Review: Nokia Lumia 520

Web browsing is also possible from this inexpensive handset, and you even get it with a surprisingly strong 3G performance.

Despite this being the cheapest Nokia Lumia yet, our mobile broadband experience was one of the best we’ve seen for a budget handset, producing consistent download speeds for a device that relied solely on 3G.

These speeds sat between 6 and 8Mbps, and were higher than the 3G devices we’ve seen running Android, impressing us considerably for a $179 handset.

Then there’s the battery life, which won’t make you go “oooh” quite the same way.

It’s probably the size of the removable battery, but the Lumia 520 can only really provide a day of battery life.

In our test, which included making phone calls, sending texts, downloading apps, and playing music, we hit around 30% before we made our way to bed, resulting in a roughly 24 hour lifespan for the handset.

You might be able to get two days out of its small 1430mAh battery, but you will really have to not touch the screen, call anyone, or rely on any form of smartphone interaction to pull this off.

That’s not a fantastic performance, but given the size and budget price, it’s hardly surprising.

It being a budget phone also comes with another issue, or rather doesn’t come with one, as the case is in this handset.

What are we talking about here?

Why the cameras, as that’s where the front-facing camera is missing, while the rear camera lacks a flash.

Missing out on the front facing camera means no video conferencing is possible, and no selfies either.

We know how popular that last reason is for kids and teens, and even though Instagram is still missing on Windows Phone 8’s app ecosystem, it means that self-portraits of any kind are very hard with this handset, potentially lessening its use for the younger generation.

Over on the rear camera side of things, and Nokia’s normally decent shooter has taken a turn for the cheap. While there’s a five megapixel module here with auto-focus, the lack of a flash is one of the more surprising omissions we’ve seen in any smartphone, especially one that sits just under $200.

Nokia has at least provided the same buttons as its other handsets, meaning there’s a dedicated camera button, but we wouldn’t suggest relying heavily on this unless there’s plenty of light. When your subject is visible, the Lumia 520 can take a decent shot, but it’s not terribly sharp.

The moment the lights go out, though, the camera really struggles, and the missing flash means no extra light can be thrown back in, blown out or otherwise.

Conclusion

If there’s one thing we can be sure of, there has never been more choice in trying to find a phone as there has been lately. Android, iOS, BlackBerry, and Windows Phone; there’s certainly a lot to choose from.

Nokia hasn’t made it any easier, mind you, with five – count ’em (520, 620, 720, 820, 920; not including two upcoming devices) – making up the range, all with little differences between them. Each of these handsets is decent, but because of the similarities, it can be hard to make a choice.

Ultimately, the 520 is closest to the 620, and between them, there’s a difference of screen size and wireless communication standards, of which the 620 seems to have the edge in. Both are good devices, but the question you should ask yourself is what you need.

If you don’t care about the camera flash and the missing NFC, Nokia’s Lumia 520 will suit, especially for $179-$229. But if you need these features desperately, there’s $150 worth of tech to spend on, and that’s right there in the 620.