Thanks for your nice comment that I appreciate.
As I said to Adrian, the 17-85 is polyvalent but it is a bit dark > f/4-5.6 only.
I think that the new Sigma 17-70 macro at f/2.8 would have been a better choice for me...
Stephen has this 17-70 and for very close-up it seems superior than mine.
For flower and landscapes, yes, the 17-85 is efficient. I have doubt about the IS.
On my Panasonic FZ20 I saw the difference of stabilizer but the Canon IS ???
A wild symbol of Alps (58)