18-55 kit versus 50mm 1.8G - side by side comparison

Heitz · Sep 29, 2011

Hey all. I love my Nikon 50mm 1.8G. Its been working spectacularly for me. I wanted to compare it to the 18-55 kit lens, so I did a few tests. I took some pictures @ f5.6, ISO100 in Aperture priority mode of a soft fuzzy subject. I was kind of hoping to see that the kit lens sucked. but actually, it seems pretty sharp. There does appear to be a slight different in color reproduction, with the 50mm 1.8 producing somewhat more vivid color, but I'm sure that could be corrected in post.

Now in your expert opinions, can you tell me any tell-tale signs of the kit lens' supposed crappiness (besides the much better bokeh in #1)? What might be different if I had a $5000 lens? Thanks

1. 50mm f1.8G

2. Kit Lens @ ~ 50 mm

Derrel · Sep 29, 2011

Absolutely SHOCKING comparison you've posted for us to look at!!!!!!!!!

tirediron · Sep 29, 2011

In this sort of comparison, I wouldn't expect to see any difference in sharpness. What you get when you buy high-end glass is first and foremost, build-quality. Pick up a Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 in one hand and the 18-55 in the other. You'll see a pretty drastic difference. Aside from that, there the differences are noticeable at extreme ends of the focal length range at maximum aperture. A comparison of CA between high end and consumer grade glass when shooting a person wearing a white shirt with a black jacket in direct sun wold also be rather telling.

At the end of the day, for the average shooter in typical conditions, a kit lens will turn in very good results.

tirediron · Sep 29, 2011

Derrel said:
Absolutely SHOCKING comparison you've posted for us to look at!!!!!!!!!

Yo, Derrel... you want to include a towel in future posts? I ran out of paper towels wiping up the sarcasm! :lol:

Kerbouchard · Sep 29, 2011

Try a comparison between the 50mm at 2.8 and the kit lens at 2.8. That's where you will start to see the differences.

CCericola · Sep 29, 2011

The first thing I see is the difference in depth of field. Look at the photo of the people in the background. Also, there is more detail in the shadows with the 50mm

Derrel · Sep 29, 2011

tirediron said:
Derrel said:

Absolutely SHOCKING comparison you've posted for us to look at!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Yo, Derrel... you want to include a towel in future posts? I ran out of paper towels wiping up the sarcasm!

Well, look at that cable that runs along the desk surface--in the top photo it has a shadow on it...in the bottom photo, the cable is lighted along its entire length!!!!

480sparky · Sep 29, 2011

It would also help if the same aperture was used in both shots.

enzodm · Sep 30, 2011

Also, post a 100% crop of center and borders.

PatrickJamesYu · Sep 30, 2011

So both lenses were set to f5.6?

I had a discussion recently about lenses
From it, I was informed the kit lens by Nikon is actually decently sharp.
It just lacks a few things.
Focusing speed, speed (aperture), and that it's not thatt wide nor zooms thatt far.
Also build quality.

It was a reasonable argument IMO.
The picture is sharp, just lacks some of the luxuries.

KmH · Sep 30, 2011

CCericola said:
The first thing I see is the difference in depth of field. Look at the photo of the people in the background. Also, there is more detail in the shadows with the 50mm

Yep, and depth-of-field (DOF) isn't bokeh (Circle of Confusion, CoC).

DOF can be adjusted. Bokeh (CoC) can only be adjusted by using a diferent model/make of lens.

It doesn't look that the aperture of each lens was set to the same f-stop. The kit lens photo has less contrast and looks somewhat under exposed too making me wonder what camera shooting mode was used.

Neither photo retained the EXIF metadata.