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

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

The Fox wrote in post #8578333
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?

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

Nick

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

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?

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.

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

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.

qadsan wrote in post #8602964
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...

tkbslc wrote in post #8559695
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

KenjiS wrote in post #8603219
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.

krepta wrote in post #8620274
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...

KenjiS wrote in post #8623111
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.

krepta wrote in post #8623228
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

KenjiS wrote in post #8623325
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.