[DJW]

Not had a great amount of time to compare the 2 lenses apart from attached shots. Crop of shot to get to actual pixel size (eg. no resizing). Shot on left is taken with 18-70 kit lens, with right shot by the 50mm. Same settings for each shot :-

ISO 200
50mm
f5.6
1/250 sec
RAW
No processing in PS

Was expecting 50mm to give better results , although appreciate speed of lens for poor light conditions. Will give it some more time later this week for tests.

Anybody else done similar side by side comparisons ?

[Radiohead]

I have the same lenses and haven't compared them head to head. The low-light ability of the 50mm makes it worthwhile, especially as it's so close.

A good demo would be portraits.

[DJW]

Agree re low light capabilities, but on the flip side the DOF becomes so small at the wide apertures it is very easy to have a subject out of focus.

Found this to be the case when comparing the 2 lenses, handheld, in full auto mode in poor light. The 50mm went straight to f1.8 whilst the 18-70 lens was at f5 with the ISO pushed. End result was sharper focus on the zoom but more noise. Just shows extra care has to be taken with shots at low Aps

[DJW]

Better comparison in decent light. . Took portrait shots & found this portion of shot (actual pixels - no resizing) showed difference best.

Settings same for both

50mm
f5.6

Glad to see the 50mm lens has greater sharpness & colour saturation

[Radiohead]

That is a very noticeable difference isn't it.

[DJW]

Yep....just as well, as I am one of those lazy photographers who would prefer to only carry one lens. But with a difference like this, it makes it viable to keep the 2nd lens.

Also I moved over from the Canon to the Nikon, due to the quality of the kit lens (cost less than buying same quality glass for Canon). Now if you take into account I only paid £50 s/h for 50mm lens, it shows what a bargain it truly is