# 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!


----------



## 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!!!!!!!!!
> ...



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.


----------



## Heitz (Sep 30, 2011)

Yea not sure why EXIF is gone.  but all shots in manual, same f stop.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 30, 2011)

rheitz1 said:


> Yea not sure why EXIF is gone.  but all shots in manual, same f stop.



You host on Flickr..... it's strips metadata when images are posted via links.


----------



## mrpink (Oct 1, 2011)

Ken Rockwell has some serious competition with this guy.....






p!nK


----------



## Heitz (Nov 14, 2011)

mrpink said:
			
		

> Ken Rockwell has some serious competition with this guy.....
> 
> p!nK



You are hilarious.


----------



## Boyun (Nov 14, 2011)

I agree with you. I have both lenses. I have the 18-55 VR and it certainly gives stellar results. People put it down because of its price and it is politically correct. No doubt, it is a cheap lens and cheaply built. It may fall apart at critical time. Which, you don't want it happen when you are in Timbuktu or a wedding ceremony. At that point you want dust, water and drop resistant. For that you pay dearly. I am glad that Nikon put out such a lens for the ordinary people. Ordinary people deserves a good and affordable lens. 

The 50mm is a different lens. For me, it is for different purposes. Don't forget the AF-S 35mm f1.8 on a D7000, in my opinion, is better than the 5D MKII  with a EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM.

PS: use a flash


----------



## ph0enix (Nov 14, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> 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.



I have a funny feeling that the prime lens might perform slightly better at that aperture


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 14, 2011)

The photos vanished


----------



## Boyun (Nov 14, 2011)

ph0enix said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...




Which kit lens has f2.8?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 14, 2011)

2WheelPhoto said:


> The photos vanished



"Shocking!!!!!!!!!!"  Seriously though, this was like a 3-minute, one shot from each lens, upload the pics, total elapsed time, 10 minutes kind of deal...the original photos were poorly done, and showed very little of anything from either lens...


----------



## Heitz (Nov 15, 2011)

Derrel said:
			
		

> "Shocking!!!!!!!!!!"  Seriously though, this was like a 3-minute, one shot from each lens, upload the pics, total elapsed time, 10 minutes kind of deal...the original photos were poorly done, and showed very little of anything from either lens...



Hey, I'm new at this. Give a guy a break, k?


----------



## Geaux (Nov 15, 2011)

^breaks are hardly given when the OP removes original images b/c of critique......


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 15, 2011)

Boyun said:


> ph0enix said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...


----------



## Heitz (Nov 15, 2011)

Geaux said:
			
		

> ^breaks are hardly given when the OP removes original images b/c of critique......



I removed them for other reasons. This thread had been dead for quite some time.


----------



## ph0enix (Nov 19, 2011)

Boyun said:


> ph0enix said:
> 
> 
> > Kerbouchard said:
> ...



Hence the ""


----------



## djacobox372 (Nov 19, 2011)

Sort of like comparing a hyundai to a ferrari in how they handle at 25mph.


----------



## Starskream666 (Nov 19, 2011)

it would also hope if the images were available


----------

