Review of the Minolta AF 50mm f / 1.7 for Radozhiva prepared Sergey Dorodnykh (https://vk.com/morphinephotography).
Minolta MAXXUM AF 50 F1.7 - a lens with a fixed focal length and maximum aperture f / 1.7, manufactured from 1985 to 1990. (In 1990, it was replaced by a slightly improved version with the RS index, produced until 2006)
It has a Minolta A mount, suitable for Sony A DSLR cameras. The lens does not have its own AF motor, so focusing is carried out from the built-in motor in the camera. Focusing is fast, but quite noisy and sometimes a little shaky.
The body is assembled quite efficiently and firmly from plastic and metal, the bayonet is metal, there is no rubber seal. There is a window for distance scales. AF / MF switch - missing. A small bonus - a built-in hood!
Specifications:
- Focal Length 50mm
- Equivalent focal length (for APS-C) 75 mm
- Optical design: 6 elements in 5 groups
- Field of view: 47 degrees (32 degrees on APS-C cameras)
- Number of aperture blades 7, unrounded
- Minimum focusing distance: 0,45 m
- Maximum magnification: 0,15x
- Filter Diameter: 49 mm
- Minimum Aperture: f / 22
- Dimensions (diameter * length): 65 * 39 mm
- Weight: 186 gram
- Hood: integrated, retractable
I used this copy for about a year in conjunction with the full-frame Sony a850 and I can describe my impressions. (I did not test on cameras with APS-C)
The first thing to note is the lack of sharpness further from the center of the frame when shooting at f / 1.7. If you decide to shoot a half-length portrait of three people, then be prepared that only the face of the person in the center will be clear. With a full-height portrait, the situation is the same, the sharpness will be somewhere in the center, the legs and face of the person will suffer from a lack of detail. Plus, vignetting is added to this, quite strong, but this is inherent in many high-aperture fixes. The situation in detail and vignetting improves at f / 2, but at f / 2.8 it becomes very good, at f / 5.6 it is excellent.
Chromatic aberrations appear on contrasting objects, most often blue and green, do not deliver any special inconvenience and are easily edited in editors.
Minolta AF 50 f / 1.7 does not like the office light - glare appears, but the strongest drop in contrast in the picture interferes most of all. In the photo below, I give an example of the failure of the lens in backlight. The image was processed in Capture One Pro using local masks. With such results, it will not be possible to process photos in batches, since each one has to be approached individually and worked out in detail in order to save it.
Bokeh is not for everybody. You need to carefully select the background if you like soft unobtrusive bokeh, in other cases you will most likely see ghosting of contrasting objects and their hard borders. But sometimes you get just amazing pictures with a very pleasant background blur.
Distortion, surprisingly, does not rush into the eyes and does not spoil portrait shots, although it is present.
All photos are displayed in Capture One Pro without any corrections.
Pros:
- Small size and weight.
- High-quality assembly.
- Minor chromatic aberration.
- Low price in the secondary market.
Cons:
- Lack of detail on the open aperture at the edges of the frame.
- Strong enough vignetting in the open.
- Poor backlit performance.
Source files in 'RAW' format can be download from this link.
Conclusion:
Minolta AF 50 f / 1.7 - will not impress you with optical quality, but will like its low price. The lens is suitable for amateur photographers and enthusiasts who are not involved in commercial photography. But there are not so many autofocus lenses for a full frame in the Sony / Minolta system, at a price of less than $ 100, so I think every budget amateur should try this lens, perhaps you will like it and leave it in your arsenal forever.
The review was prepared by Sergey Dorodnykh specially for the site Radojuva.com.ua
Hello.
Although an old review, I decided to comment.
The author simply dismissed it, decided to do it for show, but it is not clear for which one.
Moreover, I used such a gorgeous camera as the Sony A850 with its excellent color rendering matrix, which has an excellent dynamic range.
Yes, the Sony A850 is a really great camera for portrait and landscape photography, the disadvantage is that it is not suitable for reportage shooting due to its low serial speed.
In short, the "surveyor" is simply non-Copenhagen in terms of the capabilities of this camera.
Photos are comparable to a conventional soap dish.
It is a pity that Arkady missed this review.
PS. The matrix of the camera is really gorgeous. Sonev's matrices are also used by other companies, including Nikon /
I will also add to my remark - “It's not difficult for me to make a couple / three reviews yet” - These are the words of the author, and that says it all….
Arkady, we don't need such reviews !!!
and similar ones are no longer published
Arkady hello!
Stumbled upon this review by accident.
And now I found your review of this lens, a professional review.
This is another matter.
Sorry for the comments to your address.
"... let everyone be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger .."
But this is already something !!! I may need a cheap option for my close ones exactly shooting (1.5-3) meters and such a comment to help me - how to buy something for the first time without overpaying. As for the author of the first review, yes, superficially. But more than 70% do this, so do not criticize too much. Of course, it is useful to know the comparison, and when you compare it with a macro 100mm, you begin to understand what kind of specimen it is.
Thanks to Sergey for a concise and collected, at the same time, review. Haven't visited Arkady's site for a long time.
A good studio that transmits in general. Well done.
Concerning XX and so on.
It is necessary to note the main thing. Plastic focal helicoid on samples, starting from the 86th, almost everywhere. It's like a masterpiece from af Canon in the first years of release. There, too, a year on metal, then plastic (which is the first lower zoom, very optical, by the way).
What does this mean, do you think? That's right, the grease dries up, and the mechanism wedges. Well, if they do not try to crank by force. If they turn it around, that's it, we are looking for a donor. The same plastic.
In general, the recommendation is not to look for metal, but simply either protect it from fur damage, or disassemble, clean and re-lubricate with silicone.
Will last another 35+, or until the plume dies. It, in turn, can be soldered to a new one. No problem. Unlike the first boots, where over time all the plastic wakes up, there is no screwdriver and a jump rope on the diaphragm, Minolta goes through prevention and works on. Also, the lenses of the boots are soldered, by the way, so it’s generally a quiet horror. Distracted.
Briefly speaking. Yes. This is a transcription of the old manual from MD to af, with the same scheme, and very successful. The lens is eternal, if it is not purposefully destroyed, flooded, and so on.
He, as in a wonderful review from Arkady, is the first among others, at af at the dawn of 1985. Just think about how Minolta was ahead of her time. He was beautiful then, he remains magical now.
Vladislav perfectly developed his thought, in the comments under the review of Arkady, read it, very interesting, for those who are not in the subject.
Regarding the optical properties. And not only.
Yes, problems with mc.
Yes, noisy.
Yes, it is inconvenient to turn the handles.
Yes, before the first fall.
Guys, but they work! Until now, and more to come. As many.
...
Excellent sharpness already from the first stop, by 4.0 on mine it’s already a razor, 5.6 can probably be re-shot in macro negatives, it’s no longer possible for a female portrait))).
50 is a great multi-format, shoot what and how you want.
Autofocus after cleaning and alignment works perfectly, not as fast as the new G, of course, but so what do we compare with.
What to buy? New alpha or old minolta? There is no answer and cannot be. The old one costs a penny, it did, I bought mine for 30 units for a bulkhead, I was lucky and the helicoid turned out to be intact.
New? Rather yes. Although it is a piece of plastic shit, like an old af boot 50 1.8, it will be optically smarter.
Want 1.4? Once again I agree with the statements above. For old minolta 1.4 money, take Sigma 30/1.4 for crop or 50/1.4 for fullka. Not art, ordinary. To whom for a photo. For video, art.
I do not know.
I really like the old Minolt af glasses. Quality. Optics. maintainability. The most difficult of them is the old man, here's how to mod him for the first time put out the light. Toddlers and fixes from 50 and above - nothing at all. Oh fast and easy.
Once again. Compared to af Pentax, Canon and Nikon conditionally from the 80s, Minolta has the best quality for every ruble invested. As for me. Canons are as non-repairable as possible, Nikon is still very good, Pentax mechanically sucks, plastic on plastic, although even och in optics. But ... It crumbles inside. As is the boot.
About the 90s is a different story, there is L, top Nikkors, the ongoing fall of Pentax, which managed mechanically only in Limited, and even then with reservations ... Konika drove off with Olympus, and all that.
In short.
Probably, having Alpha, you need to have 50 1.7 or 50 1.4, who cares, a baby 35/70, a beer can and a cell, you can macro. The lower ones are somehow not hello, on the crop Sigma 10-20, on the fullk the lower Sigma, what is there from 16 and above, zoom? Well, you understand.
And so, like a be, a legendary lens.
Excellent performance.
Reliability.
Shooting from 2.0 / 2.2 to 2.8 is already in print, 4.0 and above is a direct thunderstorm).
We choose backgrounds, well, we always choose them and with all lenses.
We hang a hood. The filter is useless. Generally. No UV, no other. And go ahead.
Maintainability - watch your hands - do not roll the focusing helicoid!
I do not know what else to say.
History, legend, must have enivey.
1 / 800 1.7 100