I have an 18-200vr nikon lens.I am thinking of buying a 17-55mmf2.8.Can anybody advise me whether should i buy.
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.
Explain what you mean by "f2.8 trap"?
because all lenses are better stopped down
and at f2.8 the DOF is shallow
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.......
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?