I have an 18-200vr nikon lens.I am thinking of buying a 17-55mmf2.8.Can anybody advise me whether should i buy.
17-55mmF2.8 Nikon
- Thread starter alf626
- Start date
- Status
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?
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
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
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.
For me, i get myself a 50 f1.8 for low light to complement my 18-70 and 55-200.
usually once you get a f2.8 lens
most of your shots will be at f2.8
but later you will realise that you should be shooting at f5.6 or f8
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:
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:
But, that also depends on what focal range & how wide or tele the lens is being use right?:think:
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.......
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.
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?
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?
- Status
