Camera Labs

I found a Minolta AF 50MM 1.7 for cheap. I'm pretty sure that for the $60, I can't go wrong. What I'm wondering is about how the lens works with an APS-C CCD. With the 1.5x of the APS-C, am I to assume that I would get the same magnification as setting my kit lens to 75MM?

In practical use, is this something I would enjoy or should I be looking to get something wider to get me closer to 50MM output? I'm looking for someone to tell me their experience and uses with a setup similar to what I mentioned above. Thanks.

_________________
Sony A300; DT 18-70mm; SAL 75-300mm

Any lens through your sensor is multiplied be a focal factor of 1.5 to see what the equivalent lens would see on a full frame camera. So this lens at 50mm sees what your kit lens sees at 50mm.

If you were to need this same focal length on a full frame camera, say the a900, this is then you would need a 50mm x 1.5 = 75mm lens, for the same angle of view.

Many people swear by a 50mm on this kind of camera. It for me is too long for general use and I use it as a portrait lens and instead a 35mm lens for walking around.

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

Thanks, Jeremy. I should have figured that out on my own, but for some reason I was thinking that there was a possibility that my kit lens already took the 1.5x factor into the settings.

What you say makes sense about the 50mm ending up being a bit long for general use, and that's what I was afraid of. I guess the best thing for me to do is to set my kit lens at 50mm and see how often I'd use it. Portraits seems like a no-brainer. Thanks for the reply.[/quote]

_________________
Sony A300; DT 18-70mm; SAL 75-300mm

Good plan on setting your kit lens to 50mm to see how it feels.

Also forget about the crop factor and what it means. Get used to how 18mm, or 50mm etc feels on your camera. You only need to start to use the crop factor if you keep switching between this camera and a full frame one, which im guessing your not doing

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

Ps for a walk around lens, the sigma 30mm f1.4 may be your best bet

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

You're right. I'm definitely not going between APS-C and full frame. I'm just a consumer with a desire for more versatility. That's why I bought an entry level DSLR.

That Sigma lens looks really cool, but I'm not too wild about the price. I'm going to keep my eyeballs open for a used one. One thing I've quickly found out is that photography can get as costly as collecting cars!! It takes discipline to avoid being tempted into spending a fortune.

_________________
Sony A300; DT 18-70mm; SAL 75-300mm

Ah sorry, didnt think the sigma would be that much. The nikon equivalent is only £150 and sigma lenses are normally about half the price. Thats weird

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

Mind you, the sigma has a LOT of glass inside of it compared to the nikon 35mm F/1.8. Plus the 5mm wider makes it tough to to produce a fast lens. And did I mention the F/1.4 aperture?

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

I've got the 50mm F1.7 and the Sigma 30mm F1.4. I agree that the Sigma 30 is more what the Minolta 50mm was originally designed to be as a prime lens - that 50mm focal length without a crop factor is fairly good for overall walkaround photography, but at 75mm it does become more of a specialized lens for portrait, closeup, or low light work. The Sigma 30mm I can use more as a walkaround lens.

However, for the money I'd definitely recommend picking up the 50mm F1.7. It is quite sharp and usable wide open, which really for me speaks to its primary use - for low light/high ISO shooting. And stopped down, it is razor sharp. It focuses fast, isn't really prone to any CA, and is a pretty decent portrait lens with nice bokeh. At $60-100, it's an easy purchase to justify, even if eventually you end up picking up the Sigma 30mm or something similar.

_________________
Justin Miller
Sony DSLR-A580 / Sony 18-250mm / Minolta 50mm F1.7 / Sigma 30mm F1.4 / Tamron 10-24mm / Tamron 200-500mm / Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro / Minolta 300mm F4 APO
Sony NEX5N / 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 / 55-210mm F4-6.3 / Pentax K adapter / Konica K/AR adapter / bunches o' Konica & Pentax lenses!

Galleries:
http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

I have to agree. For the money it's very hard to go wrong. Not sure I'm willing to spend over $400 for the Sigma just yet, but it sounds like with the Minolta, you can't really go wrong. Worst case scenario - you don't use it and you sell it for what you paid for it.

_________________
Sony A300; DT 18-70mm; SAL 75-300mm