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

heres an answer to those who claim this lens isn't that sharp or a step up from the 17-85, 18-55 IS, etc. kit lenses,

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

gasrocks wrote in post #11587096
Why does anyone pay a lot of money for an 85/5.6 lens?

Knock off about $300 and include the hood and I might be interested .

OK - there is been a lot of debate between the 17-55 and the 15-85 (which I own) and I gave it a lot of thought and know that I personally use the 85 focal length much more than I ever say "I wish it had a wider aperture." It's true for me, but maybe not for the next person. I took this lens to Vegas and got many, many beautiful sharp, crisp shots and I was thrilled. Never once did I wish for anything else but what I had my camera. Some day I might get the Tamron or Sigma, but I would never give up my 15-85.

Why oh why do we have to have these wars about lenses or bodies, just shoot with what suits YOU, I don't get worked up because a guy shoots his birds with a 100-400 for goodness sake!

But isn't any 85 sharp at f/5.6?

gasrocks wrote in post #11588009
But isn't any 85 sharp at f/5.6?

I dunno--I would imagine so. I only have the 85mm f1.8, though, so I can't really say. I only ever get it out if I want to use 2.8 or faster though--definitely a great lens, specially since I paid $0 for it!

I tried to zoom it out to 20mm once though for a landscape shot. Lemme tell you, wasn't pretty. Still picking up the pieces.

(To be serious though, the 85mm end is the weaker end of the 15-85, it can have some CA even in the center of the frame--can be noticeable from around 75-85mm. DPP fixes it perfectly, though, but it's only fair to point it out.)

gasrocks wrote in post #11587096
Why does anyone pay a lot of money for an 85/5.6 lens?

I'm still confused by your question here. I paid a lot of money not just for 85mm at f5.6. even at 5.6 It's still sharp.

The 15-85 is a nice lens, but I do feel the price tag is about $150-$200 too much for its variable aperture. The copy I used (albeit very briefly) was a little soft at 15mm, with poor vignetting, and had quiet a bit of distortion through-out the range. If this lens was $599 new it would be a great buy, but until then I would spend the little bit extra to get the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

ChrisInCali wrote in post #11588499
The 15-85 is a nice lens, but I do feel the price tag is about $150-$200 too much for its variable aperture. The copy I used (albeit very briefly) was a little soft at 15mm, with poor vignetting, and had quiet a bit of distortion through-out the range. If this lens was $599 new it would be a great buy, but until then I would spend the little bit extra to get the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

Unless staying with Canon is a MUST for you, would you not consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC II? It gives 5mm less reach, the same fixed aperture as the 17-55 but beats it on both price and theoritically the technicals fronts.

Well that was my thought process while buying it and am only trying to figure out if there are others who would agree. I must admit, I am yet to be proven right or wrong as I haven't got my copy yet, so please do not mistake my saying this as a way of defending my buying-decision.