Why is a 17 - 55 so much more expensive than an 18 - 55??

AdamsCanon

AdamsCanon

Messages
116
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
probably a stupid question but can someone explain? is there much difference?
 
Same reason that a high class call girl is more expensive than a kerbside whore.............:)
 
Last edited:
In a simple quick answer "ohhhh yes"

The 18-55 is what you would get with most of the entry level cameras where as the 17-55 is what canon make for non fullframe cameras.

It is constructed better has more elements and made with much better quality glass, hence the massive differnce in price oh and it is f2.8

Spike
 
Beacuse the 17-55 has an aperture of f/2.8 throughout the range and in the canon version also IS.
 
Basically, if you own the 17-55 you will have more success with the opposite sex, you'll live longer and your chances of winning the lottery with increase dramatically.

At least that was the sort of desperate reasoning I found myself using to justify the cost of buying one. Once I did, none of those things mattered any more, just the lovely shots it let me take.
 
ChrisJ_SLH said:
Basically, if you own the 17-55 you will have more success with the opposite sex, you'll live longer and your chances of winning the lottery with increase dramatically.

At least that was the sort of desperate reasoning I found myself using to justify the cost of buying one. Once I did, none of those things mattered any more, just the lovely shots it let me take.
Click to expand...

don't forget the extra 1mm. size matters :D
 
AdamsCanon said:
probably a stupid question but can someone explain? is there much difference?
Click to expand...

better IS, better quality has more glass of a higher quality for starters.
 
Jackwow said:
Odd response! :thinking:
Click to expand...

Why is that, its the truth, the 18-55 is a kit lens supplied with entry level camera's like the 400D, 550D etc, the 17-55 is an EFS lens made for crop sensor camera's of all levels, cannot see how its an odd responce or am i missing something???

spike
 
SpikeK6 said:
Why is that, its the truth, the 18-55 is a kit lens supplied with entry level camera's like the 400D, 550D etc, the 17-55 is an EFS lens made for crop sensor camera's of all levels, cannot see how its an odd responce or am i missing something???

spike
Click to expand...

Um, I think there's a bit more to it than that, specifically in relation to the op's question!
 
odd jim said:
Um, I think there's a bit more to it than that, specifically in relation to the op's question!
Click to expand...

I did answer more fully in my origional post it was only that bit that got copied by Jackwow so just answered the quote

I know there is more to it than that as I own the 17-55mm

spike
 
SpikeK6 said:
I did answer more fully in my origional post it was only that bit that got copied by Jackwow so just answered the quote

I know there is more to it than that as I own the 17-55mm

spike
Click to expand...

Oh I see. I did read the earlier posts but that was when the thread first came about so my apologies for missing that.
 
Thinking of getting the 17-55 myself for a 550d - Spike : is it a big jump up in quality from the kit 18-55?
 
The pictures will be sharper with better contrast but what you are really getting is the constant f/2.8 aperture and if you don't know why that would be useful to you you're probably better off exploring the limitations of your current kit first :)
 
SpikeK6 said:
Why is that, its the truth, the 18-55 is a kit lens supplied with entry level camera's like the 400D, 550D etc, the 17-55 is an EFS lens made for crop sensor camera's of all levels, cannot see how its an odd responce or am i missing something???
Click to expand...

Because you original response infers that entry level and "non full frame" cameras are not the same type of camera whereas they are, so yes you are "missing something".

Also the common terminology for "non full frame cameras" is crop sensor cameras.
 
Last edited:
fracster said:
Same reason that a high class call girl is more expensive than a kerbside whore.............:)
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense!

A high class call girl would have an hourglass body, be very adaptive and you'd want to knock her about everywhere :nuts:

Whereas the 17-55 f/2.8 is fatter than the kit lens, heavier and you'd be worried to knock it about :eek:

I think the only thing the both (high class escort and 17-55) share in common is that they'd give amazing satisfaction :cautious: :naughty:


Disclaimer, this is not from experience but from a well researched academic paper :rules:
 
Jackwow said:
Because you original response infers that entry level and "non full frame" cameras are not the same type of camera whereas they are, so yes you are "missing something".

Also the common terminology for "non full frame cameras" is crop sensor cameras.
Click to expand...


Ahhh right ok mate see what your saying, seems that i put the word non in somewhere it shouldent have.
See why it would seem an odd comment now, seems you are the only one to pick up on it lol.

Sorry

spike
 
17-55 IS USM is best you can get as standard lens for cropped sensor. It is equivalent to somewhat 24-70 2.8L for 5D. Problem is that once you got 17-55 2.8 it will be more difficult to upgrade to 5D later on.

By the way 17-55 has USM autofocus that is faster and coupled with f/2.8 work much more precise especially in low light condition.
 
Nawty said:
The pictures will be sharper with better contrast but what you are really getting is the constant f/2.8 aperture and if you don't know why that would be useful to you you're probably better off exploring the limitations of your current kit first :)
Click to expand...

The best advice, don't go spending tons of money on the 17-55 just because you'v heard its the lens you "need to have".
 
I have a Nikon 17-55mm at f2.8 throughout. Comparing it to a kit lens is like comparing McDonalds to a high class restaurant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top