30 year old Minolta 50 mm lens

[Pete'sGirl]

My dad was a wedding photographer in the 70's and early 80's but he doesn't do much with it anymore. I am not rich and can't afford the Zeisses right now for my Sony DSLR. He gave me his 30 year old Minolta 50 mm f/ 1.7 lens and told me he barely had used it.

Now, I am a beginner, but I have been reading and practicing a lot. The images are just not that sharp, even with an off camera flash. I don't know if it is ME, since I am am still really new and trying to teach myself, or if it is more the lens.

I am wondering if I should invest in a newer lens. I read that the Sony 50 mm f/ 1.8 is really good for its cheap price. BTW, I am not trying to make money off of this anytime soon, if ever. I just want pictures I can be proud of.

 

[dxqcanada5]

He gave you a Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 ?
Minolta AF 50 F1.7 2550-100 lens for Sony Alpha - Minolta camera mount

That is a very sharp lens ... even wide open.

I suspect it is something you are doing.

Take a picture with it ... then post it.
Describe what you are doing with the camera.

 

[enzodm]

Usually old 50mm lenses are good. Manual focus might be a little hard at beginnings, so if images are not sharp, could be that. Put here some sample, so that we can look at.

 

[Ron Evers]

He gave you a Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 ?
Minolta AF 50 F1.7 2550-100 lens for Sony Alpha - Minolta camera mount

That is a very sharp lens ... even wide open.

I suspect it is something you are doing.


Take a picture with it ... then post it.
Describe what you are doing with the camera.

I agree! I have 7 old Minolta lenses that I use including a 55/1.7 manual focus that took theses shots:

I also have a Minolta 50/1.4 & 50/3.5 macro that yield great quality shots.

 

[SJGordon]

I have my original 1st year Minolta 50mm f:1.7 (crossed XX version) I bought back in 1985 when they came out with AF for their Maxxum line-up. I've shot that one as well as tried a new Sony 50mm f:1.4... I still have my 26 year old f:1.7 in my bag and don't have a new version anywhere. It very well could be your lens, but I kind of doubt it, every one I have shot with over the years has been razor sharp. I did have a problem with one I picked up for my son because it had oil on the aperture blades. Stripped it down and cleaned it like it should be and it works great. That one wasn't a problem with sharpness though, just overexposure.

If it is really 30 years old, then I have to ask if it is the older MD/MC manual focus version from Minolta you have to use an adapter with to get it to mount to the AF "A" mount that Minolta Maxxums and the Sony DSLR's use. If it is one of the manual focus versions it is more than likely the adapter. Had one, tossed it in the garbage can after a couple days, and got rid of all the old manual focus Minolta lenses I had.

Agree with the other posters that you should put up a photo you took with it so we can see what you are talking about.

 

[SJGordon]

I agree! I have 7 old Minolta lenses that I use including a 55/1.7 manual focus that took theses shots:


I also have a Minolta 50/1.4 & 50/3.5 macro that yield great quality shots.

Ron, I just have to ask. How long did it take you to get that walnut meat out of the shell without breaking it? Great crisp shots as well.

 

[Ron Evers]

I agree! I have 7 old Minolta lenses that I use including a 55/1.7 manual focus that took theses shots:


I also have a Minolta 50/1.4 & 50/3.5 macro that yield great quality shots.

Ron, I just have to ask. How long did it take you to get that walnut meat out of the shell without breaking it? Great crisp shots as well.

It is a Pecan. Sometimes you just get lucky.

 

[tirediron]

Just what I did NOT want to see in a thread - a picture of Ron's nuts!

 

[Ron Evers]

Just what I did NOT want to see in a thread - a picture of Ron's nuts!

Good one John.

You once asked why I have so many lenses in the same focal range. Well, I have two more 50s coming in the mail - a Jupiter-8 & a Canon FD Macro. I must agree with others here, 50s are a must have lens.

 

[Pete'sGirl]

It is a Maxxum AF Minolta. Maybe my dad was rounding up when he said 30 years. Anyway, it is old. He said that doesn't matter. So here are some shots you asked for. These were not meant to be shared - I just took them so you could all see the sharpness of the image and if this is what it should look like, so don't judge the composition please. Maybe because my home doesn't get very good natural light? And I am crap with the off camera flash? I don't know. I have been trying to figure out how get portrait quality images with this camera (Sony a350) and lens, but they always fall short.
All three were taken with light from the window - no flash. Any tips for white balance would be appreciated too. I try setting it to cloudy but sometimes it just looks too warm.

1/125 f 1.7 ISO 100

1/250 f 1.7 ISO 200

1/125 f 2.8 ISO 200

 

[c.cloudwalker]

Is there any PP done to these? ^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Pete'sGirl]

None.

 

[enzodm]

Consider that at f/1.7 you have a couple of centimeters of DoF. So, what you will see very sharp will be only on a very strict range. If you want to be analytic on sharpness, upload a 100% crop of a sensible area (e.g., where you focused). Said that, I do not see sharpness problems in these pictures. Perhaps focus is not precisely on eyes in #1 and #2?
White balance is applied to JPEG only, and it would be better to shoot RAW (you can modify balance with PP).

 

[c.cloudwalker]

You need to do some basic PP for your photos to get better. I am not familiar with that specific lens but I don't think it is the problem. I shot Minolta gear (older than yours) for years and it is a fine brand.

 

[Ron Evers]

One problem is you are shooting wide open & very few lenses are sharp @ maximum armature. Try upping your ISO & stopping the lens down @ least one stop.

I do not know about your camera but with mine the white balance setting definitely affects the colour of my RAW files. The pics you have shown are on the cool side, definitely not warm.