Whats the difference btwn 18-55mm and 17-55mm lens?

I recently purchased the Canon 1000d (rebel xs) and received the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens with it.

Reading through the forums, I saw that people recommended the 17-55mm f/2.8 as a "walk-around" or wide angle travel lens. Is there any real difference btwn the 17-55 and 18-55 (other than aperture) ?

I am looking for a wide-angle travel lens, and noticed that people prefered the 17-55mm over the 10-22mm. But, which would be more highly recommended given that I already own the 18-55mm kit lens?

One huge difference between the 18-55mm kit lens and the 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens is price -- many hundreds of dollars difference.

That said, the 17-55mm will get you better bokeh (background blur) than the 18-55mm -- assuming you're into shooting with your lenses wide open. The 17-55mm f2.8 is also considerably larger and heavier than the 18-55mm kit lens.

If you're not going to keep your kit lens, then the 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens is great. I own one, and it's super. If you are going to keep your kit lens, then you might as well get the 10-22 Canon lens to compliment it.

Robert
--
My state of confusion has turned into a circle of confusion.

I have the 17-55 and optically it is way better than the 18-55. However it is much bigger and as a travel lens maybe just too big. Also, despite the high price, it is not exactly robustly built - a plastic lens barrel is disappointing at the price. That said I have some fantastically sharp images with this lens on a 450D and I am very pleased with the results.

When you recently purchased the 1000d you may not have the IS version of the kit lens. (You don't mention IS in any case.)
The main differences between the kit lens and the 17-55IS are:

• price: 17-55IS is about 10x the price.
• IS: no difference if you have the IS kit lens, but very valuable difference if you have the non-IS one
• image quality: 17-55IS has excellent sharpness throughout the frame, very sharp in the corners
• aperture: constant max f/2.8, allowing you to shoot at lower ISO for the same shutter speed and allowing shallower depth of focus
• USM: fast, silent focusing, distance scale, full time manual override
• build quality: metal mount, no rotating front
• size and weight: the 17-55IS is much larger and heavier
• width: at short focal lengths every mm counts. 17mm is really wider than 18mm
• 77mm filter threads, these will match the size of the other high-quality lenses you might buy later, like the 10-22.

cafe_tiramisu said:

I recently purchased the Canon 1000d (rebel xs) and received the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens with it.

Reading through the forums, I saw that people recommended the 17-55mm f/2.8 as a "walk-around" or wide angle travel lens. Is there any real difference btwn the 17-55 and 18-55 (other than aperture) ?

I am looking for a wide-angle travel lens, and noticed that people prefered the 17-55mm over the 10-22mm. But, which would be more highly recommended given that I already own the 18-55mm kit lens?

Click to expand...

--
Slowly learning to use the 450D and and the Canon G6.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .

Thanks for the advice!

Just to clarify, the kit lens I have is a 18-55mm IS. I'm only looking to purchase one wide angle lens at the moment, and for a travel lens i'm not too concerned with bokeh. Seems like theres not too much of a benefit btwn my 18-55mm IS and the 17-55mm IS given the huge price diff, leaning towards the 10-22mm.

The faster 2.8 aperture for 17-55 is an advantage during travel when you visit inside a building where flash is not allowed. But weight admittedly can be an issue when you travel with 17-55. If you need wider than 18mm, then the obvious choice is 10-22.

cafe_tiramisu said:

I'm only looking to purchase one wide angle lens at the moment

Click to expand...

You may also like to look into the Tokina 11-16mm lens. It's cheaper than the Canon and seems to produce slightly sharper images, though it flares more easily (perhaps Canon's coating is the reason for the difference in sharpness?). The Tokina is also a constant f/2.8 throughout.

I wanted to get one, before the recession bit and the prices shot up...

The big difference between the 2 lenses is IQ--image quality.

Neither lense is considered wide ange. If you want wide angle then get the 10-22 zoom or the sigma 10-20.

If you find you 18-55 images not up to your liking or shoot in low light--then the 17-55 2.8 may fill your need

That's about it. Both have poor build quality.

If you just bought the 1000D, I'm guessing you're just getting into DSLR photography. And if you have to ask what's the difference between those lenses, I'm guessing you're not pixel peeping in corners and worrying about things like sharpness, chromatic aberration, bokeh, etc. That's a good thing. It means you'll be plenty happy with the lens you already own for a good long time. It's smaller and lighter and way less conspicuous, anyway.

If you get sucked into these forums, which are quite helpful in many ways, you'll think you have crummy equipment before you even use it and see for yourself what it can do. The fact is that most casual photographers will be plenty happy with the updated kit 18-55 IS until they reach an actual limitation with it, like "I can't shoot hendheld dusk shots at 100 ISO and I really want to." Then you can look into upgrading. But for now use your money to get a Sigma 10-20. Add a 55-250 IS and 50/1.8 for combined $300 and you'll have a killer kit.

--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/uunnngh/sets/72157608440121699/

Belasco said:

The big difference between the 2 lenses is IQ--image quality.

Neither lense is considered wide ange. If you want wide angle then get the 10-22 zoom or the sigma 10-20.

Click to expand...

So a 28mm lens (on a full-frame) isn't wide angle? On what planet?

35mm (or its equivalent) is wide angle. You're thinking of ultra wide angle.

cafe_tiramisu said:

I am looking for a wide-angle travel lens, and noticed that people prefered the 17-55mm over the 10-22mm.

Click to expand...

This "preference" makes sense only if you want just one lens. I own both and the 10-22mm is a joy to use in close quarters and for me, is the ideal complement to the other lens

cafe_tiramisu said:

But, which would be more highly recommended given that I already own the 18-55mm kit lens?

Click to expand...

I bought the 17-55mm f/2.8 because I wanted the continuous f-stop throughout the range.

If you are happy with the images from your 18-55mm, I would stay with it.

In your work, if you need something wider, I would purchase the 10-22mm. It't not that much extra weight when travelling.

About the build quality of the 17-55mm and 10-22mm: because these are not labelled as L lenses they are regarded as not quite as rugged as the L series. Since these are the first digital SLR lenses I've owned, I don't have anything to compare to. Both are wonderful to hold and work with. They both feel very solid and are quiet. The 17-55mm barrel extends when you zoom, and unlike cheaper lenses, it does not extend by itself when pointed down. The 10-22mm is internal focus. Both barrels do not rotate, so using a polarizer is easy.

While not L lenses, both have the UD glass which many reviewers note is the same that is used in the L lenses. Being EF-S (for crop bodies only) perhaps this is why they are not given the L label.

-rich

The new IS kit lens is almost as sharp as the 17-55, but there are other considerations.

The kit lens produces gobs of barrel distortion in the wide end, has lots of chromatic aberrations, including the ever-popular blue/purple fringing (which even appears on some L lenses).

The 17-55 produces a slight bit of barrel at the widest end (but in the year and a half that I've owned it, no noticeable distortion in any picture I've taken), is virtually devoid of chromatic aberrations, and produces no fringing at all.

And its build quality, while not up to L standards, is not poor by any means (an opinion shared by every review of the lens I've read). It's much better than the kit lens (metal mount instead of plastic, USM focusing, etc.).

However, my advice to you is to get the 10-22, and think about replacing the kit lens in the future, when you know better how satisfied (or not) you are with it.

My first DSLR came with the "II" kit lens, which was nowhere near as sharp as the new one (that you have), but it took me about a year of using it before I finally decided I needed a better lens...
--

Paul explain really well for the different. It is hard to explain why the 17-55 cost so much more, but that lens just make me like my camera much more

Paul De Bra said:

When you recently purchased the 1000d you may not have the IS version of the kit lens. (You don't mention IS in any case.)
The main differences between the kit lens and the 17-55IS are:

• price: 17-55IS is about 10x the price.
• IS: no difference if you have the IS kit lens, but very valuable difference if you have the non-IS one
• image quality: 17-55IS has excellent sharpness throughout the frame, very sharp in the corners
• aperture: constant max f/2.8, allowing you to shoot at lower ISO for the same shutter speed and allowing shallower depth of focus
• USM: fast, silent focusing, distance scale, full time manual override
• build quality: metal mount, no rotating front
• size and weight: the 17-55IS is much larger and heavier
• width: at short focal lengths every mm counts. 17mm is really wider than 18mm
• 77mm filter threads, these will match the size of the other high-quality lenses you might buy later, like the 10-22.

cafe_tiramisu said:

I recently purchased the Canon 1000d (rebel xs) and received the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens with it.

Reading through the forums, I saw that people recommended the 17-55mm f/2.8 as a "walk-around" or wide angle travel lens. Is there any real difference btwn the 17-55 and 18-55 (other than aperture) ?

I am looking for a wide-angle travel lens, and noticed that people prefered the 17-55mm over the 10-22mm. But, which would be more highly recommended given that I already own the 18-55mm kit lens?

Click to expand...

--
Slowly learning to use the 450D and and the Canon G6.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .

Click to expand...

Think of it this way, since you brought it up as a travel lens....

keep the excellent value 18-55IS and buy a ticket to Europe (assuming you live in North America)

or buy the 17-55 and walk around your home town

both options are about the same price these days
--
http://www.pixelmap.com

I guess it's a personal matter.

I really don't consider 28mm wide. When I used a ff film camera my normal was 35mm, not 50mm and I knew many people than used 28mm as normal.

The OP was talking about 17-55 and 18-55 lenses than he already had and wanted something wide/wider. So he already had 28 equil. lenses so something wider would be low 28mm.

Primes are nice, but there's no 10mm prime for a crop camera. Therefore I consider the canon 10-22 and sigma 10-20 the best choices for those wanted a prime.

Cpnsidering the level and lenses of the OP I thought the 2 zooms would be the best bet.

If you are looking for wide angle, 10mm will be very impressive, it will open up alot of photo ops that you thought were never possible.

I think alot of people agree that the 18-55 (is yours IS ?) is a good lens, i have used it for alot of shots and it doesn the job.

Question is whether you want better performance in you focal legnth you have now or get a ultra wide lens.

The best way to determine the differences and whether or not it is worthwhile to buy the more expensive and better lenses is to compare. This site has a number of lens reviews. Also, take a look at photozone.com and Fredmiranda.com. Take a look at various opinions on the internet such as Amazon regarding various lenses. You may not need to spend thousands of dollars to get the kind of results you are looking for.

the folks who hang out here are generally pixel peepers, gear heads and toy collectors. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that, but for most folks the basics (with some minor upgrades) are sufficient.
--
http://digitalphotonut.zenfolio.com/

cafe_tiramisu said:

I recently purchased the Canon 1000d (rebel xs) and received the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens with it.

Reading through the forums, I saw that people recommended the 17-55mm f/2.8 as a "walk-around" or wide angle travel lens. Is there any real difference btwn the 17-55 and 18-55 (other than aperture) ?

I am looking for a wide-angle travel lens, and noticed that people prefered the 17-55mm over the 10-22mm. But, which would be more highly recommended given that I already own the 18-55mm kit lens?

Click to expand...

As others have surely pointed out, there are big differences between the 17-55/2.8 and 18-55 kit lens (in terms of quality, aperture, DOF control, etc.). But also keep in mind that the 17-55/2.8 is also much heavier than the kit lens (which could be a consideration if you prefer to travel light and not weighed down by equipment), and it basically gives you the same angle of view as the 18-55 kit lens. A much better purchase is the 10-22mm ultra wide angle lens. That's a wonderful addition to anyone's camera bag. Ultra wide angle is great for travel, great for shooting beautiful panoramic views, or inside beautiful cathedrals, or wherever you need the widest angle perspective you can get. Also, the 10-22mm lens is pretty light weight, which is also nice for travel. The 18-55 kit lens and the 10-22 ultra wide angle lens combined weigh less than the 17-55/2.8 alone.