A "standard" lens by definition – Great Value
Written: Sep 28 '01
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Sharp, great low light, fast autofocus, good value.
Cons: Only if you don't think prime lenses are worth carrying.
The Bottom Line: Bottom Line: It’s a good example of a workhorse, bread and butter, staple lens which everyone should own.
|
|
|
| gbraun's Full Review: Konica Minolta Normal AF 50mm f/1.7 Lens |
The Maxxum 50mm f1.7 is a standard lens. Period. Doesn't that make it sound boring? Well, yes it does, and that's really too bad, because this can be quite an exciting lens for the money.
Exciting, you say?
(Skip down to the Nitty-Gritty if you already think you want a 50mm lens, and are wondering how this one compares)
Let’s have a look at what’s implied by “standard lens.” The main reason that this is considered a standard lens is its focal length. In the boom of SLR photography in the 60s, camera kits typically came with a leather ready-case and a fixed focal-length lens ranging from 35mm-55mm at f-stops from 1.4 to 2.0. This was a core component of the market, and manufacturers could not afford to put a complete dog on the market, and so some research money was spent. Wider lenses and faster lenses (50mm 1.2 or 28mm 2.8) were generally outside of the typical consumer experience).
The manufacture of 50mm lenses, which by its nature is not terribly complex (they’re not huge glass, super-wide, or zooming) is well proven.
The reason this range of lenses became standard is that it makes competent casual photography feasible. They’re not wide enough to start causing distortion, but they’re wide enough to take a group shot or pictures of your kids at home. They don’t magnify like a telephoto to the point of compression of subject material, and they’re inexpensive. In fact, if you look through your Minolta with this lens on you’ll notice that you’re seeing approximately what you did without the camera; it’s a fairly natural composition.
Making casual photography easy doesn’t mean that serious photography is prevented, but you have to want to try…
While a compositional field of view that approximates normal viewing by eye allows natural composition, it can also lead to boring photographs. If you’re trying to do more than simply document the scene, you’re going to have to move around a little, but this lens is ready to help. It focuses close (to about 18”). It autofocuses very quickly (thanks in part to the large aperture). It’s light on the camera and easy to position. It’s fast in terms of available light – so doing ambient light only indoor shots becomes possible and easy balancing of flash and ambient becomes possible. It has a large aperture, so you can control depth of field.
Climb a ladder, get down on the ground, get in close, selectively focus, use ambient light. This lens CAN be exciting.
The Nitty Gritty
This 50mm (standard) lens is sharp. It compares quite well with lenses of other manufacturers, though you could gain a hair of sharpness with the f1.4 version if you have the money). For me personally, I’d rather buy a second 1.7 lens and a cheap spare autofocus body than spend the money on that 1.4, and then I’d use it in the rain, in the blowing sand, during extreme conditions in general (well you get the idea). But maybe you can afford a couple of 1.4s and a spare Dynax 9, so decide for yourself.
It autofocus very quickly on my 600si. The bokeh is pleasant. It’s almost disposably cheap. It’s small and light, meaning you can always have it in your bag just in case the situation calls for it. It has a metal mount, but it’s not all that heavy, and probably doesn’t even need one. The construction is not exactly awe-inspiring, but mine has held together through some travels, and I prefer the idea of buying another if I drop this one to having paid three times as much in the first place.
You can gain some sharpness by moving to f4 and smaller, upon which corner to corner sharpness is quite good. The contrast and colour renditions are nice, and it’s not very flare prone (though a $3 aftermarket rubber hood can be bought anywhere, so why not use one). That’s not to say it’s soft wide open though, and the minor difference is probably gobbled up by other factors involved in the types of situations you’d use it. If I’m doing shallow depth of field stuff, the style of the photo doesn’t usually demand stellar sharpness, and if I’m doing available light stuff, the eye seems to forgive any corner softness given the context of the picture. Your mileage may vary, but I’ve never been displeased, and on the contrary its always sharper than my fixed aperture zooms when its in the same f stop range.
It has scale markings so that you can see your hyperfocal distance if you need it.
The Specifications
- 6 elements in 5 groups
- 47.0° viewing angle
- 0.45m close focus distance (about 18”)
- f22 min. aperture
- 49mm filter thread
- 65.5 around x 39mm long (2.6” x 1.5”)
- 170g (6 ounces)
They’re available for about $80 new, and about $30-35 used in great shape, so shop around a little, and then buy one and some interesting films and have a ball.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
gbraun
|
|
Location: Cambridge, ON, Canada
Reviews written: 25
Trusted by: 14 members
About Me:
"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.