The new EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM sets a new standard for everyday photography on APS-C sensors. With a focal length range equivalent to 24-136mm in 35mm format, image stabilization and high-precision optics, the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM offers stellar performance from wide-angle through to telephoto.
• Focal Length & Maximum Aperture: 15 - 85mm 1:3.5-5.6
• Lens Construction: 17 elements in 12 groups
• Diagonal Angle of View: 84° 30' - 18° 25'
• Focus Adjustment: Inner focusing system with USM
• Closest Focusing Distance: 1.15 ft./0.35m
• Filter Size: 72mm
• Max. Diameter x Length, Weight: 3.2 x 3.4 in./81.6 x 87.5mm, 20.3 oz./575g
There's no way that price will hold up. Great range, slow variable f-stop, + expensive = very few sales. You may as well pick a f/2.8 for a little bit more (or Tamron 17-50/2.8 for less).
I don't get this price and lens. Who gets a standard lens at f5.6 and pays this much for the lens? I'm really lost on this lens. It's your standard walk around lens that you will use half the time indoors but at f5.6 it ensures you need to use flash with the lens. I have to pay $800 for an f5.6 lens? Are you kidding? Was this really what consumers wanted was a new 17/15-85 mark II basically? Why would anyone buy this lens instead of paying about $100 more and get a 17-55 f2.8 IS? It's baffling to me.
On another note, if you look at what people are requesting a 100mm IS macro does not seem to be that high on the list. Sure there was a request for a macro with IS, but not at 100mm. The order at which they decide to make lenses really baffles me. Canon states they asked 5000 shooters what they wanted in the new camera. How about ask one more question such as, which lens do you want to see next...
Canon is stating that this is certainly a high quality lens. I have the 17-55 F/2.8 IS, and I had the 17-85 IS for a couple years. I certainly know the huge IQ difference between the two of them. I also have the 10-22 EFS.
I consider my 10-22 to be a excellent quality lens. Certainly just a notch or two below my 17-55, and certainly better than my 17-85 was. If the 15-85 is anything like my 10-22 concerning build and IQ with that excellent range, and 4 stop IS. Well, the price sounds pretty close to me.
Seems to me that this lens has a huge potential for the landscaper who wants a light weight versatile lens with that range, that will be effective on a tripod or a monopod with the IS. I can see that being very useful in the field.
but certainly the quality that hits the sweet spot needs to be there
Is it just me? Because I just don't get the point of this lens. It's got a good range, and it would be a decent kit lens on a first APS camera purchase, but other than that I don't see any compelling reason for existing APS camera owners to purchase it. If one owns the 17-55 2.8 (as I do), you might gain some range, but you lose the 2.8 constant aperture, and that's not a tradeoff worth making. If you own the 17-85 (which I used to, and I had an unusually good copy) the range gain is minor, and since this is $ 800 you're going to have to shell out at least 500 more bones after you sell the old lens. If you have the 18-55 it might be a nice upgrade if you have an extra $ 800 around the house, but I'm still not convinced that it would be the wisest move you could make. If this lens had a constant aperture of no more than 4 then it might be worth looking at, but I have to admit I was hoping for a new version of the 100-400. Today's lens announcements just baffle me. If I were looking for a zoom like the 18-135 (it's BIGGGER!!!) wouldn't I just spring for the 18-200? Is anybody else scratching their head over these choices?
catfriend wrote:
Is it just me? Because I just don't get the point of this lens. It's got a good range, and it would be a decent kit lens on a first APS camera purchase, but other than that I don't see any compelling reason for existing APS camera owners to purchase it. If one owns the 17-55 2.8 (as I do), you might gain some range, but you lose the 2.8 constant aperture, and that's not a tradeoff worth making. If you own the 17-85 (which I used to, and I had an unusually good copy) the range gain is minor, and since this is $ 800 you're going to have to shell out at least 500 more bones after you sell the old lens. If you have the 18-55 it might be a nice upgrade if you have an extra $ 800 around the house, but I'm still not convinced that it would be the wisest move you could make. If this lens had a constant aperture of no more than 4 then it might be worth looking at, but I have to admit I was hoping for a new version of the 100-400. Today's lens announcements just baffle me. If I were looking for a zoom like the 18-135 (it's BIGGGER!!!) wouldn't I just spring for the 18-200? Is anybody else scratching their head over these choices?...Show more →
Should be much higher quality than the 17-85 IS, which face it, may have been worse than the non-IS 18-55.
While maybe $200 more than I thought I guess it is still like $350 less than the f/2.8 and with more range. Still at $600-$650 it would probably seem more attractive since they you really would save a lot voer the 17-55 IS.
Lighter, less expensive, might be a more appealing landscape walk around than the 17-55 IS. But yeah the price is getting a bit close to the 17-55....
M Vers wrote:
800 beans for a 3.5-5.6 standard zoom lens--yeah, I'd say that's pretty expensive.
That's the MSRP. No lens made by canon is sold for MSRP.
gene A. wrote:
And yet the kit lens which they are bundling with the new 7D is everyones favorite the 28-135is and its only $200 more than a 7D with no lens.
Everyone's favorite what?
And I agree with the grumbles regarding the price. It had better actually be stellar and not just marketing hype stellar throughout its range to justify that expense.
$800... oof! For a 3.5-5.6 zoom? Yikes. But yeah that's MSRP. What does everybody think initial street price will be, and where will it eventually settle?
