Nikon 50mm lens v Nikon 24-70mm lens

[realspeed]

tripod mounted



Camera Nikon D800 photo on left Nikon 50mm G f1.4 ..................... right Nikon 24-70mm f2.8G@50mm (non VR)

camera settings ISO100 and left in Aperture mode. the tree in the right hand picture is a lot sharper

I notice there appears to be a better DOF in the picture on the right, so is the Nikon 50mm that much better? not according to the above
Any ideas/help/ reason welcomed

Reason why i am asking? because of holiday to Sweden Russia-Germany etc soon. So landscape and town shots being taken

 

[HopefulM]

I had 2, neither of which were sharp - both returned to LCE for refunds, now I'm a very happy Sigma 50mm 1.4 owner

 

[gad-westy]

How did you focus each shot out of interest?

 

[seriousrikk]

Better in what way?
What was the aperture of each shot?
Where were you looking to prove or disprove?

That looks like a photograph of your screen, which makes it impossible to judge easily.

 

[realspeed]

How did you focus each shot out of interest?

Auto focus

 

[realspeed]

Camera in aperture mode see post 1

To see if prime better than telephoto with same camera settings

 

[Nod]

Doesn't say what aperture was selected though. As pointed out above, taking snaps of the screen isn't going to prove anything.
Try reshooting with both lenses set to f/5.6 and 50mm - the zoom shot looks to have a different AoV to the prime one.

 

[gad-westy]

Auto focus

Auto focus on anything in particular? Do you know that the lenses were focusing to the same distance? I only ask based on your comment about seemingly differing depths of field.

 

[Stu Meech]

I would repeat the exercise, with the 24-70 at 50mm, both the same aperture, focus in live view (if you have it) to the houses in the distance, then with mirror up/timer etc on a tripod so you have pretty much identical conditions. Then you can compare properly.

You don't mention what aperture you use, but I'd fully expect on a FX sensor at 50mm that at wide apertures you won't have both tree and house in focus.

 

[HoppyUK]

To tell those two lenses apart, you would need to do some very critical tests. Those you have done are completely meaningless.

The real difference between those two lenses is the 50mm prime is rubbish at 24mm and 70mm, and the zoom is equally poor at f/1.4.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Post up the raw files. A photograph of a monitor is useless.

Don't use auto focus. it may not be accurate enough, or one of the lenses may need AF fine tuning. Instead, use manual focusing with a zoomed in live view. Use mirror lock up and a cable release. Doing anything else means that there may be mitigating factors in your results.

You've focused on different things in each shot. Look at the left hand tree and distant house... it's obvious. Stop using auto focus if you can't control it.

Was the 24-70 at 50mm? If so, how did you check? Using just the zoom ring could mean it's anywhere from 45 to 55mm. it's not THAT accurate.

Why are you doing this? The 50mm 1.4 will be marginally sharper than the 24-70 set to 50mm.... we know this already.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Reason why i am asking? because of holiday to Sweden Russia-Germany etc soon. So landscape and town shots being taken

Then take them both if you're worried, but it's a bit pointless. You seem to be saying you'd rather take one rather than the other, so the 24-70 is the obvious choice because you've got everything from 24mm to 70mm.

Camera in aperture mode see post 1

To see if prime better than telephoto with same camera settings

Of course the prime is better, but only marginally, and when stopped down, you'd probably never notice... not at 50mm. The 24-70 is at it;s best from 50 to 70. Measure it at 24mm against a 24mm prime and you'd see the difference.

Any way... I don't have the 1.4G but I've just shot some tests with the 24-70 2.8G against a 50mm 1.8G for you. Tripod... manual focus with live view zoomed in. Mirror lock up and remote release. Straight from camera... no lens profiles, sharpening or CA removal applied.

Camera - Nikon D800E

 

[Pookeyhead]

 

[Pookeyhead]

At 2.8, the 24-70 actually has slightly more centre sharpness than the 50, but it's marginal.

By the time 5.6 is reached, there's little difference, but surprisingly, the zoom is ever so slightly sharper... or perhaps not as Photozone's resolutions tests show the 24-70 @ 40mm to give slightly higher centre resolution than the 50mm 1.8G.


The edge is a different matter though, where the prime stomps all over it at both apertures.


Note: apparent exposure differences at the edge samples is the vignetting effects of each lens... and again, the prime wins.

CA is more tightly controlled with the prime at all apertures.


Basically.... just what you'd expect when you look at the results published. The 1.4 is a superior lens to the 1.8 though, so overall, we can say with some confidence that your prime is definitely the better of the two lenses at that focal length... but did you expect anything else? Also.. bear in mind, that unless you print big, there's going to be no discernible difference as both lenses are excellent.


What is interesting though, is the differences in apparent depth of field. No user error before anyone suggests... check metadata (I've left it intact - unless the forum strips it). All focusing was manual (switched off) when the lens was wide open and using a fully zoomed in live view.


Try this at the 24mm end though and you'll see the zoom's shortcomings. The 24-70 performs best at the middle and long end, as almost every lens test published shows. The 24-70 has field curvature issues at the short end and the poor CA results again are well published.