Stupid question :P

[weez1959]

What's the difference between an EFS 17-55mm and a EFS 18-55mm?
Don't laugh at me I'm a complete boob with this stuff right now :blushing:

 

[Garbz]

Could be any number of things. Often lenses get replaced with newer ones that are sharper or perform better in other ways. In this case though it is far more obvious. Taking into account all the letters you are looking at an 18-55mm EF-S f/3.5-5.6, and a 17-55 EF-S IS USM f/2.8.

The most critical of differences is the f/2.8. Over the entire range this remains unchanged which usually seems to suggest a higher quality lens. Most definitely one suited to lower light conditions and often far more expensive. The expense bit is confirmed by the fact that it is Image Stabilisation, and an UltraSonic Motor for faster focusing.

Finally you can check out the many lab tests on photozone.de and find the:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1755_28/index.htm 17-55 is far better quality wise across the board of tests than the 18-55 http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1855_3556/index.htm

 

[DSLR noob]

A lot of people for some reason (especially on bargain price websites) will list the kit lens as a 17-55, that is just a straight lie. It's the same 18-55. Now the EF-S 17-55 1:2.8 IS USM is a whole nother beast. They say it should be an L series lens with it's quality, but canon refuses ot make an EF-S and L. (I htink that's B.S because they have a P&S that has an "L" series lens <the Powershot Pro, and it does NOT produce L quality, it's just a selling gimmick>)

 

[Garbz]

There's actually a lot more that goes into Canon's L series and Nikon's Goldring designations. Most notable is the build quality. The pro lenses have a solid construction with more ... errr singular parts. That's a bad explanation, but have a look at a fully zoomed pro lens where the end extends out in a single solid chunk compared with a consumer lens that has multiple segments. Many consumer lenses will creep the focus changes while zooming, and the end of the lens wobbles, none of which you will get with the L series lens.

That said there are plenty of lenses that actually outperform some pro lenses for a fraction of the cost. Just don't expect them to survive getting knocked while running around chasing celebrities or being dropped when some kid runs into you at a wedding and other such situations where the pros need to rely on their equipment as much as possible.

 

[DSLR noob]

There's actually a lot more that goes into Canon's L series and Nikon's Goldring designations. Most notable is the build quality. The pro lenses have a solid construction with more ... errr singular parts. That's a bad explanation, but have a look at a fully zoomed pro lens where the end extends out in a single solid chunk compared with a consumer lens that has multiple segments. Many consumer lenses will creep the focus changes while zooming, and the end of the lens wobbles, none of which you will get with the L series lens.

That said there are plenty of lenses that actually outperform some pro lenses for a fraction of the cost. Just don't expect them to survive getting knocked while running around chasing celebrities or being dropped when some kid runs into you at a wedding and other such situations where the pros need to rely on their equipment as much as possible.

I know, but the only reason canon hasn't gone in all the way to make it L is because it's an EF-S, which is no reason to limit the lens' build quality and make the hood and a small case optional. Making it an L (besides adding a red ring) would make it sturdier, add a hood into the price of the lens, add a soft pouch. they should go ahead and do it and stop being so stubborn, the lens already costs a ton.