17-55mmF2.8 Nikon


Status
Not open for further replies.

alf626

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2007
2,015
6
38
Singapore
www.flickr.com
#1
I have an 18-200vr nikon lens.I am thinking of buying a 17-55mmf2.8.Can anybody advise me whether should i buy.
 

alf626

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2007
2,015
6
38
Singapore
www.flickr.com
#3
Thanks for the reply.I am happy with the 18-200.Just that is it better for the 17-55 for low light condition?And besides,is the 17mm & 18 mm makes a lot of difference?
 

ortega

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 2, 2004
23,694
10
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#4
it depends on how and what you like to shoot.

the 18-200 is a all-in-one lens

the 17-55 f2.8 would IMHO give a better image,
but you need to get out of the f2.8 trap
and learn how to use it well
 

tkbonz

New Member
Dec 11, 2006
990
0
0
Singapore
#5
Why don't you get a prime lens for the large aperture instead? Depending on what focal length you usually use for low light (or whatever reasons you want a large aperture for), just get that prime with the focal length!

For me, i get myself a 50 f1.8 for low light to complement my 18-70 and 55-200.
 

munkey

New Member
Apr 25, 2007
448
0
0
32
#6
Explain what you mean by "f2.8 trap"?
 

alf626

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2007
2,015
6
38
Singapore
www.flickr.com
#7
Why don't you get a prime lens for the large aperture instead? Depending on what focal length you usually use for low light (or whatever reasons you want a large aperture for), just get that prime with the focal length!

For me, i get myself a 50 f1.8 for low light to complement my 18-70 and 55-200.
Thanks for the reply.Will consider the 50 f1.8.
 

TerryOng

New Member
Feb 1, 2006
144
0
0
Bukit Timah
#8
That's a good choice. When you go to the shop, try both the 1.4 and 1.8 version, then compare.
 

Yatlapball

Senior Member
May 13, 2006
2,351
0
0
Volcano Land
www.emotively.com
#11
If you're happy then you don't need another lens. ;)

MmmMm. Speak words of wisdom Master Ortega does. :thumbsup: Stopdown the aperture you should. Shooting wide-open always a quick path to the dark side it is :bsmilie:
 

munkey

New Member
Apr 25, 2007
448
0
0
32
#12
Why is that so? cos the 2.8 is not sharp enough when wide open?
I have a 28-75 2.8 tamron.. and 2.8 is just alright.. usually shoot at 4.
But indoors no choice. is that a fair enough argument? please explain more! thanks :))
 

mtunlinn

New Member
Mar 16, 2006
1,471
0
0
East
#16
I have an 18-200vr nikon lens.I am thinking of buying a 17-55mmf2.8.Can anybody advise me whether should i buy.
For me, these 2 lens are for different usage.

17-55 2.8 is meant for professional usage with better contrast, colours and sharpness etc.. You will not be using it at 2.8 most of the time due to shallow DOF unless it is what you want to acheive. Pricewise it is double the 18-200 vr. You may need this lens if you are into actual day wedding photography or sort of... where the IQ speaks of the photog and the vr can't compensate the extra stops of light due to the subject movement.

If you want shallow DOF, nice bokeh for portriats, better low light capabilities and of course the subject permits the time of changing lens, primes like 50 1.8 will be a better choice at much cheaper price.

Hope it helps.......:):)
 

alf626

Senior Member
Sep 1, 2007
2,015
6
38
Singapore
www.flickr.com
#18
For me, these 2 lens are for different usage.

17-55 2.8 is meant for professional usage with better contrast, colours and sharpness etc.. You will not be using it at 2.8 most of the time due to shallow DOF unless it is what you want to acheive. Pricewise it is double the 18-200 vr. You may need this lens if you are into actual day wedding photography or sort of... where the IQ speaks of the photog and the vr can't compensate the extra stops of light due to the subject movement.

If you want shallow DOF, nice bokeh for portriats, better low light capabilities and of course the subject permits the time of changing lens, primes like 50 1.8 will be a better choice at much cheaper price.

Hope it helps.......:):)
Thanks for the feedback and suggestion.I am still new into photography and still alot to learn.
 

munkey

New Member
Apr 25, 2007
448
0
0
32
#19
Master Ortega.. as they call you.

If you were to be shooting at f16 , are the pictures not comparable to a normal P&S camera when used outdoors with optimal sunlight? Isnt the intention of using the nice lenses for the BIG apertures to create the nice creamy bokeh.. Why f16?
 

dnaxe

New Member
Oct 5, 2006
1,329
0
0
#20
Master Ortega.. as they call you.

If you were to be shooting at f16 , are the pictures not comparable to a normal P&S camera when used outdoors with optimal sunlight? Isnt the intention of using the nice lenses for the BIG apertures to create the nice creamy bokeh.. Why f16?
cuz it's sharp?

but probably not f16.

f8.

diffraction is an issue with APS-C at f16.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom