Canon 15-85mm $800

[a._n.k.]

<p>The 15-85mm is listed at $799. Does that seem high to anyone but me? Seriously, if I could afford a $800 lens, I would buy the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. <br /> This 15-85 is a very nice range, but I think it should be closer to $500 (+/- $100). I really wanted to add a lens like this to my already existing Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I've been waiting for Canon to get with it, and get a 28-105mm (or 24-136, in this case) equivalent crop-factor lens. But that price is a killer.</p>

<p>I can only hope: 1) the price will drop once the lens is released, and Canon realizes they overpriced. OR 2) the lens IQ is awesome, and that it comes close to beating out the 17-55 f/2.8.</p>

<p>Interested to know what are other people's thoughts on the price?<br /> Perhaps, it this whole economy stuff, (maybe I'm just cheap, and on a budget) ...but I just can't see it.</p>

<p> </p>

[tdigi]

<p>

 

<p>I too think thats high for what looks like a glorified kit lens. For $800 I would expect a straight F4 throughout the range. I personally would never purchase a variable aperture lens.</p>

 

</p>

[fmueller]

<p>The 15-85 aims to be for APS-C what the 24-105 is for FF. Obviously it compares favorably in price. One will have to see if the built and optical quality is of L standard, but constant f4 is highly overrated as a feature IMHO. I'd take the reduced size and weight a variable aperture makes possible any day.</p>

[pto189]

<p>Just wait and see. If no one wants that price, it will drop.</p>

[ronhartman]

<p>The price is higher then I was expecting. But then I've always thought the the 17-55 F/2.8 was overpriced, and they seem to have sold plenty of them at $1000+. So justifying purchasing one will mostly depend on the IQ for me.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I'm betting that it will be like my old favorite the 17-85mm, except with many of the compromises of the latter resolved, as Canon has been doing with other recent releases (the new 16-35mm ii for example). Let us face it, people, $800 is the new $500, and the list price of the 17-85 is now $600 anyhow. Even the little "plastic fantastic" is now listed by Canon at $150.</p>

<p>If it fixes the distortion and CA problems of the 17-85, lots of people will want it.</p>

<p>You sure won't buy a EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS for $800, either. Its list price right now is $1180, almost half again more expensive than the new 15-85mm.</p>

<p>You who want a $500 lens in this range may also have missed that that is the price of the new 18-135mm IS lens.</p>

<p>Something for everyone. I can't wait to see the reviews to see if my guess is correct that they are systematically applying some new technology and fixing up their old offerings one by one.</p>

[a._n.k.]

<p>Well, not sure if the 17-55 was overpriced, regardless the f/2.8, IS, and IQ were high selling points for many Pros.<br>

I'm not sure how many "Pros" would shell out $800 for what <em>appears </em> to be a f/3.5-5.6 'glorified-kit lens'. Especially, if they could buy or already had the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. But, like I said, maybe if the IQ rocks, and comes close to the 17-55, we might have a deal.</p>

<p>The other major market is for amatuers or newbies. Which might work for amateurs, but my suggestion (and many other peoples advice) to any amateur with $800, would not be to invest in this lens... but more like 17-50, 55-250, 10-20mm, 85mm, flash, etc. Basically, I can think of better ways to spend $800, rather than blow it on one lens.</p>

<p>Likewise, many newbies that just spent $600-800 on a new DSLR kit (with a 18-55 IS) are not going to spend another $800 on a lens; especially when they have no idea what 'focal length' means. (a wide angle & wide range focal length being one of the selling points of this lens).</p>

<p>Just checked on Amazon.com:<br>

The Nikon 16-85mm (24-127mm) which is very similar to this lens is running about $630. (Nikon is 18-105 $360).<br>

$650 is a fair price.</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>If it were a fixed aperture f/4 lens covering this focal length range in EFS form that price might seem about right. However, for a variable aperture EFS lens it seems high - very high if you consider that it doesn't do much more than the current 17-85mm lens, though we can be hopeful that it will provide better image quality.</p>

<p>If is it a good optical performer, it seems to me more like a non-pro (whatever that means) lens that substitutes a large focal length (e.g. - one lens does it all) for larger aperture, etc.</p>

<p>Time will tell.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[a._n.k.]

<p>"$800 is the new $500"</p>

<p>LOL! You're probably right... Explains why people are broke and the America economy is in the crapper.<br>

<br /> Seems people have lost the ability to evaluate the real value of things (ex: real-estate) and spend too much on things they don't need, then end up putting on a credit card at 20% interest... and we wonder why we have no money (Not to go all Dave Ramsey/Suzy Orman on people, but...)</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Of everything that was just introduced I am surprised the new 100mm L macro lens is not the subject of more conversation. If any lens can use IS its a macro lens. </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>People want new lenses, then complain about the price. Simple solution - if you don't think it's worth the price, don't buy it.</p>

<p>I'd like a new Ferrari for $25,000 but I don't suppose I'll get one.</p>

<p>Yes, the price of the 15-85 is high. The 17-85 is $450. Vote with your wallet (unless they drop the 17-85...).</p>

[a._n.k.]

<p>"Yes, the price of the 15-85 is high. The 17-85 is $450. Vote with your wallet"</p>

<p>Except the 17-85 gets so-so reviews... I did vote with my wallet, and didn't want a "so-so" lens, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 won.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to pay for quality glass. I think, all the "L" are priced relatively fairly. My point, is for what you apparently get (an upgraded 17-85), is it actually worth $800? For that price range it should be well above the image quality of the 17-85 (almost double the price). And it should be getting close to par with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.</p>

<p>Are you willing to pay $800 for a lens, that has (slightly better IQ) or similar IQ as the 17-85?</p>

<p>Of course, we have to wait for reviews to actually ascertain a value. Just the initial price-point seemed high, for a non-L, variable aperture lens. If IQ, distortion, and build quality are good, I would not mind the $800.</p>

<p>Nikon 16-85 (the closest comparison) is currently selling at $630, did that start at $800? The Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (not the junky one) was around $280. Canon 28-135 IS USM about $400. Yeah, I know they are 35mm/FF lenses, I just don't get the $800 price.</p>

<p>Good news is, it appears to have "real" USM, so perhaps also has FTM?</p>

[a._n.k.]

<p>Similar conversation over here:</p>

<p>http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?s=b345b6700c8fefb3d6b9a6b63d1c3178&t=746169&page=2</p>

 

[PuppyDigs]

<p>Why fret over a single lens? It's not like you have one or two choices. There's actually too many choices...</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>Nikon's equivalent -- a highly attractive lens -- is a good 20% cheaper and it's reasonable to expect that the Canon's price will drop. With this pricing at this point in time, however, I'm sure quite a few buyers will look at the 7D + lens combo even more eagerly than they normally would. Which is probably what Canon's sales people want.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Simple solution - if you don't think it's worth the price, don't buy it.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't. And I won't. :-)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>After watching the EF-S 18-200 drop from what $700 or $800 as its original list price to now a street price of about $550 I have to believe the 15-85 will do the same in the not too distant future. Still, Canon will be betting people will pay about $100 more for what is essentially an updated version (and hopefully better rather than just wider) of the 17-85. Canon's site has now even removed the list price of the 18-200 IS probably because the whole idea of a suggested retail price on that model has become moot.<br>

Anyway, at $550 street, they will sell a bunch of the 15-85s either to newbies or those looking to upgrade their 17-85 or those unwilling to spend twice as much on the shorter but faster and better 17-55 IS. But look out for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 when they release a VC version for the Canon mount and I suspect that's what Canon was anticipating.</p>

 

[tdigi]

<p>Maybe its more then a glorified kit lens. It does have USM and it looks pretty compact so it would make a nice travel lens and you guys are probably right, the price should drop to around $500 or $600 which would seem pretty realistic. How about the 18-135, it does not appear to have USM. Do these lenses offer the new Hybrid IS system?</p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>Tommy, well the 15-85 does not have FTM and the 17-85 does. The 15-85 weighs more (575g) than the 17-85 (475g) and is 3.2x3.4 to the 17-85's 3.1x3.6. The 15-85 has UD glass and the 17-85 does not. I saw nothing on the Canon site re the hybrid IS as to the 15-85. Otherwise, they appear the same, 17 elements in 12 groups, CA, AL3, I/R etc. The 17-85 has ring USM and the new one does not mention that for the 15-85.<br>

The 18-135 has neither FTM nor USM and appears to be more in line with the build of the 55-250 rather than say the 70-300 IS. And therefore the much lower list price than the 15-85.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Thanks Jeff, It appears small but I guess its really not that compact. Still an interesting focal range. I think it would be a nice if they made this lens part of the 7D kit and just dropped the 28-135 from the kit altogether.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>My guess is that it will be pretty L like.</p>

<p>I don't think the ribbing on the main ring is exactly like those on my 70-200/F4L IS for nothing.</p>

<p>Plus to me it obviates the need for an 10-22 because 15mm is quite wide.</p>

<p>Oh well, we will see what the tests will say. Untill then I'll hold my horses. (And the money that's reserved for a wide to short tele-zoom in my pocket.)</p>

[scrivyscriv]

<p>On a side note about the variable aperture not being very 'pro' oriented - the 100-400L is also variable aperture and f/5.6 is pretty slow, but it's pro quality and we've all seen some excellent images come from it being used by pro photographers... just a thought!</p>

<p>...Although I'm a self-admitted prime/fixed aperture snob, with a few affairs every now and then :)</p>

[anesh]

<p>The wider it gets the more expensive it becomes. You're paying for 15mm of width.</p>

[a._n.k.]

<p>Hey Jeff,</p>

<p>Out of curiosity why do you think that the 15-85mm does NOT have FTM? It appears to have a real USM, well, the only reason I say that, is because of the 'distance window' on the lens pictures, and the USM logo on the Canon USA page.<br>

Are there Canon lens with a distance window (and real USM), and not FTM? ... maybe some older ones?</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>The new 15-85 seems to be priced in the same ball park with its upper-midrange peers (Nikkor 16-85/3.5-5.6, Pentax DA17-70/4, Sony/Zeiss 16-80/3.5-4.5, Oly 12-60/2.8-4). The street price will probably settle somewhat lower after several months. Shooters of these other mounts ask themselves the same question--why not just pony up another $100-200 or so for the f/2.8 pro zoom. Well, many will. Some shooters do want a optical quality, range, speed, and build-quality boost over kit lenses and value the extended range and somewhat more compact size/weight of this breed compared to a 'pro' zoom which generally don't much exceed 3x zoom ratio.</p>