Lens comparison: kit lens vs 50mm....

[DubFan]

So I had some spare time this morning and went out to take photos.

Here's a comparison I did

Comparing lenses on the Sony Alpha 350.

Kit lens Sony DT 18-70 f3.5-5.6 (top left)
Minolta AF 50mm prime f1.7 (top right)
Sigma EX Asph 28-70mm f2.8 (bottom left)
Tamron 28-200mm LD Asph f3.8-5.6 (bottom right)

All taken at:
ISO 100
50mm
f5.6 (the minimum f stop on the kit lens at 50mm)
1/500 sec

All taken on a tripod using in-camera jpg compression. No editing or colour correction done.
No filters used on lenses and all lenses had a clean with a lens pen before leaving home.

Best viewed large.


Lens Comparison: Nifty-fifty versus... by AlistairBeavis, on Flickr

[Diamond Hell]

I think at on-screen resolution it would be beneficial if you outlined the key differences that you see.

[Ridg]

I'd have to say sigma, prime, kit, tamron

both the sigma and prime are sharp but the prime has vignetting (clearly visible in the top right), the kit over the tamron as the tamron is lacking contrast and the highlights are losing definition (this could be down to a change in light though).

Good test, but a higher resolution image or 100% crop and stable lighting would be better suited for a comparison.

[DubFan]

I admit it's difficult to tell without higher resolution crops.
I'll try and do some shortly.

The subject/location isn't perhaps the greatest, but I was going out shooting and thought I would try it out while I was out as I very rarely get a chance to take photos without wife/child in tow.

Another useful test would be something in low light to see how they compare when lighting is less than ideal.

[DubFan]

Ok, so here's the crops for detail, apologies for the size, but this is genuine 100%

In particular look at the detail around the trumpet of the daf, the tiny bumps on the surface of the top petals and the dew drops in the back right hand corner of the shot.
Look at the right hand edge of the top petal (where it meets the green background) you can see how sharp the Minolta 50mm and Sigma 28-70 lenses are in comparison to the kit lens and the Tamron.


Lens Comparison 100% crop by AlistairBeavis, on Flickr

Btw, all of these lenses were secondhand, costing £262 in total.

[Ridg]

not much between the prime and the sigma, the tamron is far too soft, the kit lens performs well but notice CA around the petal

[thatwillis]

Amazing in the difference between the kit lense and the Sigma. I'm guessing its all down to the quailty of the glass like you said before. I'm currently after a Sigma 10-20. Even more after seeing the difference in the quailty. But i'm not seeing them go for anything less than 250 quid 

[DubFan]

Yeah, the Sigma 10-20 is very popular. I fancy one too as I don't have anything decently wide apart from the kit lens at 18mm.
I could have gone for a Sigma or Tamron 17-50 f2.8 as a kit lens replacement, but the Sigma 28-70mm came up for a bargain price, so I got that instead. I haven't really missed having a wide lens, yet.

The quality of the glass is the key, even secondhand good glass will be better than a kit lens (unless your kit lens is worth £300 +).
And an investment in the glass is worth it because you'll be able to keep it longer than the body.