Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 31 Aug 2009 (Monday) 23:22
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Official: EF-S 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

 
The ­ Fox
Goldmember
Avatar
1,793 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 99
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Eugene, OR
     
Sep 03, 2009 16:19 |  #76

The lens will not be $800, that is just what canon says for dealers to start selling it at. Hell, Canon's website says the 1D mk III has an MSRP of $3999.99, while BH has it for $3,699.95. I am going to say that the lens will be around $600 to start with.

The 17-55mm F2.8 is $1030.95 at BH and Canon says $1179.99.

Nick


"I work from awkwardness. By that I mean I don't arrange things. If I stand in front of something, instead of arranging it, I arrange myself" -Diane Arbus
7D MK II Gripped | 7D Gripped |17-50mm F2.8 | 35mm F1.4 | 60mm F2.8 Macro | 135mm F2L | 70-200mm F4L IS |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,355 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Likes: 2579
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Sep 03, 2009 19:40 |  #77

The Fox wrote in post #8578333 (external link)
The lens will not be $800, that is just what canon says for dealers to start selling it at. Hell, Canon's website says the 1D mk III has an MSRP of $3999.99, while BH has it for $3,699.95. I am going to say that the lens will be around $600 to start with.

The 17-55mm F2.8 is $1030.95 at BH and Canon says $1179.99.

Nick

True, So if i preorder it at Amazon do you think the price will drop before it ships?


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
The ­ Fox
Goldmember
Avatar
1,793 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 99
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Eugene, OR
     
Sep 05, 2009 10:13 |  #78

I don't think so personally. If you are willing to pay that much for it, why would they change the price?

Nick


"I work from awkwardness. By that I mean I don't arrange things. If I stand in front of something, instead of arranging it, I arrange myself" -Diane Arbus
7D MK II Gripped | 7D Gripped |17-50mm F2.8 | 35mm F1.4 | 60mm F2.8 Macro | 135mm F2L | 70-200mm F4L IS |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dharrisphotog
Goldmember
Avatar
2,331 posts
Joined Apr 2009
     
Sep 07, 2009 12:46 |  #79

$800 is insane. What are they thinking, especially in this economy.


D800 | Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art | Nikkor 85mm 1.8G | Nikkor 70-200 2.8G
Gear | Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Google+ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sth_
Senior Member
Avatar
811 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Europe
     
Sep 07, 2009 18:05 as a reply to  @ dharrisphotog's post |  #80

At that price and only f/3.5-f/5.6 I really hope Canon solved the 17-85's wide-angle problems and provides excellent-for-a-non-L-lens build quality. Even then it would still be expensive for what it is. On the other hand: Finally a 24mm equiv. standard-zoom for APS-C.

Did anyone here have a chance to try this lens at IFA or one of Canon's 7D hands-on previews?


Flickr (external link) :: Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jenningsphoto
Member
59 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Roseville, CA
     
Sep 07, 2009 18:32 |  #81

Canon has to charge at least this much. Think about it.
What has been the go-to, knee-jerk recommendation to anyone who asks, "I'm new, which lens(es)?"
The answer has been 10-22/17-55, which means nice profit for Canon.
Now, 15-85 is a reasonable answer to this same question.
Gots to make your money somewhere.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scampo
Member
242 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
Sep 07, 2009 18:33 |  #82
bannedPermanent ban

I find it weird that Canon has ditched the gold ring for the USM on the lens.


Olympus E-P1 Community
http://e-p1.net (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
qadsan
Member
66 posts
Joined Jul 2003
     
Sep 07, 2009 23:26 as a reply to  @ Scampo's post |  #83

MTF charts on the new 15-85 look very impressive to me. It looks like this lens has exceptional contrast and 'L' series resolution in a package without the 'L' designation (perhaps only lacking in 'L' build quality?). The MTF charts on the older 17-85 published by photodo shows a significant improvement in resolution from wide open to F8 where as the newer 15-85 lens looks great right off the bat wide open and at F8. This lens looks to be a very significant improvement over the 17-85 and it 'might' offer as good or possibly even better resolution and contrast at some settings than the 17-55, 24-70 or 28-105 at a much lower cost. The MTF charts look great, but I really want to see plenty of real world test results and several detaled reviews with tests and to verify the build quality of the 15-85 before I commit to buying it (hopefully at a much lower cost than $799). Too bad this 15-85 isn't a f/2.8 with the same MTF specs cause that would have made things VERY interesting.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,355 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Likes: 2579
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Sep 08, 2009 00:15 |  #84

qadsan wrote in post #8602964 (external link)
MTF charts on the new 15-85 look very impressive to me. It looks like this lens has exceptional contrast and 'L' series resolution in a package without the 'L' designation (perhaps only lacking in 'L' build quality?). The MTF charts on the older 17-85 published by photodo shows a significant improvement in resolution from wide open to F8 where as the newer 15-85 lens looks great right off the bat wide open and at F8. This lens looks to be a very significant improvement over the 17-85 and it 'might' offer as good or possibly even better resolution and contrast at some settings than the 17-55, 24-70 or 28-105 at a much lower cost. The MTF charts look great, but I really want to see plenty of real world test results and several detaled reviews with tests and to verify the build quality of the 15-85 before I commit to buying it (hopefully at a much lower cost than $799). Too bad this 15-85 isn't a f/2.8 with the same MTF specs cause that would have made things VERY interesting.

Well its the lens i've seen most pre production 7Ds with, i'd expect this lens is not horrible quality because of the 7D's 18 megapixel resolution

and a 15-85 f/2.8 would be a massive lens, at least 82mm front filters, and it would likely be bigger than the brick which i see people **** about all the time...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ckfishel2001
Goldmember
Avatar
2,297 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Cincinnati
     
Sep 08, 2009 07:58 |  #85

tkbslc wrote in post #8559695 (external link)
MSRP...

I am betting they won't sell many until it hits sub $500. I mean 15-85 is cool and all, but it is f5.6 on the long end. At $800 you are within reach of a 17-55 IS which is a truly stellar lens. Now if it performs like a 24-105, that may change things.

and It is actually 24-135mm equivalent.

Yeah on the 17-55....I LOVE that lens


Kevin
Gear List
Flickr (external link)
Fishel Photo (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krepta
I swear I'm Ken Rockwell!
Avatar
8,482 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Sep 10, 2009 15:43 |  #86

KenjiS wrote in post #8603219 (external link)
and a 15-85 f/2.8 would be a massive lens, at least 82mm front filters, and it would likely be bigger than the brick which i see people **** about all the time...

Do you think they could have managed a constant f/4.0 throughout the focal length range on the 15-85 (as opposed to f/3.5-5.6)? I understand that f/2.8 is asking for a miracle (heck, f/2.8 would go on the 24-105L before it ever gets on the 15-85, which is 24-136 equivalent on FF). But f/4 seems feasible and reasonable. Just my assumption, though. I won't claim that I know anything about how that could be achieved. It might add to the cost, but I'd pay for that.


Alex | flickr (external link) | Gear & Feedback | Food! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,355 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Likes: 2579
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Sep 11, 2009 00:55 |  #87

krepta wrote in post #8620274 (external link)
Do you think they could have managed a constant f/4.0 throughout the focal length range on the 15-85 (as opposed to f/3.5-5.6)? I understand that f/2.8 is asking for a miracle (heck, f/2.8 would go on the 24-105L before it ever gets on the 15-85, which is 24-136 equivalent on FF). But f/4 seems feasible and reasonable. Just my assumption, though. I won't claim that I know anything about how that could be achieved. It might add to the cost, but I'd pay for that.

Yes, I believe f/4 was possible with a slight increase to 77mm filters...It would be a little heavier too, But in general, same sort of package

The only reason i believe they didnt is that the price would increase to about $1100 and they probubly felt people wouldnt pay that for an EF-S lens...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krepta
I swear I'm Ken Rockwell!
Avatar
8,482 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Sep 11, 2009 01:22 |  #88

KenjiS wrote in post #8623111 (external link)
Yes, I believe f/4 was possible with a slight increase to 77mm filters...It would be a little heavier too, But in general, same sort of package

The only reason i believe they didnt is that the price would increase to about $1100 and they probubly felt people wouldnt pay that for an EF-S lens...

I figured as much, plus 77mm filter size would be perfect in my case since it's the same size as three of my lenses.

Wouldn't the people who dished out $ for the EF-S 17-55 be willing to pay in the $1100-$1200 range for a 15-85 f/4? (or perhaps be pissed off that a "better" lens came out after, lol). Personally, I would be darn happy to spend that much for such a lens.

I guess for Canon, there's the incentive to buy a FF camera and, say, the 24-105L lens (to move away from or complement 1.6x crop), which would net them more money. On the other hand, I assume that people willing to purchase the 7D for USD$1699 would also be willing to purchase a higher-end EF-S lens to go with their brand new camera. But oh well, at this point it's just wishful thinking. I'll stick with my 17-55 until something else comes out.


Alex | flickr (external link) | Gear & Feedback | Food! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,355 posts
Gallery: 542 photos
Likes: 2579
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Sep 11, 2009 01:56 |  #89

krepta wrote in post #8623228 (external link)
I figured as much, plus 77mm filter size would be perfect in my case since it's the same size as three of my lenses.

Wouldn't the people who dished out $ for the EF-S 17-55 be willing to pay in the $1100-$1200 range for a 15-85 f/4? (or perhaps be pissed off that a "better" lens came out after, lol). Personally, I would be darn happy to spend that much for such a lens.

I guess for Canon, there's the incentive to buy a FF camera and, say, the 24-105L lens (to move away from or complement 1.6x crop), which would net them more money. On the other hand, I assume that people willing to purchase the 7D for USD$1699 would also be willing to purchase a higher-end EF-S lens to go with their brand new camera. But oh well, at this point it's just wishful thinking. I'll stick with my 17-55 until something else comes out.

I welcome a 17-55 Mk 2 with the new build of the 15-85, The 15-85 looks built a bit better than the old 17-55 at least..

Actually I did love my 17-55 sometimes, It was great for me indoors, I just found the range lacking when i was outside [And i miss my 24-105 on my EOS-3..]

And hey, before i was pretty much looking at having to get a 5D classic + 24-105 for this range, Now I'm glad theres a cheaper option ;)


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krepta
I swear I'm Ken Rockwell!
Avatar
8,482 posts
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Irvine, CA
     
Sep 12, 2009 14:43 |  #90

KenjiS wrote in post #8623325 (external link)
I welcome a 17-55 Mk 2 with the new build of the 15-85, The 15-85 looks built a bit better than the old 17-55 at least..

A 17-55 MkII would be nice, but I think I would stick to my current one. It's still a perfectly good lens, sharp and fast, and I have no problem with the current build. I will probably end up using it until it dies on me.

I'm looking forward to seeing reviews of the new 15-85, though. If the IQ comes close to the 17-55, at $800 it would be a steal. The focal length range is perfect for 1.6 bodies, and the variable aperture can be forgivable if the IQ is up there. If I'm reading them correctly, the MTF charts for the 15-85 look slightly better on the wide end, and slightly worse on the tele end than the 17-55. It's comparable, so it looks promising.


Alex | flickr (external link) | Gear & Feedback | Food! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

278,743 views & 0 likes for this thread
Official: EF-S 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mfctyro
1239 guests, 322 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.