.

Yes, a 50mm lens mirrors what your eye sees, be it on a 50-500, a 24-105 or a fixed 50, with one notable exception:

the viewfinder on most cameras will shrink the image down. So what you -see- is smaller than what the camera is actually going to record. That is all. Trust in the lens. hehehe

I know the Dynx 7 has a 90+% (I think 97%) viewfinder. But I thot the Dynx 9's viewfinder is 100%, what is u is what u get? So there is no shrinkage so to speak? I mean that was the advantage of using higher end SLRs or even SLRs for that matter right? TTL viewfinders with 100% view? Am I right? Or am I just dun what I am talking about?? Please advice!

 

[Zerstorer]

Originally posted by TME
I know the Dynx 7 has a 90+% (I think 97%) viewfinder. But I thot the Dynx 9's viewfinder is 100%, what is u is what u get? So there is no shrinkage so to speak? I mean that was the advantage of using higher end SLRs or even SLRs for that matter right? TTL viewfinders with 100% view? Am I right? Or am I just dun what I am talking about?? Please advice!

For viewfinders, there are 2 numbers to take note, first is the % which tells you the percentage of the film area you are seeing. Next is the magnification factor(typically about 0.75X) which tells you the actual size you are seeing.

So for a Dynax 9, it may be something like 100% (0.75X) for example.(Plucked those numbers out of memory, someone confirm.)

 

[TME]

So when Nightshade says "shrink", does he mean the view from the viewfinder is smaller than what we see with our own eyes but 100% of the scene or does he mean that the viewfinder shows u an image smaller than what is captured on the film but 100% of the scene? I hope that I'm not confusing anyone??

 

[Zerstorer]

I'd reckon that he's referring the magnification factor. If he meant the viewfinder/film viewing area he would have used the word "crop" instead of "shrink".

 

[TME]

Originally posted by Zerstorer
I'd reckon that he's referring the magnification factor. If he meant the viewfinder/film viewing area he would have used the word "crop" instead of "shrink".

Hmm........ yupe u're right, crop would be the correct technical term...... it escaped me for a moment........ kekeke thanks! Helps clarify the issue and helped me learn something new!

 

[Nightshade]

Zerstorer and TME, you're both correct.

I don't know any camera that has a 1.00x multiplication factor, but the Maxxum/Dynax 9's viewfinder certainly shows the whole scene (I wish I had one.) My 7 doesn't quite show me everything (crop), and it shrinks it down a little (.75x, I believe) but daaamn is it a pretty viewfinder to look through. The editors at Photo.net simply love it, too. : )