Comparison of KM 50mm 1.4, 1.7 and 2.8 Macro

[tankm]

Sharpnest comparison between 50mm 1.4, 1.7 and 2.8.

http://www.vikenk.com/lens_test_3.htm

The 50mm f2.8 seems to be the best of the three, follows by the 1.7 and last the 1.4. The 1.4 is currently price much much higher than the 1.7. :dunno:

 

[tankm]

More lens sharpnest comparison......this is interesting to see how different is the G against the normal D version......:sweat:

Minolta 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (D) vs. Minolta 28-75mm f/2.8 (D) vs. Minolta 28-70 f/2.8 G
http://www.vikenk.com/lens_test_1.htm

 

[zcf]

Sharpnest comparison between 50mm 1.4, 1.7 and 2.8.

http://www.vikenk.com/lens_test_3.htm

The 50mm f2.8 seems to be the best of the three, follows by the 1.7 and last the 1.4. The 1.4 is currently price much much higher than the 1.7. :dunno:

From the test, if you talk about wide open, sure f/2.8>f/1.7>f/1.4.
But to my amateur view, I think for the centre:
f/1.4 lens is sharper than f/1.7 lens at f/2.0 and f/2.8 (even sharper than the wide open f/2.8 macro lens).
I also suspect f/1.4 lens is also sharper if both measure at f/1.7.
At f/5.6 on the f/2.8 macro lens seem to take the lead.

For the corner:
f/1.4 lens also seem to be better at f/2.0 and f/2.8.
At f/5.6 on the f/2.8 macro lens take the lead again.
The macro lens also seem to handle purple fringe better.

 

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

From the test, if you talk about wide open, sure f/2.8>f/1.7>f/1.4.
But to my amateur view, I think for the centre:
f/1.4 lens is sharper than f/1.7 lens at f/2.0 and f/2.8 (even sharper than the wide open f/2.8 macro lens).
I also suspect f/1.4 lens is also sharper if both measure at f/1.7.
At f/5.6 on the f/2.8 macro lens seem to take the lead.

For the corner:
f/1.4 lens also seem to be better at f/2.0 and f/2.8.
At f/5.6 on the f/2.8 macro lens take the lead again.
The macro lens also seem to handle purple fringe better.

macro takes its lead when u go closer, not further...

 

[zcf]

macro takes its lead when u go closer, not further...

True ho, at macro length, confirm both f/1.4 & 1.7 get out of focus blur liao :bsmilie:
May be can add extension tube then compare. :think:

 

[fastshot]

According to the tester, he had used AF for the tests. I think AF itself introduced another variable to the sharpness test because of AF inconsistency from shot to shot and also for different lenses. Manual focusing should be used to ensure a fairer basis for the tests, preferably with the aid of a viewfinder magnifier.

Subjectively, I think the 50/1.4 is sharp and smooth in the centre, but not in the same league as the 85/1.4, 135 STF & 200F2.8APO. The new 28-75/2.8D does a very good job throughout the range that owning a 50/1.4 or 1.7 is really redundant except for shooting in very low light and wide open.

 

[sulhan]

Hiee...Pals...

Looks like for wide to mid range....the newer lens with better coatings to meet the needs of digital imagers (CCD/CMOS) glass shine surface would obviously perform better on digital.
However, older lens like the wide angle G lens 17-35mm...may not perfom as good on digital.

However, for longer focal length lens like 200m primes from the older series where the last glass element may be further away form the image plane...the problem should be less ghosting hence "sharper" and less ghosting.

e.g Even the 135mm f2.8 old version....may give ghosting for specific front strong lighting.

So the test examples may not be that fair example as there is a strong one sided main source based on his/her setup. This increases the possible one sided flaring/ghosting.

http://www.vikenk.com/lens_test/test_layout.jpg

This examples are like using the Sigma 70-200 EX APO non DG for DSLR - you may find softness due to ghosting at wide apertures...

I'm sure Sony is aware of this and high chance newer Digital lens coming up soon....

 

[zcf]

According to the tester, he had used AF for the tests. I think AF itself introduced another variable to the sharpness test because of AF inconsistency from shot to shot and also for different lenses. Manual focusing should be used to ensure a fairer basis for the tests, preferably with the aid of a viewfinder magnifier.

Subjectively, I think the 50/1.4 is sharp and smooth in the centre, but not in the same league as the 85/1.4, 135 STF & 200F2.8APO. The new 28-75/2.8D does a very good job throughout the range that owning a 50/1.4 or 1.7 is really redundant except for shooting in very low light and wide open.

I have both 50mm f/1.4 and 28-75mm f/2.8, should I sell away the 50mm then :sweat:, except for portrait shots for the bokeh or sharpness, I don't use it nowaday.

 

[pai]

I have both 50mm f/1.4 and 28-75mm f/2.8, should I sell away the 50mm then :sweat:, except for portrait shots for the bokeh or sharpness, I don't use it nowaday.

do you use the 28-75 a lot instead? or do u generally go wider or more tele, and not really use that range much?

 

[zcf]

do you use the 28-75 a lot instead? or do u generally go wider or more tele, and not really use that range much?

I use 28-75 want sharp image and something like indoor shoot or traveling (company with 10-20mm). If not just bring 24-85mm casual events shoot (If I don't want to carry too many lens).
But generally I carry the 18-200mm or 10-20mm, unless I know what I am going to shoot.

 

[tankm]

Looks like you got lots of nice lens sitting in the dry cabinet if you use 18-200 so often...:bsmilie:

For my casual shooting, most of the time will be 17-35 & 28-75 and add 70-210 f4 if think there will be a need for longer reach. If lazy to swap lens, will use the 18-125 + 80-400 combo.

I use 28-75 want sharp image and something like indoor shoot or traveling (company with 10-20mm). If not just bring 24-85mm casual events shoot (If I don't want to carry too many lens).
But generally I carry the 18-200mm or 10-20mm, unless I know what I am going to shoot.