Will i _really_ notice the difference, prime vs G zoom

I have the 28 - 80 G (f3.3 -5.6) zoom (yes I know... it came with the

camera). The lens seems okay.

 

I have been eyeing up the Nikon AF 50mm f1.8 D as an all round

prime. To be used for indoor shots and a general 'street' lens.

 

Thing is, my zoom obviously has 50mm. Will I really notice the

difference in terms of sharpness?

 

The extra light will of course be useful...

 

What do you think about it?

 

Thanks, Jon

Like you would not believe.

 

The 28 - 80 G (f3.3 -5.6) zoom can on occasion come close in performance if you close down a stop or two, but you'll find the 50/1,8 images will just have great "snap" and contrast almost ALL the time. IMO no one should be without a 50 prime in their SLR arsenal.

Well, I can see the difference between my 28-105 3.5-4.5D (which is not a bad lens, by the way)

and my 28-70 2.8 AFS ED-IF when I do large enlargements. <p>

I think the difference in quality is even greater in the two lenses you are comparing.

Most likely yes. I can notice a difference in contrast even with 4x6 prints.

 

However, just how much a difference you see will depend on a number of factors. Do you shoot mostly hand-held or do you use a tripod? Do you shoot mostly at f5.6, f8 or f16? Do you use low ISO or high ISO film? Do you shoot slides or prints? If prints, what size prints and/or enlargements do you usually make? How closely do you examine your prints or slides? Who do you get to do your processing? Depending upon your answers to these questions the difference between the two can vary from the subtle to the blatantly obvious.

In addition to what others have said, there's a significant

difference in tendency to flare. Whether it's noticable

depends on lighting conditions of your photos (if you include

the sun in the field of view, you'll probably notice a difference).

<p>

The view through the viewfinder will be markedly brighter,

with shallower DoF in the viewfinder to help you see focus

better.

<p>

But 4x6 prints, both taken at f11 or so, in reasonably flat lighting,

will probably not be all THAT much different.

Jon, the 50mm f/1.8D is a true gem, but the inexpensive 28-80 is a good lens, so don't expect a miraculous difference in sharpness.

 

What you SHOULD expect is great fun playing with the thin depth of field at f/1.8, creating images where your subject "pops" out of the background in a way the 28-80 just cannot duplicate.

 

In that sense, yes, you will notice and appreciate the difference.

 

Buy the lens, you won't regret it.

Sharpness (actually resolution) is dependent on a number of things, and either one of thoses lenses is probably better than anything else in the chain that determines system resolution (overall system resolution will be somewhat worse than the worse thing in the system). If you: hand hold shots at low shutter speeds, use fast grainy film and make small prints there will be little difference. The only sure difference that you will see is if you shoot the 50/1.8 wide open the shallow DOF will give a look that the zoom can't.

When I upgraded from F2 to F5, I dispensed with the 50mm prime I had

owned since 1975 and opted for the 24-120mm zoom as the "perfect" travel

lens. A few months ago I bought the new 50mm f:1.8D and absolutely love it,

cannot do without it, it's the best value you'll ever get from Nikon!!! All the

previous comments apply, I endorse this lens as a "must have" for many,

many reasons. As to my one zoom lens - I have stopped using it, opting

instead for a 20, 50, 60 (micro) and 300 mm line-up. My next lens will be an

85 for obvious reasons; then I will sell the zoom.

Yes, you most likely can tell the difference in prints.

 

I used to have a 35-80 F3.5-5.6 (or whatever) kit zoom that came with the F60. It was a relatively sharp lens.

 

However, with a 50F1.8 AF, you will notice, even on 4X6 prints, a significant difference in flare control, contrast & resolution etc, particularly when (1) you are using large apertures (2) using a tripod. Aside from the obvious shallower depth of field that you can play with, there is an often overlooked advantage with a prime.

 

I find that the F1.8 in the arsenal enables me to take more low-light pictures and more importantly, EMBOLDENS me to put SLOWER film into the camera. The difference between say, Reala and NPH is telling in terms of saturation etc. Hence you will get overall better photos which show superior saturation and contrast.

 

The following photo is taken with a 50F1.8 AF. Available light and no flash on Fuji Superia 400. Can't do that with a G zoom. Bokeh is acceptable.<div></div>

Thank you for the responses, it sounds like I will enjoy trying this lens.

As many have stated already you will notice a big difference. But beware, I bought a 50 1.8 for available light and now Im selling all my zooms for primes.

It's sad they are selling these things to consumers. If I want a cheap lens I would switch to Canon. If you want to blow away people with your images get a couple of prime lens or buy a pro zoom lens. There is no way that the G's will give the same image quality, build quality than even an early Nikkor lens.

 

I can use any of my lens from the 60's and still get better image quality than a G. These things are targeted at our ever increasing throw away society. If you ever drop one or it malfunctions good luck. I was on vacation recently in Spain, the guy next to me had just switched lens and dropped his new G. What a mess, my Non G lens have never let me down.

 

I agree with the earlier post that you should be able to see the difference on a 4x6 print. I think people are expecting that these lens are going to be amazing just because they say Nikon. It's like people thinking the Tri-Elmar from Leica should of been amazing but its just an average semi-zoom.

But the Tri-Elmar is an amazing zoom - not because of the very difficult mechanical linkage required to bring up the appropriate fram-lines, but because of the images it produce. However, it should produce better pictures than most pro-zooms given its max. aperture is F4 rather than F2.8.

 

That said, I agree that most modern Nikon primes would be better than some of the older Leica lens that are still selling for hundreds of dollars. And although the humble Nikon 50F1.8 is inferior to 50mm Summicron in terms of construction, in most cases the optical result is not that different (except at full aperture), esp in view of the US$600 difference in price.

I got the prime, very pleased with it so far :-) Getting films developed soon.

I bought a N65 that, of course, came with the 28-80mm D lens. Since I had read in photo.net about the best way of building a SLR system, I inmediately wanted to buy the 50mm 1.8D and try it. I said to my self, "It's cheap, I don't see the harm...", and so I bought it.

 

I ordered it from Adorama, but unfortunately, I didn't order it soon enough for my trip to World Disney, so I had to take only my zoom lens with me.

 

I'm telling you the story so you can understand that I'm talking from experience. I shot about 5 rolls of 36 exposures each. Well, I can tell you those are the worst photos I have. Once I received the 50mm and tried it, I realized the difference in quality, sharpness, and brightness. It was like night and day.

 

I'm so happy with my prime 50mm that I already sold the zoom lens, and I don't plan on buying zooms for now. My next lens is going to be a prime portrait lens. I just have to be less lazy, and move my feet to zoom. Try it, and you'll see the difference immediately.