If 48fps is "more natural", then audiences are not in agreement. Most of the reaction I read about the 48fps Hobbit was negative. "Looks like a video game"
Actually I was rather pleased with it; supposedly the frame rate change in that case was supposed to ease the burden that standard 24fps 3D film puts on the brain. In that case I think it succeeded, but I wouldn't want to see the 2D version presented that way.
It's spectacular in 2D 48 frames. With 2 exceptions.
Fast cut scenes, didn't look that great, and fake sets, really need huge level of detailing, otherwise the extra frames bring out the "fake ness" of movie making. For example, the worst set pieces were fake rocks. They looked well fake with 48 frames on 2D. But built wood sets, like a Bag End (which is an insanely detailed set, was really beautiful. But if you have exceptional detailing, or filming fully real things it was glorious.