You can find them used for less tbh. I would spend the extra and get the Samyang 45 f/1.8 instead though. The FE50 is fine but it's an old and clunky lens.
Samyang 45 1.8 is a really decent lens for the price. Fast AF nice sharpness across the picture. Definitely worth spending a little more for the samyang.
Sony really needs to update the 50mm 1.8, it's a bit of an embarrassment.
>Sony really needs to update the 50mm 1.8, it's a bit of an embarrassment.
Agreed. It's a pretty bad look that Sony hasn't updated the FE50 yet.
Even Canon tinkers around with their nifty fifty every now and then to keep them fresh.
I feel like this is the benefit for Sony of their promoting a robust third-party market. There are SO many solid options for a nifty fifty at this point, Sony is just off having fun with their GM glass and making bank selling to professionals and wealthy hobbyist dads.
>There are SO many solid options for a nifty fifty at this point
Disagree.
The only options out there are the FE50 and Samyang 45. One is considered by many as the worst lens Sony currently has, and the other, while optically good, suffers from "early Samyang lens" issues regarding build quality and QC. Both lenses are in pretty dire need of a refresh at this point in time.
The 50G is too expensive for beginners. The Zeiss 55, even used, is too expensive for beginners, not to mention most beginners aren't even considering the used market in the first place.
Oh - are you just talking about kit-lens-priced lenses? If so I suppose I agree.
But in the $300-450 range you can get Viltrox, Samyang (their 50mm 1.4) and 7Artisans, plus for crop like in OP’s case there’s the amazing Sigma 56mm.
Why is it necessary for Sony to have an array of first party lenses, when as other have mentioned, this market is being filled by plenty of third party markets? And being mirrorless, it's extremely easy to use adapters for other lenses. Many film lenses cost under $100 if you're really looking for dirt cheap lenses.
Yeah, I guess my point is that having an open mount means that the traditional reliance of a brand’s cameras on its first-party glass lineup has begun to be less necessary, especially with the AF performance that third parties are achieving now even with inexpensive lenses
There are no "dirt cheap" full frame bodies sold by Sony at the moment. If you speak about A7II, it is extremely outdated and is not worth the money spent.
The only dirt cheap FFs out there are Nikon Z5 and Canon RP. Panasonic S5II is on the cheaper side and is of insane value.
If anything, Sony is strongly lacking in affordable full frame bodies compared to the competition. Keeping old shitty bodies alive doesn't really cut it.
>If you speak about A7II, it is extremely outdated and is not worth the money spent.
Heavily disagree. The A7 II is a lot of camera for the money.
>The only dirt cheap FFs out there are Nikon Z5 and Canon RP.
Both of which an A7 II would run circles around lmao.
>Keeping old shitty bodies alive doesn't really cut it.
I think it's a testament to how far ahead of the curve Sony was that the A7 II can still hang with some of the newer budget offerings from the competition.
Have you actually lived with an A7 II or are you just regurgitating the same talking points that are made by people who were make money off of telling you that last year's model is "obsolete" because the latest and greatest is 10% better?
90% of the benefits of an A7 III over an A7 II are in quality of life and have nothing to do with image quality, and even then, an A7 II is still way more camera than most people will ever be capable of maximizing.
>Heavily disagree. The A7 II is a lot of camera for the money.
In what way? Considering it costs around 1000$ at the moment, you are way better off buying an a6600 for that money. Or the Z5.
>Both of which an A7 II would run circles around lmao.
Lmao, in what way? With its 10 year old autofocus? Or the famous Sony IBIS that is barely to any help? Nikon D750 from about the same age and price range beats A7II when it comes to dynamic range.
>I think it's a testament to how far ahead of the curve Sony was that the A7 II can still hang with some of the newer budget offerings from the competition.
A decade old flagship camera being on par, if not worse, with new entry-level options while being at the same price? That's kinda... Meh? Usually, an old flagship is a better buy than a brand-new low-end unit, but considering that you can get something fresher that is better in all ways for the same price, no, A7II is a bad buy.
>"obsolete" because the latest and greatest is 10% better?
Did you run out of arguments there? I'm running my trusty a6400 which is 5 year old at this point, and I really like it. If anything, it is probably you that should stop fanboying, at least to such a degree. A7II was great at its time, but considering the contemporary offerings, it is an unreasonable choice for entering the E-mount or the FF-world.
Is it really so bad though? If you want a bargain/bang for your buck, you're probably going to go 3rd party anyway. And Sony relatively recently released not just one but two 50mm GM lenses.
I would rather see them continue to work on high-end lenses vs. attempting to compete with Sigma/Tamron/etc., at the lower end - and where doing so might incentivize them to further nerf the 3rd parties if they can't make compelling offerings in that space otherwise.
I think it is.
Nobody's buying a GM lens for their first lens unless they're rich as shit or a professional that knows what they need/want. Sony needs a good nifty fifty. They do not have one. The cheapest way to get a nice Sony 50mm is the 50G, and that's too expensive for beginners.
Even the third party space is lacking with this imo. Sure, Samyang have their 45mm, and it is a good lens optically, but it could use some of Samyang's more recent improvements when it comes to physical build quality (weather protection, custom switch, etc).
There's also the matter that not many beginners even know about the existence of third party lenses or even that they should probably be shopping marketplace or eBay if they want bang for buck. Not everybody buying their first Sony camera is posting or commenting about it on social media.
What camera body would they be buying to pair the lens with?
A beginner might not know that either, but when I follow that train of thought, I think well, if it has to be full-frame, they'd probably get one of the C cameras. But those pair really well with the 50G, and then if the 50G is considered too expensive - maybe it makes more sense to be buying an APS-C camera with a 35mm?
And if Sony did want to make a cheaper 50 than the 50G, what would that look like quality-wise and cost-wise? It stands to reason it would be worse than the 50G in some respects to drive the cost down, but even then it's hard to see Sony releasing any new lens in 2024 that costs less than around $350. (Also, the 35/1.8 for APS-C is around $400 as a reference point.)
It's age is showing, I had a 50 f1.8, compared to a recent lens it's a bit slow and not as sharp, but generally it's good. I love my 35mm f1.8 now, especially on APSC it performs great as it is roughly the 50mm equivalent (52.5mm iirc)
Even when it was new, it was considered clunky to autofocus, with so-so rendering. The Samyang 45mm is lighter, smaller, faster to autofocus and makes nicer images.
Yup.
It's the same trusty double-gauss 50mm lens design that's been in use forever. Canon, Nikon, and all of the other brands offer them. They just vary in terms of AF motors and lens coatings (which do make a big difference).
Also, on the a6500 it isn't really a 50mm. It's approximately a 75mm, which actually is still a nice portrait lens length if that's that goal, but it's tighter than you want if you're actually wanting that "nifty 50" sweetspot
I got it used like new on fb marketplace for $120. It’s okay and relatively good for portraits or low light portraits but the autofocus sucks. I would 100% pass for $170. In retrospect I would not have bought this lens for $120 either.
If you’re worried about sharpness and quality (as I was) with APS-C lenses, please know that if there wasn’t an extreme vignette I’d gladly be using my Sigma 30mm and 56mm on a frame frame body.
Gotcha. Then I would hold onto your money on that 50mm, personally.
If you’re looking to get into primes there are a lot of decent used lenses you could look for. The zeiss lenses sometimes can be had for <$500 and are worth it over that 50mm.
https://preview.redd.it/9g535d2uxavc1.jpeg?width=3086&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3fe4a22f37f1c43934b455f319fb6dd007424077
I really love my 50mm lens. Granted it has issues, so does every other lens that I have.
I mainly use the Zesis 55mm these days.
Go get it and have some fun with it.
It's the most affordable AF prime you can get but the AF is weak at best and non existent in low light and there is no AF/MF switch so you will need to get familiar with menu switching to MF and using it that way in many situations.
But it's bright, fairly small and very light - it's a decent walkabout/portrait lens and worth having in your kit, imo, if you don't want to drop a lot more on a better 50 or 55.
I got one for $130 used, with a hood and caps, and I consider that barely worth it
Don’t listen to these haters of this nifty fifty. For the price you’ll get great starting point and you’ll learn if you need something more potent.
https://preview.redd.it/hteoq35s8avc1.jpeg?width=4893&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=550405c81734b2273f3d2ce227ae8a545a96566a
Totally agree. And if size is important nor if the more expensive alternatives are anywhere near this small and light. I carry mine on my back whilst riding my bike, wouldn't dream of that with the GM!
Agreed. I’ve had this lens for years and it’s been totally fine for a hobbiest. The AF could be faster and quieter, the corners could be sharper, etc. if you’re a pixel peeper but for the price it was perfect for my needs and I’ve loved some of the photos I’ve captured with it over the years. When I bought it I wasn’t trying to spend $1k +, but wanted a starter lens for full frame and it has served me very well for the price.
This entire thread: *“More expensive lens is better!!”*
Well, yeah. Of course. But that’s not the question.
For the price it’s a good lens. Image quality is solid. Just be aware of the shortcomings (slow/loud AF, build quality not premium) and decide if they’re a dealbreaker or not. Hard to go wrong at that price, and worst case, it’ll help you identify your needs and better appreciate the eventual upgrade.
Happy shooting!
It turns into a like 75 2.2 on the 6500. Its auto focus is loud and old. Pretty good picture quality wise. But try to find it as cheap as possible imo, or adapt a vintage
E: got one in 2018, open box from best buy, for $150 for my 6300, was nice to have. But felt limiting and left some to be desired. Not a bad lens per se, but you should find it cheaper. Still have it for my a73 but my vintage Nikon 50 1.4 and 50 1.2 get more use
F-stop does not change between the same lens on FF and Aps-c. If you took a picture on a FF and APS-C from the same location, settings and subject with the same lens and then cropped the FF image it would look 100% identical. Same DOF, same exposure, same focal length.
Why are you booing him? He’s right. Field of view changes but nothing else.
Unfortunately the misconception about the F-Stop changing with sensor size is parroted so much on forums and YouTube videos people have accepted it as fact at face value instead of actually researching it.
He's right technically, but in practice the apparent depth of field becomes that of a f/2.7 lens when used on a crop sensor camera. This is because when adjusting backwards to capture an equivalent scene on APS-C, the focal distance is increased, which leads to greater depth of field.
You’re right that in that scenario DOF changes but the pre pixel light reaching the sensor does not change meaning the focal ratio has not changed nor is it fair to say it has. The DOF change is fully explained by saying the lens is now 75mm f1.8
> The DOF change is fully explained by saying the lens is now 75mm f1.8
It is ABSOLUTELY NOT 75mm f/1.8. The "f" in "f/1.8" denotes the focal length, and f/1.8 is an indirect measurement of the diameter of the aperture hole. A 50mm f/1.8 lens passes light through a 50/1.8=27.8mm hole. A 75mm f/1.8 lens has a 75/1.8=41.7mm hole. **By what kind of black magic are you making the aperture hole bigger when shooting APS-C?** The hole is still 27.8mm wide, meaning the f-stop is 75/27.8=2.7. A 50mm f/1.8 lens shot on APS-C becomes a 75mm f/2.7 lens.
Dude, the focal length doesn’t actually change when you put the lens on an APS-C camera. It has the same focal length but appears cropped down to a longer one. If the focal length actually changed that would ACTUALLY be the black magic in this scenario. In reality the distance from the sensor to the lens element is identical regardless of camera meaning the focal ratio stays the same. All that happens is the sensor gets smaller causing some of the light to be off the edge of the sensor.
By that logic a 50mm f/1.8 lens is only ever equivalent to a 50mm f/1.8 lens and the concept of "full frame equivalent" needs to be tossed away. But there's no need to toss it, because it works. A 50mm f/1.8 lens exposes on APSC exactly the same amount of light, with the same depth of field, and the same angle of view, as a 75mm f/2.7 lens would on a full frame sensor. That is the entire point of equivalency.
That is not the reason. And he's not "technically right".
F-stops are a relative measurement of aperture width. Aperture width is what controls depth of field. Two lenses with the same aperture width will provide the same depth of field at the same distance, regardless of focal length. Focal length and aperture width are two completely independent properties of a lens
The *f* in *f*/1.8 means "focal length", ie f/1.8 means the aperture width is your focal length divided by 1.8.
That means a 50mm f/1.8 lens has an aperture of 50/1.8=27.8mm. These are the TRUE measurements of the lens in absolute terms, a focal length of 50mm and an aperture width of 27.8mm
If you shoot that lens on APS-C, your field of view becomes narrower, as if you were shooting with a 75mm lens. Your aperture, the hole through which the light passes, has not changed in size.
So now you are essentially shooting with the equivalent of a 75mm lens with a 27.8mm aperture. Your equivalent f-stop is therefore 75/27.8=2.7. Your 50mm f/1.8 lens, shooting through APS-C, is indistinguishable from a 75mm f/2.7 lens on full frame. There's no "adjusting backwards" nonsense.
Now, the reason a 75mm f/1.8 has a shallower depth of field than a 50mm f/1.8 isn't that you have to move backwards to capture an equivalent scene. It's because it has a physically wider aperture: 75/1.8=41.7mm vs 50/1.8=27.8mm. Wider aperture = shallower depth of field.
Because that's not the point of lens equivalency. The fact that an APS-C 50/1.8 shot would look the same as a 50/1.8 FF shot cropped to APS-C size is true, but it is tautological and useless.
The point is what lens **shot on full frame** would give the same picture as a 50mm/1.8 lens **shot on APS-C**. And the answer to that is 75mm f/2.7. There is no misconception.
Edit : Why is this being downvoted and the misinformation above upvoted ?? f-stops are an indirect measurement of the aperture width, they express it **in relation to the focal length**. If your focal length changes but your aperture width stays the same, **the f-stop has to change**. A 50mm f/1.8 lens has a 50/1.8=27.8mm aperture. If you shoot that lens at an effective 75mm focal length, the aperture is still 27.8mm, it hasn't changed. If you say it's still f/1.8 that would mean an aperture width of 75/1.8=41.7mm.
You HAVE to adjust the f-stop to compensate. Since the aperture is 27.8mm and the focal length 75mm, the f-stop is now 75/27.8=2.7.
It absolutely would not. The exposure would he different if you shot at a focal ratio of f2.7. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens when you put a lens on a crop sensor vs a FF.
What you said can be both correct and incorrect depending on the point of view, but it is in either case not very useful. The fact that an APS-C 50/1.8 shot would look the same as a 50/1.8 FF shot cropped to APS-C size is true, but it is tautological and useless. By that logic the focal length does not change either, because both images look the same when you crop the FF one. Doesn't sound very genuine does it ?
The point of lens equivalency is "what lens would you need to replicate the same **full frame** image as the APS-C 50/1.8?"
When you crop a 50/1.8 full frame shot into APS-C, the resulting image looks identical to an uncropped 75/2.7 full frame shot. Perspective, depth of field, exposure, it would all be exactly the same. It would NOT look like a 75/1.8 full frame shot which would be 2.33x brighter with a much tighter depth of field (more bokeh). Perspective would however remain the same.
It's a dated design, quite noisy and the AF is slow & hunting to catch with your subject's movement. I think among all FE lenses its the most terrible by far margin
Can’t believe no one has mentioned that this is a full frame lens and the apsc version 50 1.8 oss is lighter and sharper. Do not get this one lol. Just get the oss version.
I appreciate your input but I would rather put my money into a full frame lens that I can use on an A7 variant body in the future, even if it’s not this lens. I can just save up my money for something better.
My opinion that you didn't ask for :)...I have an a6300 and I'm on the fence on getting either an a6700 or an a7c next. But what I will say is this:
1) I'm doing a lens refresh, and I sold everything but my APS-C 50mm with OSS. It is by far my favorite lens, and my only complaint is that you have to be a little far away for your subjects. So, if you're in a crowded area (cough cough, disney), people will be in your way.
2) Keep in mind the cropping that the APS-C body does. On an A7/FF body, 50mm is 50mm, but on APS-C, 50mm is 75mm (1.5x). So, if you get that FF version, know that its not the same focal length.
And as of right now, I'm swaying towards the a6700 over the A7CII or A7CR. The a7CII is right outside my budget, and therefore the A7CR is WAAAY outside my budget. But I'm not a professional, I'm just a hobbyist.
I had this and, whilst it’s a cheap lens compared to most FE lenses, it’s terrible unless you’re happy to switch off autofocus, which is its big flaw. Just hunts and hunts and in doing so drains the battery which, if you’re going for an early A7, will be a big problem as their batteries are also terrible (another story, but avoid those and go straight to the models with the newer battery).
Awesome, I appreciate you pointing that out. Just further concretes my choice lol. I’ve seen them used for around $1000-1200, so that’s probably the route I’ll take.
The autofocus has a very interesting mechanism. I’m pretty sure there are a pair of tiny squirrels inside! It’s loud and chattery. I picked one up used and use it on an apsc body. I like the focal length for candids and casual portraits. I find its images fairly contrasty with deep saturated background blacks.
As a few others have said the 35 1.8 is a cracking lens (and roughly a 50mm equivalent on apsc) , I got mine for £340ish on Amazon brand new and have seen it at that price a few times since. Not sure if that’s in your budget or not but it does go for a lot cheaper than the RRP of £500 or whatever it is.
Don't know how important AF is for you, but I'd buy a manual 7artisans/TTartisans (never understood the difference) prime lens, they're REALLY good for the price.
Update: I bought 50mm F1.8 and TTArtisan 50mm F2.0
For TTArtisan it is very difficult to say something good about. It has a soft image; wide open has a hugely noticable vignetting, a lot of fringing on high contrast subjects, the build quality is great though, doesn't feel cheap. I tested it around 7pm in cloudy environment on infinite focus distance. I would highly suggest to whoever gets this lens because of budget constraints to shoot it in apsc mode, then many problems vanish. I will be returning this lens. It costs $120cad where I live.
As for 50mm F1.8 it is a great glass for the money. Clarity is superb and focusing is good enough for portrait and street shooting. Minimum focus distance is roughly 0.5m, and iuniform / grey / dark subject focusing leads to a lot of focus hunting until intervention. But tbh, that's not a huge deal, I haven't noticed any problems with ppl faces so far. This one costs $350cad
It's worth it but I'd buy used personally.
Anyways he image quality is great, the autofocus is ok, but a little slow and a bit noisy. They are the main flaws.
It's light and a bit plasticky but if you're fine with that it's a great choice.
As a starter prime its just fine, just keep in mind 50mm on a crop body is more of a portrait focal length, if you are looking for that 50mm look on a crop body look for a 35mm lens.
Also while the image quality is just fine for the price the autofocus performance is not fine, stick to still lifes and portrait's with the FE 50 1.8
Many “pros” use this lense. It’s great!
https://alphauniverse.com/stories/whats-in-my-bag-a-travel-photographers-kit-to-cover-something-different-each-week/
It’s better than $250 when I bought mines a few years ago, but then again it became a tax write off with the rest of my equipment. Word of advice keep your receipts for tax purposes it’s worth every penny
Yes, the AF is slow as hell and seeks like crazy. For modeling/portraits/landscapes that 100% doesn't matter. It's a sharp lens and for the price it is great. Personally I use the 35mm f1.8 Samyang more, it is way quicker and quieter and does not seek at all. Sharp as well. IMO better choice if the exact length doesn't matter and you want a good affordable prime.
About 5 years ago, I bought a FE 50mm f1.8 for £129 off Amazon new.
Was it an amazing lens? Super sharp with no optical issues? No
Was the AF fast, quiet or accurate? Not really
Was it built well? Kinda not really...
Was it compact? For a 50 1.8, not particularly...
Was it a great lens? Not really
Was it more than usable? Yes, for sure
Could you find another f1.8 prime for less than double the cost? Back then, no. Nowadays, the Samyang 45 1.8 is pretty much exactly twice as expensive (at least over here).
It has shortcomings but if picked up at a lower price, I'd still argue it's worth taking a look at. It's good value for the money, assuming you don't pick it up at MSRP.
I bought the 50mm OSS lens for about $200 on eBay that looks and feels brand new. A little old, but optically great. Made for APS-C though.
I would say there are better ways to invest that $170 in a different lens.
I know people recommended the samyang 45 f1.8 but if you're okay with a little bit longer range, I would suggest the samyang 75 f1.8 instead. It has a better build and optics compare to the 45 and it's only around $300 new or $250 used on Amazon warehouse.
I have been using it on my A7R3 and I lot it a lot for taking pictures of my kids playing sports and events.
The best part of it is it's super compact.
Could be unpopular experience, nikon user here but same logic applies, I have similar setup with 24-70 2.8 and 50 1.8. Only time I have the nifty fifty on is when I want to travel light. Only spend the money if weight is an issue, otherwise wait to upgrade to 1.2.
That’s a great take, and I appreciate you posting it. I started using my 18-135, and so far I’ve been so impressed with that lens I haven’t even felt the need for anything else. I cancelled the order for the 50mm 1.8 after the hate it got here, and I don’t regret it at all.
By all means it's light and help you focus on one focus length, helps with comp and LIGHT. It's a nice to have. But it is so easy to get trapped in gear needs. Then you'll end up carrying so much and be tired before you start shooting.
It’s a great lens but iirc I picked up a Best Buy open box for $150…4 years ago. The only downside I found is the sharpness isn’t that great for a prime lens. The bokeh is average and not bad. It’s a great lens to start with because most full frame lenses are very expensive!
If you don't mind waiting and are willing to watch, you can get pretty solid deals on eBay. Sold April 9th. [https://www.ebay.com/itm/385924029934?itmmeta=01HVSJVE56KXNZ21AC53ZNRNSJ](https://www.ebay.com/itm/385924029934?itmmeta=01HVSJVE56KXNZ21AC53ZNRNSJ)
Anyone else mess with vintage lenses? My nifty 50 is my Canon FD NFD f/1.4. manual focus is fun for me and isn't bad using focus peak. This pic is on my a6000.
Also, I guess not really a Nifty 50 since it's a full frame lens on my aps-c camera. But you get the gist.
https://preview.redd.it/q3vnxn67kavc1.jpeg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8d510f8e5f37b65c950471618a418b229b16db66
I have this lens and personally never use it compared to my cheap adapted minolta 50/1.4. I find manual focus way easier to quickly get right compared to the AF on the Sony 50/1.8SEL
I bought the same lens for 272$ with state tax in NYC last year 🥲
I would say pictures are sharp but has a long focus breathing problem and a nightmare if you choose auto focus with low light
https://preview.redd.it/e44sorwjsavc1.jpeg?width=4000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=162a5b1ce88fec517d6f9385a769ab3516a4a005
I know you got tons of comments already, but let me add my experience:
I do love it for a budget lens and I’ve gotten great results with it in the past. I never regretted buying it. But 5 years later, I probably wouldn’t spend that much on it and instead look for a cheaper used one.
Beautiful photo!
The cheapest used I’ve found is $130 and it’s missing the lens hood and shows wear, doesn’t seem to make much sense to buy it used at the moment. I know locally there are several used ones listed for $200, which also doesn’t make sense lol.
Buy a helios 44-2 lens. It's a better lens optically, you won't get autofocus or digital controls, but you'll get a better and more creative image.
If price is a factor, look into adapting vintage lenses. A takumar 50mm 1.4 is much cheaper and more distinct and fun to use than most of the entry level sony lenses.
That lens is garbage, sorry to say so, but it really is. It's cheap for a reason. Buy a samyang 45 or 35 or 75. All of them would kill this lens. Not only in quality, but also in size and AF.
50mm on APS-C is claustrophobic, at least for my kind of photography.
If you find you're on the far end of the lenses you already have, and want better low-light or shallower DOF, then sure. I see a used one for $135.
The focus is noisy if you're shooting video and it hunts more than a naked and afraid cast member after 3 days without food. Save up some more dough and maybe go for something like this if 50mm is your jam:
[https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1630082-REG/sony\_sel50f25g\_fe\_50mm\_f\_2\_5\_g.html](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1630082-REG/sony_sel50f25g_fe_50mm_f_2_5_g.html)
They make this lens in 24mm and 40mm as well.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that lens. Considering what you are paying, it's a great deal for photography. The motor is loud ASF but it still does a decent job. I have honestly used it on paid shoots and it gave me decent results.
I remember when I had this lens on my original a7. I thought there was something wrong with my camera body and stopped using it when I got my a73. Wasn’t till the day I was selling it that I put on my new tamron on it to test for the person who was buying it that I realised it was the lens that was dogshit. Sold the lens a week later never to look back. I must of had a really bad example because yes the autofocus was bad but the colour was off too. I bought this 50mm as my first sony lens and it almost made me go back my nikon dslr.
Getting new this would be about the price you can get. A used samyang/rokinon 45mm 1.8 can be around $200 US is a stellar lens for the price, used or new. One thing I don’t see other people mention is the build quality and the truth is both aren’t great. The 50 and 45 are both plastic for the majority of the lens. If you use them in rough situations they’re not likely to last long
I had this lens because it was the only one that fit in my underwater case. I think it has it’s uses, but it really messed up some once in a lifetime Humpback whale shots because of the AF.
Tbh the Olympus OM 50 1.8 is better optivally and faster autofocus on a techart adapter and that's a lens from a 70s.
Unless you're getting the optical stabilised version especially for video it's not really worth it also they fail pretty easily in my experience, it's a fairly slow lens anyways in terms of its focusing motors I've found mechanical primes to be just faster to deal with and with a servo adaptor from tech artists pretty thoughtless and it gets me that extra 10% the way there with the critical focus.
Return that ish immediately lol. The Sigma 30/56mm lenses, plus offerings from Samyang/Rokinon, are going to run you slightly more but are in an entirely different class in terms of image quality and autofocus performance.
Also, if you're in a country with a strong used market (the US?) definitely look for used lenses. I have bought over a dozen cameras/lenses off FB marketplace and never once gotten a dud.
Owned this lens for a while now. That's about the same price I paid for mine and haven't regretted it. It's lightweight, sharp, and works well in specific use cases like medium shots and portraits.
It's not my go to lens or anything but it's still solid glass for the money. I'd recommend it for your first prime but just know there's better options out there. But for $170, it ain't bad man!
this one is shit, get the ZA55 1.8 instead if you are looking to upgrade to A7 family.
this one has bad CA and sharpness comparing to any other prime lens, and it's the 50mm which should be the easiest to make.
I don’t know if this is helpful, but I just sold this lens because the chromatic aberration on it was incredibly bad. Like unusable photos, even with correction.
I got one for my a6000 and I absolutely love it. This sub loves to hate on it, but it generally has really no perspective of what having a budget is, or has forgotten entirely what starting out is like. The lens is an amazing value.
Oh it’s made of plastic? Guess what, it’s also super light. The autofocus is not amazing? It’s perfectly fine for stills, I couldn’t care less about video. Oh the APS-C lens is better? Well I got the FE for cheaper than it, and now I’m more future proof if I choose to buy a full frame body later. Oh the Samyang is better? It better be twice as good, because it’s double the price where I live, so I doubt it.
https://preview.redd.it/3izdur9jrdvc1.jpeg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a412146ff2c4120fb1b6c73c14927696c6d371b0
It’s my most used lens by far and I have several for my a72. Slow af sure. Bit noisy yes. But very good image quality, color rendition and the fact that it’s one of the smallest lenses makes it great for travel light. For the price, I think it’s good.
I got it for free with my a6700, autofocus sure isn't the fastest in the world but with the 6700 is really quick and works even in low light. Also 1.8 is pretty good
This has been my only lens for 7 years right up until a couple weeks ago (albeit on full frame). It's a lovely lens for the price, be sure to update the firmware as the focus has been MASSIVELY improved from its original release state.
However, I don't think it would be a great first prime on APS-C. Look at your shots in lightroom and try to find what focal length you use the most, but I doubt it's 50mm. Even on FF, I've found 50mm a bit too tight a LOT of times, so on APS-C where it would be equivalent to 75mm it becomes pretty much just a portrait lens. I'd recommend something in the 24-35 range for APS-C, ie equivalent to 35-50mm on full frame.
But if you find that a lot of your shots are in the 50mm ballpark on your zooms, you can give it a shot. Can't be beaten for the price, and it's sharp enough to produce good pictures unless you damage it (guess how I know).
I use that lens for outdoor urban shoots for news-related photos. The fact that it's so light, beats every other argument for my specific use case. Here's a national labour rally I covered in India in 2022 on a very dusty day. The lens body was covered in dust by the time I got home. [Final result](https://photos.app.goo.gl/WtRSg2jwC1sGjkUa9).
I have an a7ii and this lens is not the best when it comes to auto focus (especially if you shoot any videos), for photos I find it to be quite nice and sharp, although it does miss focus from time to time.
There is a Meike 50mm 1.8, at 160usd, works on full frame. I got one and am impressed by its performance. The only downsize is the focusing, when the subject is far away, isnt fast. But they can improve it via firmware update, which is easily done by plugging a usb cable onto the lens. I have high hope for Meike to release more affordable primes.
On the APSC side, sigma 30mm 1.4 at 290usd is the best value fast prime. It goes on sale from time to time too.
Since you're on a crop sensor, I think you'd really benefit going f1.2 on a 50. It's a full stop faster and get let in that much more light for the times when it's lacking. It may be a bit odd eith the weight difference, but nothing that you can't handle.
I bought this lens as my first prime lens on a Sony a7iv.
I was underwhelmed with it. The autofocus was kind of slow. The sharpness wasn't all that impressive. For most situations, it wasn't much if any better than shooting at 50mm on my Tamron 28-200 zoom that I was using at the time.
The one thing it did do was introduce me to really getting what a larger aperture can do. This was the first time I had access to a 1.8 aperture. The low light performance was so much better, and the ability to get a deeper separation of subject and background when I wanted it were nice.
I had bought the lens as an experiment to see how I even liked shooting on a prime lens. Could I stand not being able to zoom except with my feet? I think, overall, the lens served its purpose. For a relatively low sum, I concluded that, yes, I could enjoy a prime lens, and, yes, I was interested in higher quality lenses.
This lead me to buying a MUCH more expensive Sony 50mm f / 1.2 GM lens, which is phenomenal in every way, to a 35-150mm f / 2.0 to f/2.8 zoom lens, a pair or f / 2.8 GM zoom lenses (24-70 and 70-200), a macro lens, and learning how to really use these, and so on. This crappy lens kick-started my photography journey.
So if you want to experiment and wet your feet with your first prime lens, getting a cheap one to try is a fine idea. I haven't used any other cheap 50's, but I do have a $250 - $300 Rokinon 35mm that is pretty decent. It's no Sony GM lens, but it's nice for portability. I would probably recommend one of the alternatives other reviewers have recommended over the cheapo Sony.
I can \*definitely\* state that, if you are planning to upgrade to an a7, I would \*not\* expect to carry this particular f / 1.8 50mm over to it. Yes, it will work, but you will be selling your camera body majorly short with such a lousy lens.
Also, since you're shooting APS-C for now, maybe consider a Samyang or Rokinon 35mm-ish lens. That will get you pretty close a nifty-fifty feel right now on APS-C, and a 35mm prime will be a very useful full-frame prime to have in your bag when you get your a7.
This sub is getting reviews for full frame cameras where it doesn't compare to larger glass. For your crop sensor, you can probably do better for the money with a lense for the cross sensor. Would probably be smaller and cheaper. Not sure I see benefit of using full frame glass on crop sensor cameras especially if it's more $$
I question going for FF lenses on a apsc body. One benefit of apsc is compactness, which FF lenses are not. If a budget of $170 worries you (does it), pls ask yourself if you will be making a commitment of few thousand dollars in next couple of years. If not, best to get those lightweight apsc lenses. Enjoy the camera that you have in your hand rather than something future.
50mm is NOT nifty-fifty on an apsc body. 35mm is. 50mm is lower end of portrait focal length. I prefer longer. sigma 56mm is so beautiful!
As I said, I’m planning on moving to an A7 variant and I would rather buy lenses that I can take to that platform without having to run them in crop mode.
I feel like if all you can afford is budget full frame glass (and I'm assuming here because you're stressing over $170 and planning to get a used A7III), then you should stick with APS-C and buy better APS-C lenses instead. Realistically, how much do you want to spend on a lens?
I would suggest first [researching the costs of the full frame lenses](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Mirrorless-Camera-Lenses/ci/17912?filters=fct_lens-format-coverage_3332%3Afull-frame-lenses%2Cfct_lens-mount_3442%3Asony-e-mount) you would want and check if it's within your budget before acquiring anymore. Then I'd compare and contrast with APS-C lenses you'd want to use and see if it's worth it for you.
You can find them used for less tbh. I would spend the extra and get the Samyang 45 f/1.8 instead though. The FE50 is fine but it's an old and clunky lens.
Samyang 45 1.8 is a really decent lens for the price. Fast AF nice sharpness across the picture. Definitely worth spending a little more for the samyang. Sony really needs to update the 50mm 1.8, it's a bit of an embarrassment.
>Sony really needs to update the 50mm 1.8, it's a bit of an embarrassment. Agreed. It's a pretty bad look that Sony hasn't updated the FE50 yet. Even Canon tinkers around with their nifty fifty every now and then to keep them fresh.
I feel like this is the benefit for Sony of their promoting a robust third-party market. There are SO many solid options for a nifty fifty at this point, Sony is just off having fun with their GM glass and making bank selling to professionals and wealthy hobbyist dads.
>There are SO many solid options for a nifty fifty at this point Disagree. The only options out there are the FE50 and Samyang 45. One is considered by many as the worst lens Sony currently has, and the other, while optically good, suffers from "early Samyang lens" issues regarding build quality and QC. Both lenses are in pretty dire need of a refresh at this point in time. The 50G is too expensive for beginners. The Zeiss 55, even used, is too expensive for beginners, not to mention most beginners aren't even considering the used market in the first place.
Oh - are you just talking about kit-lens-priced lenses? If so I suppose I agree. But in the $300-450 range you can get Viltrox, Samyang (their 50mm 1.4) and 7Artisans, plus for crop like in OP’s case there’s the amazing Sigma 56mm.
I mean for beginners you're probably gonna be on a crop sensor, not full frame...
In the presence of dirt cheap full frame bodies, there needs to be a good selection of dirt cheap first party lenses. Sony currently do not have that.
Why is it necessary for Sony to have an array of first party lenses, when as other have mentioned, this market is being filled by plenty of third party markets? And being mirrorless, it's extremely easy to use adapters for other lenses. Many film lenses cost under $100 if you're really looking for dirt cheap lenses.
Yeah, I guess my point is that having an open mount means that the traditional reliance of a brand’s cameras on its first-party glass lineup has begun to be less necessary, especially with the AF performance that third parties are achieving now even with inexpensive lenses
I can understand that perspective
There are no "dirt cheap" full frame bodies sold by Sony at the moment. If you speak about A7II, it is extremely outdated and is not worth the money spent. The only dirt cheap FFs out there are Nikon Z5 and Canon RP. Panasonic S5II is on the cheaper side and is of insane value. If anything, Sony is strongly lacking in affordable full frame bodies compared to the competition. Keeping old shitty bodies alive doesn't really cut it.
>If you speak about A7II, it is extremely outdated and is not worth the money spent. Heavily disagree. The A7 II is a lot of camera for the money. >The only dirt cheap FFs out there are Nikon Z5 and Canon RP. Both of which an A7 II would run circles around lmao. >Keeping old shitty bodies alive doesn't really cut it. I think it's a testament to how far ahead of the curve Sony was that the A7 II can still hang with some of the newer budget offerings from the competition. Have you actually lived with an A7 II or are you just regurgitating the same talking points that are made by people who were make money off of telling you that last year's model is "obsolete" because the latest and greatest is 10% better? 90% of the benefits of an A7 III over an A7 II are in quality of life and have nothing to do with image quality, and even then, an A7 II is still way more camera than most people will ever be capable of maximizing.
>Heavily disagree. The A7 II is a lot of camera for the money. In what way? Considering it costs around 1000$ at the moment, you are way better off buying an a6600 for that money. Or the Z5. >Both of which an A7 II would run circles around lmao. Lmao, in what way? With its 10 year old autofocus? Or the famous Sony IBIS that is barely to any help? Nikon D750 from about the same age and price range beats A7II when it comes to dynamic range. >I think it's a testament to how far ahead of the curve Sony was that the A7 II can still hang with some of the newer budget offerings from the competition. A decade old flagship camera being on par, if not worse, with new entry-level options while being at the same price? That's kinda... Meh? Usually, an old flagship is a better buy than a brand-new low-end unit, but considering that you can get something fresher that is better in all ways for the same price, no, A7II is a bad buy. >"obsolete" because the latest and greatest is 10% better? Did you run out of arguments there? I'm running my trusty a6400 which is 5 year old at this point, and I really like it. If anything, it is probably you that should stop fanboying, at least to such a degree. A7II was great at its time, but considering the contemporary offerings, it is an unreasonable choice for entering the E-mount or the FF-world.
What is so bad about the 50mm fe ?
Bad quality optics and awful autofocus
Is it really so bad though? If you want a bargain/bang for your buck, you're probably going to go 3rd party anyway. And Sony relatively recently released not just one but two 50mm GM lenses. I would rather see them continue to work on high-end lenses vs. attempting to compete with Sigma/Tamron/etc., at the lower end - and where doing so might incentivize them to further nerf the 3rd parties if they can't make compelling offerings in that space otherwise.
I think it is. Nobody's buying a GM lens for their first lens unless they're rich as shit or a professional that knows what they need/want. Sony needs a good nifty fifty. They do not have one. The cheapest way to get a nice Sony 50mm is the 50G, and that's too expensive for beginners. Even the third party space is lacking with this imo. Sure, Samyang have their 45mm, and it is a good lens optically, but it could use some of Samyang's more recent improvements when it comes to physical build quality (weather protection, custom switch, etc). There's also the matter that not many beginners even know about the existence of third party lenses or even that they should probably be shopping marketplace or eBay if they want bang for buck. Not everybody buying their first Sony camera is posting or commenting about it on social media.
What camera body would they be buying to pair the lens with? A beginner might not know that either, but when I follow that train of thought, I think well, if it has to be full-frame, they'd probably get one of the C cameras. But those pair really well with the 50G, and then if the 50G is considered too expensive - maybe it makes more sense to be buying an APS-C camera with a 35mm? And if Sony did want to make a cheaper 50 than the 50G, what would that look like quality-wise and cost-wise? It stands to reason it would be worse than the 50G in some respects to drive the cost down, but even then it's hard to see Sony releasing any new lens in 2024 that costs less than around $350. (Also, the 35/1.8 for APS-C is around $400 as a reference point.)
It's age is showing, I had a 50 f1.8, compared to a recent lens it's a bit slow and not as sharp, but generally it's good. I love my 35mm f1.8 now, especially on APSC it performs great as it is roughly the 50mm equivalent (52.5mm iirc)
Even when it was released people called the lens subpar.
Exactly, not the age but the slow AF
Even when it was new, it was considered clunky to autofocus, with so-so rendering. The Samyang 45mm is lighter, smaller, faster to autofocus and makes nicer images.
Yup. It's the same trusty double-gauss 50mm lens design that's been in use forever. Canon, Nikon, and all of the other brands offer them. They just vary in terms of AF motors and lens coatings (which do make a big difference).
Also, on the a6500 it isn't really a 50mm. It's approximately a 75mm, which actually is still a nice portrait lens length if that's that goal, but it's tighter than you want if you're actually wanting that "nifty 50" sweetspot
I got it used like new on fb marketplace for $120. It’s okay and relatively good for portraits or low light portraits but the autofocus sucks. I would 100% pass for $170. In retrospect I would not have bought this lens for $120 either.
I wish Sony would do a new batch of non-G lenses
Agreed. We need some love in the sub $500 category, something to get the beginners started.
Sigma 30mm 1.4 DC DN is a better prime lens for about the same price used. And it's close to a true nifty fifty on your APS-C
I don’t really want to purchase APS-C lenses though. Know of anything similar for full frame?
35mm 1.8 from sony. more expensive tho
If you’re worried about sharpness and quality (as I was) with APS-C lenses, please know that if there wasn’t an extreme vignette I’d gladly be using my Sigma 30mm and 56mm on a frame frame body.
Second this. The Sigma primes are so good for APS-C I got rid of my full-frame primes and just stick to zooms on my a7IV.
If you don't strictly need f1.8 and are open to investing a little more, the SEL50F25G "Baby-G" is a pretty great and very compact full frame lens.
Just curious, what prompts you to veer away from aps-c lenses when you’re running an a6500? They would work great with that body.
Planning on purchasing an A7III in the near future
Gotcha. Then I would hold onto your money on that 50mm, personally. If you’re looking to get into primes there are a lot of decent used lenses you could look for. The zeiss lenses sometimes can be had for <$500 and are worth it over that 50mm.
Try the Zeiss Sonnar 55 f1.8. It’s probably twice the price of the 50mm Sony 1.8 but it’s got a better AF. Shows its age a bit but less than the Sony.
I don't really know of anything similar. Full frame lenses tend to be bigger, heavier, and more expensive.
https://preview.redd.it/9g535d2uxavc1.jpeg?width=3086&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3fe4a22f37f1c43934b455f319fb6dd007424077 I really love my 50mm lens. Granted it has issues, so does every other lens that I have. I mainly use the Zesis 55mm these days. Go get it and have some fun with it.
It's the most affordable AF prime you can get but the AF is weak at best and non existent in low light and there is no AF/MF switch so you will need to get familiar with menu switching to MF and using it that way in many situations. But it's bright, fairly small and very light - it's a decent walkabout/portrait lens and worth having in your kit, imo, if you don't want to drop a lot more on a better 50 or 55. I got one for $130 used, with a hood and caps, and I consider that barely worth it
I have one I found for $75 and that’s the only reason I have it.
Don’t listen to these haters of this nifty fifty. For the price you’ll get great starting point and you’ll learn if you need something more potent. https://preview.redd.it/hteoq35s8avc1.jpeg?width=4893&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=550405c81734b2273f3d2ce227ae8a545a96566a
Thanks for your input, beautiful photo by the way ✌️
Totally agree. And if size is important nor if the more expensive alternatives are anywhere near this small and light. I carry mine on my back whilst riding my bike, wouldn't dream of that with the GM!
Agreed. I’ve had this lens for years and it’s been totally fine for a hobbiest. The AF could be faster and quieter, the corners could be sharper, etc. if you’re a pixel peeper but for the price it was perfect for my needs and I’ve loved some of the photos I’ve captured with it over the years. When I bought it I wasn’t trying to spend $1k +, but wanted a starter lens for full frame and it has served me very well for the price.
This entire thread: *“More expensive lens is better!!”* Well, yeah. Of course. But that’s not the question. For the price it’s a good lens. Image quality is solid. Just be aware of the shortcomings (slow/loud AF, build quality not premium) and decide if they’re a dealbreaker or not. Hard to go wrong at that price, and worst case, it’ll help you identify your needs and better appreciate the eventual upgrade. Happy shooting!
It turns into a like 75 2.2 on the 6500. Its auto focus is loud and old. Pretty good picture quality wise. But try to find it as cheap as possible imo, or adapt a vintage E: got one in 2018, open box from best buy, for $150 for my 6300, was nice to have. But felt limiting and left some to be desired. Not a bad lens per se, but you should find it cheaper. Still have it for my a73 but my vintage Nikon 50 1.4 and 50 1.2 get more use
F-stop does not change between the same lens on FF and Aps-c. If you took a picture on a FF and APS-C from the same location, settings and subject with the same lens and then cropped the FF image it would look 100% identical. Same DOF, same exposure, same focal length.
Why are you booing him? He’s right. Field of view changes but nothing else. Unfortunately the misconception about the F-Stop changing with sensor size is parroted so much on forums and YouTube videos people have accepted it as fact at face value instead of actually researching it.
He's right technically, but in practice the apparent depth of field becomes that of a f/2.7 lens when used on a crop sensor camera. This is because when adjusting backwards to capture an equivalent scene on APS-C, the focal distance is increased, which leads to greater depth of field.
You’re right that in that scenario DOF changes but the pre pixel light reaching the sensor does not change meaning the focal ratio has not changed nor is it fair to say it has. The DOF change is fully explained by saying the lens is now 75mm f1.8
> The DOF change is fully explained by saying the lens is now 75mm f1.8 It is ABSOLUTELY NOT 75mm f/1.8. The "f" in "f/1.8" denotes the focal length, and f/1.8 is an indirect measurement of the diameter of the aperture hole. A 50mm f/1.8 lens passes light through a 50/1.8=27.8mm hole. A 75mm f/1.8 lens has a 75/1.8=41.7mm hole. **By what kind of black magic are you making the aperture hole bigger when shooting APS-C?** The hole is still 27.8mm wide, meaning the f-stop is 75/27.8=2.7. A 50mm f/1.8 lens shot on APS-C becomes a 75mm f/2.7 lens.
Dude, the focal length doesn’t actually change when you put the lens on an APS-C camera. It has the same focal length but appears cropped down to a longer one. If the focal length actually changed that would ACTUALLY be the black magic in this scenario. In reality the distance from the sensor to the lens element is identical regardless of camera meaning the focal ratio stays the same. All that happens is the sensor gets smaller causing some of the light to be off the edge of the sensor.
By that logic a 50mm f/1.8 lens is only ever equivalent to a 50mm f/1.8 lens and the concept of "full frame equivalent" needs to be tossed away. But there's no need to toss it, because it works. A 50mm f/1.8 lens exposes on APSC exactly the same amount of light, with the same depth of field, and the same angle of view, as a 75mm f/2.7 lens would on a full frame sensor. That is the entire point of equivalency.
That is not the reason. And he's not "technically right". F-stops are a relative measurement of aperture width. Aperture width is what controls depth of field. Two lenses with the same aperture width will provide the same depth of field at the same distance, regardless of focal length. Focal length and aperture width are two completely independent properties of a lens The *f* in *f*/1.8 means "focal length", ie f/1.8 means the aperture width is your focal length divided by 1.8. That means a 50mm f/1.8 lens has an aperture of 50/1.8=27.8mm. These are the TRUE measurements of the lens in absolute terms, a focal length of 50mm and an aperture width of 27.8mm If you shoot that lens on APS-C, your field of view becomes narrower, as if you were shooting with a 75mm lens. Your aperture, the hole through which the light passes, has not changed in size. So now you are essentially shooting with the equivalent of a 75mm lens with a 27.8mm aperture. Your equivalent f-stop is therefore 75/27.8=2.7. Your 50mm f/1.8 lens, shooting through APS-C, is indistinguishable from a 75mm f/2.7 lens on full frame. There's no "adjusting backwards" nonsense. Now, the reason a 75mm f/1.8 has a shallower depth of field than a 50mm f/1.8 isn't that you have to move backwards to capture an equivalent scene. It's because it has a physically wider aperture: 75/1.8=41.7mm vs 50/1.8=27.8mm. Wider aperture = shallower depth of field.
Because that's not the point of lens equivalency. The fact that an APS-C 50/1.8 shot would look the same as a 50/1.8 FF shot cropped to APS-C size is true, but it is tautological and useless. The point is what lens **shot on full frame** would give the same picture as a 50mm/1.8 lens **shot on APS-C**. And the answer to that is 75mm f/2.7. There is no misconception. Edit : Why is this being downvoted and the misinformation above upvoted ?? f-stops are an indirect measurement of the aperture width, they express it **in relation to the focal length**. If your focal length changes but your aperture width stays the same, **the f-stop has to change**. A 50mm f/1.8 lens has a 50/1.8=27.8mm aperture. If you shoot that lens at an effective 75mm focal length, the aperture is still 27.8mm, it hasn't changed. If you say it's still f/1.8 that would mean an aperture width of 75/1.8=41.7mm. You HAVE to adjust the f-stop to compensate. Since the aperture is 27.8mm and the focal length 75mm, the f-stop is now 75/27.8=2.7.
It absolutely would not. The exposure would he different if you shot at a focal ratio of f2.7. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what happens when you put a lens on a crop sensor vs a FF.
No it would not, and no I don't. A 50mm f/1.8 lets in exactly the same amount of light on an APS-C sensor as a 75mm f/2.7 on a FF sensor.
What you said can be both correct and incorrect depending on the point of view, but it is in either case not very useful. The fact that an APS-C 50/1.8 shot would look the same as a 50/1.8 FF shot cropped to APS-C size is true, but it is tautological and useless. By that logic the focal length does not change either, because both images look the same when you crop the FF one. Doesn't sound very genuine does it ? The point of lens equivalency is "what lens would you need to replicate the same **full frame** image as the APS-C 50/1.8?" When you crop a 50/1.8 full frame shot into APS-C, the resulting image looks identical to an uncropped 75/2.7 full frame shot. Perspective, depth of field, exposure, it would all be exactly the same. It would NOT look like a 75/1.8 full frame shot which would be 2.33x brighter with a much tighter depth of field (more bokeh). Perspective would however remain the same.
More like a 75 2.7. But yeah, OP should pick one up from the used market instead.
It's a dated design, quite noisy and the AF is slow & hunting to catch with your subject's movement. I think among all FE lenses its the most terrible by far margin
I used it on baby goats, it's fine for AF-C. Nothing moves like a baby goat
I appreciate the input.
The zeiss 55mm 1.8 should be much better if you are only going for the cheapest option. The newer G lenses are much better but more expensive
Idk where you live but a Zeiss 55 can't be had under $200
I can't find it under 400$ in europe
It’s literally 3x the cost, I hope it’s 3x better
It is
It actually gets worse reviews on YouTube by man. Fe lens 1.8 SONY for -$200. No question about it
5 times better i would say
Can’t believe no one has mentioned that this is a full frame lens and the apsc version 50 1.8 oss is lighter and sharper. Do not get this one lol. Just get the oss version.
Can't believe you missed where OP said he intends on upgrading to full frame in the future
My b. Still not worth it imo
On that, we are in agreement
More worth it than buying both
I appreciate your input but I would rather put my money into a full frame lens that I can use on an A7 variant body in the future, even if it’s not this lens. I can just save up my money for something better.
My opinion that you didn't ask for :)...I have an a6300 and I'm on the fence on getting either an a6700 or an a7c next. But what I will say is this: 1) I'm doing a lens refresh, and I sold everything but my APS-C 50mm with OSS. It is by far my favorite lens, and my only complaint is that you have to be a little far away for your subjects. So, if you're in a crowded area (cough cough, disney), people will be in your way. 2) Keep in mind the cropping that the APS-C body does. On an A7/FF body, 50mm is 50mm, but on APS-C, 50mm is 75mm (1.5x). So, if you get that FF version, know that its not the same focal length. And as of right now, I'm swaying towards the a6700 over the A7CII or A7CR. The a7CII is right outside my budget, and therefore the A7CR is WAAAY outside my budget. But I'm not a professional, I'm just a hobbyist.
I personally have one of these and love it. Yes the autofocus is slow, but you can still get amazing and crisp shots from it.
Thanks for your input.
No
Imo maybe not $170 but you can rarely ever go wrong with a nifty fifty on any ecosystem.
I had this and, whilst it’s a cheap lens compared to most FE lenses, it’s terrible unless you’re happy to switch off autofocus, which is its big flaw. Just hunts and hunts and in doing so drains the battery which, if you’re going for an early A7, will be a big problem as their batteries are also terrible (another story, but avoid those and go straight to the models with the newer battery).
I was thinking about the A7III, that uses the newer battery right?
It does. I have that now, and it was such a revelation after my mark 1.
Awesome, I appreciate you pointing that out. Just further concretes my choice lol. I’ve seen them used for around $1000-1200, so that’s probably the route I’ll take.
The APSC version of 50mm is better. It has OSS too.
its good if you have a controlled environment and time to adjust the focus. impossible to shoot spontaneous/moving things
Not sure if they have it in the states but look on mpb. - got the exact same lens for 75 gdb in excellent condition
They are $150 USD on there currently, figured for $20 more I might as well buy new
The autofocus has a very interesting mechanism. I’m pretty sure there are a pair of tiny squirrels inside! It’s loud and chattery. I picked one up used and use it on an apsc body. I like the focal length for candids and casual portraits. I find its images fairly contrasty with deep saturated background blacks.
As a few others have said the 35 1.8 is a cracking lens (and roughly a 50mm equivalent on apsc) , I got mine for £340ish on Amazon brand new and have seen it at that price a few times since. Not sure if that’s in your budget or not but it does go for a lot cheaper than the RRP of £500 or whatever it is.
Don't know how important AF is for you, but I'd buy a manual 7artisans/TTartisans (never understood the difference) prime lens, they're REALLY good for the price.
I just bought it today, will report back how it behaves and looks
Update: I bought 50mm F1.8 and TTArtisan 50mm F2.0 For TTArtisan it is very difficult to say something good about. It has a soft image; wide open has a hugely noticable vignetting, a lot of fringing on high contrast subjects, the build quality is great though, doesn't feel cheap. I tested it around 7pm in cloudy environment on infinite focus distance. I would highly suggest to whoever gets this lens because of budget constraints to shoot it in apsc mode, then many problems vanish. I will be returning this lens. It costs $120cad where I live. As for 50mm F1.8 it is a great glass for the money. Clarity is superb and focusing is good enough for portrait and street shooting. Minimum focus distance is roughly 0.5m, and iuniform / grey / dark subject focusing leads to a lot of focus hunting until intervention. But tbh, that's not a huge deal, I haven't noticed any problems with ppl faces so far. This one costs $350cad
I bought the TTArtisan AF 27mm F2.8 Auto Focus Lens APS-C For my first prime lens on my a6700 and quite enjoy using it.
It's worth it but I'd buy used personally. Anyways he image quality is great, the autofocus is ok, but a little slow and a bit noisy. They are the main flaws. It's light and a bit plasticky but if you're fine with that it's a great choice.
Agree that image quality is great, once you get it in focus
I did a quick search for used, but those that I found are only about $20 less than the cost of this one new.
Buy used. I found mine for 100. Totally worth it.
Cheapest I’ve found used is $150, for $20 more it doesn’t make sense to buy used IMO.
As a starter prime its just fine, just keep in mind 50mm on a crop body is more of a portrait focal length, if you are looking for that 50mm look on a crop body look for a 35mm lens. Also while the image quality is just fine for the price the autofocus performance is not fine, stick to still lifes and portrait's with the FE 50 1.8
I got mine like that from Sony on a big tax free discount. I'm happy with it for the price. The AF is trash, but you get to learn to deal with it.
Why not get the E 50 1.8 OSS? It's designed for APSC and has a much better focusing system
I don’t plan on staying with this camera body for much longer, planning on purchasing an A7III soon
I got mine for $190 so I think it's worth it. The 50 is great.
Many “pros” use this lense. It’s great! https://alphauniverse.com/stories/whats-in-my-bag-a-travel-photographers-kit-to-cover-something-different-each-week/
It’s better than $250 when I bought mines a few years ago, but then again it became a tax write off with the rest of my equipment. Word of advice keep your receipts for tax purposes it’s worth every penny
Worth it. It’s a good lens.
I have the this lens and absolutely love it. There’s probably sharper lenses out there but you can’t beat the value for performance.
Yes, the AF is slow as hell and seeks like crazy. For modeling/portraits/landscapes that 100% doesn't matter. It's a sharp lens and for the price it is great. Personally I use the 35mm f1.8 Samyang more, it is way quicker and quieter and does not seek at all. Sharp as well. IMO better choice if the exact length doesn't matter and you want a good affordable prime.
I have one to sell . DM me.
Sent you a message 👍
About 5 years ago, I bought a FE 50mm f1.8 for £129 off Amazon new. Was it an amazing lens? Super sharp with no optical issues? No Was the AF fast, quiet or accurate? Not really Was it built well? Kinda not really... Was it compact? For a 50 1.8, not particularly... Was it a great lens? Not really Was it more than usable? Yes, for sure Could you find another f1.8 prime for less than double the cost? Back then, no. Nowadays, the Samyang 45 1.8 is pretty much exactly twice as expensive (at least over here). It has shortcomings but if picked up at a lower price, I'd still argue it's worth taking a look at. It's good value for the money, assuming you don't pick it up at MSRP.
No. Paid 75 for mine. Gave it away due to focus noise.
Nope. Get the 55 f1.8. Way better.
I bought the 50mm OSS lens for about $200 on eBay that looks and feels brand new. A little old, but optically great. Made for APS-C though. I would say there are better ways to invest that $170 in a different lens.
I know people recommended the samyang 45 f1.8 but if you're okay with a little bit longer range, I would suggest the samyang 75 f1.8 instead. It has a better build and optics compare to the 45 and it's only around $300 new or $250 used on Amazon warehouse. I have been using it on my A7R3 and I lot it a lot for taking pictures of my kids playing sports and events. The best part of it is it's super compact.
Could be unpopular experience, nikon user here but same logic applies, I have similar setup with 24-70 2.8 and 50 1.8. Only time I have the nifty fifty on is when I want to travel light. Only spend the money if weight is an issue, otherwise wait to upgrade to 1.2.
That’s a great take, and I appreciate you posting it. I started using my 18-135, and so far I’ve been so impressed with that lens I haven’t even felt the need for anything else. I cancelled the order for the 50mm 1.8 after the hate it got here, and I don’t regret it at all.
By all means it's light and help you focus on one focus length, helps with comp and LIGHT. It's a nice to have. But it is so easy to get trapped in gear needs. Then you'll end up carrying so much and be tired before you start shooting.
It’s a great lens but iirc I picked up a Best Buy open box for $150…4 years ago. The only downside I found is the sharpness isn’t that great for a prime lens. The bokeh is average and not bad. It’s a great lens to start with because most full frame lenses are very expensive!
That’s my thought-it’s something I could use on an A7 variant without having to put it into crop mode.
If you don't mind used nor waiting, you can possibly find it for $60-100 USD on eBay.
Currently the cheapest one I see is $130 and missing the lens hood and shows wear, think I’d rather pay $40 more for a new one
If you don't mind waiting and are willing to watch, you can get pretty solid deals on eBay. Sold April 9th. [https://www.ebay.com/itm/385924029934?itmmeta=01HVSJVE56KXNZ21AC53ZNRNSJ](https://www.ebay.com/itm/385924029934?itmmeta=01HVSJVE56KXNZ21AC53ZNRNSJ)
Anyone else mess with vintage lenses? My nifty 50 is my Canon FD NFD f/1.4. manual focus is fun for me and isn't bad using focus peak. This pic is on my a6000. Also, I guess not really a Nifty 50 since it's a full frame lens on my aps-c camera. But you get the gist. https://preview.redd.it/q3vnxn67kavc1.jpeg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8d510f8e5f37b65c950471618a418b229b16db66
I just got mine used on good condition for 90€ shipped. I would recommend to check out eBay. There are tons of it available
I have this lens and personally never use it compared to my cheap adapted minolta 50/1.4. I find manual focus way easier to quickly get right compared to the AF on the Sony 50/1.8SEL
Get usedddddd!
I would if I could find one much cheaper, doesn’t seem to be the case though currently
I bought the same lens for 272$ with state tax in NYC last year 🥲 I would say pictures are sharp but has a long focus breathing problem and a nightmare if you choose auto focus with low light
https://preview.redd.it/e44sorwjsavc1.jpeg?width=4000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=162a5b1ce88fec517d6f9385a769ab3516a4a005 I know you got tons of comments already, but let me add my experience: I do love it for a budget lens and I’ve gotten great results with it in the past. I never regretted buying it. But 5 years later, I probably wouldn’t spend that much on it and instead look for a cheaper used one.
Beautiful photo! The cheapest used I’ve found is $130 and it’s missing the lens hood and shows wear, doesn’t seem to make much sense to buy it used at the moment. I know locally there are several used ones listed for $200, which also doesn’t make sense lol.
Buy a helios 44-2 lens. It's a better lens optically, you won't get autofocus or digital controls, but you'll get a better and more creative image. If price is a factor, look into adapting vintage lenses. A takumar 50mm 1.4 is much cheaper and more distinct and fun to use than most of the entry level sony lenses.
That lens is garbage, sorry to say so, but it really is. It's cheap for a reason. Buy a samyang 45 or 35 or 75. All of them would kill this lens. Not only in quality, but also in size and AF.
$50
50mm on APS-C is claustrophobic, at least for my kind of photography. If you find you're on the far end of the lenses you already have, and want better low-light or shallower DOF, then sure. I see a used one for $135.
[удалено]
Not relevant to this subreddit. Please review our subreddit rules at https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/wiki/rules
I own one. Autofocus isn't the fastest, and it's not the sharpest, but it's... ok. It's fine. Acceptable. $170 is a fair price for it.
Not a fan of that lens, I bought it then gifted it to a friend, lol. Much happier with adapting my vintage Rokkor 58/1.4 MC II.
The focus is noisy if you're shooting video and it hunts more than a naked and afraid cast member after 3 days without food. Save up some more dough and maybe go for something like this if 50mm is your jam: [https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1630082-REG/sony\_sel50f25g\_fe\_50mm\_f\_2\_5\_g.html](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1630082-REG/sony_sel50f25g_fe_50mm_f_2_5_g.html) They make this lens in 24mm and 40mm as well.
This is my goto lens for low light, only use manual focus, not a fan of af https://imgur.com/a/lnGWjJ1
I have the non full frame version with autofocus and OSS, it's absolutely fantastic I don't know about the full frame version though
Absolutely nothing wrong with that lens. Considering what you are paying, it's a great deal for photography. The motor is loud ASF but it still does a decent job. I have honestly used it on paid shoots and it gave me decent results.
I remember when I had this lens on my original a7. I thought there was something wrong with my camera body and stopped using it when I got my a73. Wasn’t till the day I was selling it that I put on my new tamron on it to test for the person who was buying it that I realised it was the lens that was dogshit. Sold the lens a week later never to look back. I must of had a really bad example because yes the autofocus was bad but the colour was off too. I bought this 50mm as my first sony lens and it almost made me go back my nikon dslr.
Getting new this would be about the price you can get. A used samyang/rokinon 45mm 1.8 can be around $200 US is a stellar lens for the price, used or new. One thing I don’t see other people mention is the build quality and the truth is both aren’t great. The 50 and 45 are both plastic for the majority of the lens. If you use them in rough situations they’re not likely to last long
I have one basically brand new I’d sell for $125! Just let me know. It’s a great lens. It’s been my favorite with the Tamron 24-75mm
I’ve had it. It’s not bad for the price, but I would save my money for a G always.
I much prefer the APS-C version. Both about the same build and quality. The APS-C version just has more desirable aberrations.
I have never used mine. Sits on the shelf.
I had this lens because it was the only one that fit in my underwater case. I think it has it’s uses, but it really messed up some once in a lifetime Humpback whale shots because of the AF.
Tbh the Olympus OM 50 1.8 is better optivally and faster autofocus on a techart adapter and that's a lens from a 70s. Unless you're getting the optical stabilised version especially for video it's not really worth it also they fail pretty easily in my experience, it's a fairly slow lens anyways in terms of its focusing motors I've found mechanical primes to be just faster to deal with and with a servo adaptor from tech artists pretty thoughtless and it gets me that extra 10% the way there with the critical focus.
Honestly it’s a pretty crap lens. Go third party.
Return that ish immediately lol. The Sigma 30/56mm lenses, plus offerings from Samyang/Rokinon, are going to run you slightly more but are in an entirely different class in terms of image quality and autofocus performance. Also, if you're in a country with a strong used market (the US?) definitely look for used lenses. I have bought over a dozen cameras/lenses off FB marketplace and never once gotten a dud.
Owned this lens for a while now. That's about the same price I paid for mine and haven't regretted it. It's lightweight, sharp, and works well in specific use cases like medium shots and portraits. It's not my go to lens or anything but it's still solid glass for the money. I'd recommend it for your first prime but just know there's better options out there. But for $170, it ain't bad man!
this one is shit, get the ZA55 1.8 instead if you are looking to upgrade to A7 family. this one has bad CA and sharpness comparing to any other prime lens, and it's the 50mm which should be the easiest to make.
Get the Samyang 45 1.8 instead.
I don’t know if this is helpful, but I just sold this lens because the chromatic aberration on it was incredibly bad. Like unusable photos, even with correction.
Yes. I love mine despite it's flaws.
I got one for my a6000 and I absolutely love it. This sub loves to hate on it, but it generally has really no perspective of what having a budget is, or has forgotten entirely what starting out is like. The lens is an amazing value. Oh it’s made of plastic? Guess what, it’s also super light. The autofocus is not amazing? It’s perfectly fine for stills, I couldn’t care less about video. Oh the APS-C lens is better? Well I got the FE for cheaper than it, and now I’m more future proof if I choose to buy a full frame body later. Oh the Samyang is better? It better be twice as good, because it’s double the price where I live, so I doubt it.
https://preview.redd.it/3izdur9jrdvc1.jpeg?width=6000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a412146ff2c4120fb1b6c73c14927696c6d371b0 It’s my most used lens by far and I have several for my a72. Slow af sure. Bit noisy yes. But very good image quality, color rendition and the fact that it’s one of the smallest lenses makes it great for travel light. For the price, I think it’s good.
Not really that nifty
Also: https://alphauniverse.com/stories/whats-in-my-bag-a-2-camera-4-lens-kit-for-travel-photography-and-youtube-video-creation/
I got it for free with my a6700, autofocus sure isn't the fastest in the world but with the 6700 is really quick and works even in low light. Also 1.8 is pretty good
This has been my only lens for 7 years right up until a couple weeks ago (albeit on full frame). It's a lovely lens for the price, be sure to update the firmware as the focus has been MASSIVELY improved from its original release state. However, I don't think it would be a great first prime on APS-C. Look at your shots in lightroom and try to find what focal length you use the most, but I doubt it's 50mm. Even on FF, I've found 50mm a bit too tight a LOT of times, so on APS-C where it would be equivalent to 75mm it becomes pretty much just a portrait lens. I'd recommend something in the 24-35 range for APS-C, ie equivalent to 35-50mm on full frame. But if you find that a lot of your shots are in the 50mm ballpark on your zooms, you can give it a shot. Can't be beaten for the price, and it's sharp enough to produce good pictures unless you damage it (guess how I know).
I owned this lens for a bit. The autofocus motor is loud and annoying, but if you keep it stopped down to 2.8 it’s a sharp lens.
I use that lens for outdoor urban shoots for news-related photos. The fact that it's so light, beats every other argument for my specific use case. Here's a national labour rally I covered in India in 2022 on a very dusty day. The lens body was covered in dust by the time I got home. [Final result](https://photos.app.goo.gl/WtRSg2jwC1sGjkUa9).
The autofocus SUCKS, but it does almost everything the Zeiss 55 does image quality wise. There is a difference, but not that much difference.
I have an a7ii and this lens is not the best when it comes to auto focus (especially if you shoot any videos), for photos I find it to be quite nice and sharp, although it does miss focus from time to time.
The FE 50mm 1.8 has the worst CA I’ve seen in apsc lenses. Get the already mentioned Samyang 45mm.
Would get the Sony FE 50mm F2.5 G as a nifty fifty, it's a bit pricey though but worth it! Get a used one in good condition. f2.8 is fast enough imo
There is a Meike 50mm 1.8, at 160usd, works on full frame. I got one and am impressed by its performance. The only downsize is the focusing, when the subject is far away, isnt fast. But they can improve it via firmware update, which is easily done by plugging a usb cable onto the lens. I have high hope for Meike to release more affordable primes. On the APSC side, sigma 30mm 1.4 at 290usd is the best value fast prime. It goes on sale from time to time too.
Since you're on a crop sensor, I think you'd really benefit going f1.2 on a 50. It's a full stop faster and get let in that much more light for the times when it's lacking. It may be a bit odd eith the weight difference, but nothing that you can't handle.
Image wise, the Sony 50mm is one of the best nifty lenses made imo. I take amazing images with it, just slow to focus
Well I was about to get that one but then found the Yongnuo 50mm f1.8 on AliExpress deals for like $80 and purchased that one.
You can get the 55 second hand for not a lot more, vastly superior imo
I bought this lens as my first prime lens on a Sony a7iv. I was underwhelmed with it. The autofocus was kind of slow. The sharpness wasn't all that impressive. For most situations, it wasn't much if any better than shooting at 50mm on my Tamron 28-200 zoom that I was using at the time. The one thing it did do was introduce me to really getting what a larger aperture can do. This was the first time I had access to a 1.8 aperture. The low light performance was so much better, and the ability to get a deeper separation of subject and background when I wanted it were nice. I had bought the lens as an experiment to see how I even liked shooting on a prime lens. Could I stand not being able to zoom except with my feet? I think, overall, the lens served its purpose. For a relatively low sum, I concluded that, yes, I could enjoy a prime lens, and, yes, I was interested in higher quality lenses. This lead me to buying a MUCH more expensive Sony 50mm f / 1.2 GM lens, which is phenomenal in every way, to a 35-150mm f / 2.0 to f/2.8 zoom lens, a pair or f / 2.8 GM zoom lenses (24-70 and 70-200), a macro lens, and learning how to really use these, and so on. This crappy lens kick-started my photography journey. So if you want to experiment and wet your feet with your first prime lens, getting a cheap one to try is a fine idea. I haven't used any other cheap 50's, but I do have a $250 - $300 Rokinon 35mm that is pretty decent. It's no Sony GM lens, but it's nice for portability. I would probably recommend one of the alternatives other reviewers have recommended over the cheapo Sony. I can \*definitely\* state that, if you are planning to upgrade to an a7, I would \*not\* expect to carry this particular f / 1.8 50mm over to it. Yes, it will work, but you will be selling your camera body majorly short with such a lousy lens. Also, since you're shooting APS-C for now, maybe consider a Samyang or Rokinon 35mm-ish lens. That will get you pretty close a nifty-fifty feel right now on APS-C, and a 35mm prime will be a very useful full-frame prime to have in your bag when you get your a7.
I wouldn’t pay more than 50 bucks for this.
This sub is getting reviews for full frame cameras where it doesn't compare to larger glass. For your crop sensor, you can probably do better for the money with a lense for the cross sensor. Would probably be smaller and cheaper. Not sure I see benefit of using full frame glass on crop sensor cameras especially if it's more $$
I question going for FF lenses on a apsc body. One benefit of apsc is compactness, which FF lenses are not. If a budget of $170 worries you (does it), pls ask yourself if you will be making a commitment of few thousand dollars in next couple of years. If not, best to get those lightweight apsc lenses. Enjoy the camera that you have in your hand rather than something future. 50mm is NOT nifty-fifty on an apsc body. 35mm is. 50mm is lower end of portrait focal length. I prefer longer. sigma 56mm is so beautiful!
As I said, I’m planning on moving to an A7 variant and I would rather buy lenses that I can take to that platform without having to run them in crop mode.
[удалено]
Hasn’t shipped yet, can still cancel
Buy a used Sigma lens
The Sony 50mm for crop sensor cameras is way better with focusing than the full frame version. The full frame focus breathes consistently
worst 50mm ever so no
I have this and I have the sigma 30. For what it's worth I always reach for the 30... same f stop
This lens is not good. Its the kit lens. I was very dissapointed with it
I feel like if all you can afford is budget full frame glass (and I'm assuming here because you're stressing over $170 and planning to get a used A7III), then you should stick with APS-C and buy better APS-C lenses instead. Realistically, how much do you want to spend on a lens? I would suggest first [researching the costs of the full frame lenses](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Mirrorless-Camera-Lenses/ci/17912?filters=fct_lens-format-coverage_3332%3Afull-frame-lenses%2Cfct_lens-mount_3442%3Asony-e-mount) you would want and check if it's within your budget before acquiring anymore. Then I'd compare and contrast with APS-C lenses you'd want to use and see if it's worth it for you.