Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Canon 18-55IS v 17-85 (why the huge price difference?)

Options
  • 27-03-2009 7:01pm
    #1
    TheNorthBank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 279 ✭✭


    Hi all, quick question if you don't mind. I've had the 18-55mmIS all along (and am very happy with it) but I recently aquired a 17-85mm (because I got a good deal) and was delighted. Until, that is, I came across a review of the 18-55IS today, which more or less stated that the 18-55 is a better lens in many ways than the 17-85.
    Now just using Pixmania as a guide, the 18-55 is priced at €186 and the 17-85 is €509. Why is it over 300 quid dearer? I just feel that buying the new lens (that I thought was an upgrade) was pointless IF the 18-55 is as good or nearly as good anyway.
    Is this the case or is the 17-85mm 300 euro better?

    Thanks?
    Tagged:


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,172 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Could it be that the reviews were indicating how good the lens was for it's price range?


  • Options
    #3
    Borderfox
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,257 Mod ✭✭✭✭Borderfox


    The 17-85 is better built and covers a larger zoom range so that would cover some of the cost that they charge. For around €500 you could get a second hand 17-40 f4L which would eclipse both of these lenses?


  • Options
    #4
    TheNorthBank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 279 ✭✭TheNorthBank


    Sleepy wrote: »
    Could it be that the reviews were indicating how good the lens was for it's price range?
    Thanks, They did mention that it was great value for the price tag alright but they said the resultuion characteristics were better.


  • Options
    #5
    TheNorthBank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 279 ✭✭TheNorthBank


    Borderfox wrote: »
    The 17-85 is better built and covers a larger zoom range so that would cover some of the cost that they charge. For around 500 you could get a second hand 17-40 f4L which would eclipse both of these lenses?
    Thanks, yeah the 17-85 is much better built and just feels a lot better in the hand. Also the ultrasonic motor makes a difference. I'd love a 17-40L but when I buy a top lens I'm going to buy one new, either the 17-40L or the 17-55.


  • Options
    #6
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    TheNorthBank wrote: »
    Thanks, yeah the 17-85 is much better built and just feels a lot better in the hand. Also the ultrasonic motor makes a difference. I'd love a 17-40L but when I buy a top lens I'm going to buy one new, either the 17-40L or the 17-55.

    I have 17-40L. Not entirely sold on it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    TheNorthBank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 279 ✭✭TheNorthBank


    TelePaul wrote: »
    I have 17-40L. Not entirely sold on it.
    It's the F2.8 of the 17-55 that appeals to me I think.


  • Options
    #8
    TelePaul
    Registered Users Posts: 4,093 ✭✭✭TelePaul


    TheNorthBank wrote: »
    It's the F2.8 of the 17-55 that appeals to me I think.

    That's pretty nice alright. Although I've never used the 17-40 for anything besides landscapes...so I go with a tripod.


Advertisement