Canon 15-85mm $800

[jeff_higdon]

<p>Hi, A.N.K. again,<br>

Most of the lenses listed on Canon's site as "standard zooms" do not have FT-M (full time manual). Some have ultrasonic motors and some do not. Most have the distance scales on them. The 17-85, 24-105L, 24-70L and the 28-135IS all have FT-M. The others listed as standard zooms (including all of the more recent EF-S lenses) do not list FT-M. Does that mean they don't have it? I dunno. I don't have any of those lenses. Incidentally, even the 17-55IS, which is as close as you can get to being an L without being one, does not have FT-M as listed. Is that right? I dunno. But if it had it, I would think they would list it. Clearly, just because the lens has USM does not mean it has full time manual capability and this is a big deal for alot of folks.<br>

I really hope this lens shines a bit more than the current 17-85 which I actually think is a very nice lens but boy does it have its detractors.</p>

 

[Stock-Photos]

<p>It should be noted, and I believe I read this in the Canon press release, that the 15-85 was designed as a nice zoom range for the video and 1.6 sensor of the 7D.<br>

Perhaps Canon assumes this factor will create increased demand, and justify the price.</p>

[thu_nguyen2]

<p>Hi Jeff, The 17-55 does have ring USM with FTM focusing (I have one). There will be a massive uproar if it didn't given the price. Since the new 15-85 is listed as having Ring USM as well, I'm 100% certain that it is the same.</p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>Thanks, Thu. makes sense.</p>

[tony_law]

<p>$800 for the EF-S 15-85 seems high but the fact is our dollar is weaker and weaker. Any import products will cost more.<br>

2007 I went to China the exchange rate was $100 USD = $800 Yuen<br>

This year (January) I only got $100 USD for $690 Yuen<br>

Same for Japan 2006 one USD = 105 yen<br>

Last year I only got 89 yen for each dollar<br>

Compair all the Canon lens price from last year and this year, all lenses price are higher. This is due to the exchange rate and has nothing to do with the pricing.</p>

[alan_green4]

<p>i like the zoom range but can't use a 3.5-5.6 lens. even if this lens is optically excellent i can't include it in my kit. if it were a 3.5-4.5 i might consider it. that said, $800 seems correct for this optic.</p>

[walter_strong5]

<p>I can't believe the number of responses that are being given to a PIECE OF EQUIPMENT!</p>

[a._n.k.]

<p>Walter,</p>

<p>Not sure what you mean? This is a forum about Canon (stuff/equipment) correct? If I had a question about photography (wedding or portraits) I would post in the portrait forum, or wedding forum.</p>

<p>It seems, almost every question at the Canon forum has to do with a "Piece of Equipment"</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I just noted today that the EF-S 17-85mm IS has now disappeared from the Canon USA website. This seems to be confirmation that the 15-85 is its replacement.</p>

[robert_schleif]

<p>I thought that the Canon-supplied raw converters have built in correction distortion and chromatic aberration correction. If so, how might the 15-85 be better than the 17-85? In this same vein, with the ready availability of distortion and CA correction in software, why don't manufacturers redesign lenses by optimizing other properties and leave the distortion and CA to be corrected in software?</p>

[a._n.k.]

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>The only problem with the "Canon-supplied raw converter" (DPP), is that I don't use it, I use Adobe LR. LR does have some lens correction tools for CA and Vignetting , but I don't think it corrects Distortion. In a pinch, I can use the DPP, but prefer the simplicity of LR. And transferring a file between DPP and LR would be a pain.</p>

<p>Besides, why not get it "right" out-of-the-box, instead fussing with it on the computer.</p>

<p>ANK</p>

[scott_gardner1]

<p>Canon, like any other company, is in business to make profit. They start pricing for products at the top end of what they think they can get and observe what happens in the marketplace. They can lower the price until they get the response they want and profit they need.</p>

<p>Simple supply and demand. You're good for as much as you can get.</p>

<p>Definition:<br>

A <strong>Dutch auction</strong> is a type of auction where the auctioneer begins with a high asking price which is lowered until some participant is willing to accept the auctioneer's price.</p>

<p>Or, in this case, a lot of participants.</p>

<p>We can debate virtues, vices and values but in the end, all Canon cares about is whether it (not they -- a corporation is NOT a person) gets the money because that's how it measures success.</p>

<p>My two lux worth.</p>

[scott_paris4]

<p><em>"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..."</em><br>

No offense intended, but this just isn't true. A quick glance at Adorama shows that the Nikkor is about $625 and the Pentax is $500. I wouldn't be surprised if the new Canon settled to about that level in a few months.<br>

The $800 price does seem like a stretch, given the specs of the lens, and the number of competing lenses in that range.<br>

'Course, I'm about 2 months late to this party, so no one will see this....</p>

[scott_paris4]

<p><em>"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..."</em><br>

No offense intended, but this just isn't true. A quick glance at Adorama shows that the Nikkor is about $625 and the Pentax is $500. I wouldn't be surprised if the new Canon settled to about that level in a few months.<br>

The $800 price does seem like a stretch, given the specs of the lens, and the number of competing lenses in that range.<br>

'Course, I'm about 2 months late to this party, so no one will see this....</p>

[scott_gardner1]

<p>Not sure it's fair to include the Pentax in a price comparison. IS/VR is not included because it's built into Pentax bodies.</p>

<p>In any case, the Nikkor *is* a fair comparison and it's difficult to justify the $200 difference. Of course, it's not an option for a Canon shooter so . . .</p>

<p>Canon really does demand a premium for IS. A dramatic example is the difference between the 70-200 f/4.0 'L' lenses. The non-IS is almost $600 less than the IS version. Other than that, they're the same. You can buy a pretty decent tripod and head for that.</p>

[a._n.k.]

<p>I haven't tracked the Nikon version, anyone know if the "Suggested Price" has in the $800 range, when it was first released?<br>

Well, I'm guessing (hoping) the price will drop, maybe months, maybe a year later.</p>

<p>Honestly, given the "weak dollar" (High Prices), and overall economy (people loosing jobs etc) it looks like now is a good time to hold-off on buying stuff... just going have to keep saving... Unless I really need it to make money (which the 15-85 does not appear to be).</p>

[scott_gardner1]

<p>IMO, 15mm isn't *that* much wider than 17mm and 85mm doesn't offset 55mm at f/2.8 so I'm-a stickin' with my 17-55 f/2.8 pseudo-'L'.</p>

<p>BTW, doesn't the "weak dollar" affect Nikon as much as Canon?</p>

[a._n.k.]

<p>"BTW, doesn't the "weak dollar" affect Nikon as much as Canon?"<br>

LOL! Indeed.<br>

Scott, the "weak dollar" is the excuse that I have heard here on PN. (not my own idea, thus the quotes). Like you, I'm thinking it's not a good excuse. Nikon's lens that is comparable to the 15-85, is cheaper.</p>

[lukejt]

<p>That's a lot of beans.</p>

<p>I own the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. I tried the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 (I had both lenses at the same time for a weekend) as well. I kept the Tamron due to it's compact size, light weight, high IQ and low cost. I've owned the Tamron for several years now. Lately I'm lusting for something nicer. When I sit and browse my photo library, most of my favorite pictures were taken with the Canon 50 1.4 (which I hardly ever use; very high keeper ratio) and my 70-200 F4 IS (nuff said). The Tamron misses focus so often it's driving me nuts. I used to blame myself, but I don't have nearly as many out of focus pictures with my other lenses (Canon USM). Just yesterday I took a beautiful picture (several actually) of my cousin with my Tamron, yet it is soft, even though I had it stopped down to f/3.5, focused on her eye and had plenty of light/shutter speed. Her eyes should have been in perfect focus (she has spectacular green eyes). :( I'm wishing I had used my 50mm for that shot instead, I'm positive had I used a USM lens the pictures would have been amazing. In low light Tamron's focus system is plain frustrating.</p>

<p>Enough about my Tamron, I'm here because I'm interested in something made by Canon with IS and USM. I'm looking forward to seeing reviews of the new Canon IS lenses. I'm tempted to take another crack at the 17-55 due to fixed f/2.8, but it's kind of big and cost enough to put a down payment on a boat. ;)</p>

<p>LT</p>

<p> </p>

[lukejt]

<p>...</p>

[scott_gardner1]

<p>Luke, if you're shooting the 50/1.4 and 70-200 close to wide open for those keepers, it stands to reason that the body is close to spec and the Tamron is the odd man out.</p>

<p>Does the body you're using have micro-adjustment for focus?</p>

<p>If not, your Tamron may simply need to be trued up. Is it still under warranty?</p>

<p>Also, have you tried a controlled test with it? Something like putting the camera on a tripod, placing a yardstick at a 45 degree angle and shooting wide open at a particular mark so you can check if it's accurate or on either side of the mark and by how much.</p>

<p> </p>

[amol]

<p>Luke,</p>

<p>I have a Tamron 17-50, and also (sometimes) have issues at f/3.5 or f/2.8. I think, its partly my fault (user error), and that USM would definitely help.</p>

<p>One thought, I assume (due to reference of the 50 f/1.4) that you were using the Tammy at 50mm f/3.5? I'm guessing, you probably won't be able to get f/3.5 on the 15-85 at 50mm. The 17-55 IS USM is the way to go, especially for portraits.</p>

<p>Overall, I'm pretty happy with my Tamrom, just wanted a little more range... but not for $800.</p>

 

[lukejt]

<p>I purchased the Canon 17-55 last fall. Wow. It really blows the Tamron away, for my purposes anyway. I shoot a lot of wide aperture, low light etc. The focus on the Canon and sharpness at wide aperture really set it apart. My keeper ratio went way up. I took some beautiful portraits of my cousin last year, they were candid and shot very quickly with the Tamron, and it front focused. I thought to myself, enough is enough! The pictures were so beautiful, but just a tad soft. That's the story of my Tamron, almost....but not quite. I've got so many pictures taken with that lens that are almost perfect. If Tamron would invest in a better USM style focus system, the lens would be so much better in my opinion.</p>

<p>Loving the 17-55mm, too bad about the high cost, but it's worth it.</p>

<p> </p>

[scott_gardner1]

<blockquote>

<p>Luke wrote:<br>

My keeper ratio went way up.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That makes it easy! Just divide the cost difference by all those extra good pix and it'll make a lot more sense!<br>

<strong>;o)</strong></p>

[dthew]

<p>The 15-85 is now $720, so if I wait another six months it should be down around the $600 mark that was being quoted for the Nikkor equivalent. ;-)</p>

<p>It also seems, having read several reviews, that this is a very decent lens and that IQ is on par with the 17-55 if you're shooting f/4-f/11. My feeling is that I'd be better off buying this and spending the balance I saved on a fast prime (Sigma 30/1.4 perhaps). Thoughts?</p>