... That's a lot of money to spend on glass. I don't know about you guys, but, if i am going to spend over $200 on anything I am going to do my due diligence and research it. If an enthusiast has that kind of money to throw around and doesn't read the specs enough to realize that these lenses cannot be used on a FF camera, well then i have zero sympathy - do some research before you shell out lots of money.
Don't worry, I have done all the research myself. :-)
I was and am fully aware that EF-S lenses are not FF-capable. All of the EF-S lenses in my current setup (10-22, 17-55, 60 Macro) offer great IQ with less weight and bulk and typically also significantly less cost than focal-range equivalent EF lenses.
Like gazillions of amateur/enthusiast (=no significant income from photography) Canon users, my current setup of body (7D) and lenses has evolved over time. Starting out with a "lowly" 350D/Rebel XT plus the infamous first generation EF-S 18-55 kit lens through quite a number of purchases and sales, new and used - to where the setup is now (in addition to the EF-S lenses mentioned I currently have the EF 50/1.4, 100/2.0, 70-200/2.8 II). Overall I am quite happy with these lenses, they cover almost all of my shooting interests and situations. :-)
I have no immediate plans to purchase an FF camera body. I just point out, that existing Canon EF-S lens owners face a major financial obstacle if they want to upgrade to a Canon FF body, because Canon decided to bring out APS-C lenses with an incompatible lens mount, wheras Nikon offers a far more sensible solution with their DX-lenses that can be readily used on any of their FF bodies ... of course the limitations of the smaller image circle will fully apply. So from both the customer and system perspectives Nikons approach is a way better solution than Canon's. In other words: Canon is making it more difficult that Nikon for their APS-C user base to "upgrade" to FF.
If you bought all these lenses, I have one big big q - why in the world would you buy a 15-85 if you have a 17-55 and a 10-22??? If you needed the range, why not get the 85mm 1.8 for $390? The 85 is an EF mount, on a crop its effective range is 136mm. It's much faster than the 15-85mm (3.5-5.6 compared to 1. and its half the cost!
I do not own the 15-85, I just mentioned it as one more example of a very good and highly useful EF-S lens owned by a good number of Canon APS-C users. And sorry, but an 85/1.8 is in no way or form a possible substitute for a wide-range universal zoom like the 15-85.
And the macro, for not very much more $$$ ($555) there is a 100mm 2.8 macro that is EF mount, and, there is a 50 mm 2.5 for less $$$ than the 60 mm ($275).
While it is a quite sharpt and cheap lens, I have no interest whatsoever in the odd-ball "1:2 semi-Macro only" old design EF 50/2.5. The 60 Macro with its great optical performance - great, low CAs - plus fast USM and native 1:1 macro runs circles around that old clunker. I really love the 60 because it is optically great, short, light and compact! It is my favorite "light and sharp fixed focal" general walk-around and outdoor-portrait lenses (despite the 50/1.4) as well as my dedicated "small objects"-lens (no living creatures however), since all my other lenses happen to have very weak magnification ratios. Overall I consider the EF-S 60 a truly outstanding value. :-)
Nevertheless I may trade in the 60 Macro plus the 100/2.0 against a 100 Macro IS some day. I'm still sitting on the fence over this one - trading in a stop (2.0 vs. 2.
on the 100 vs. IS and hopefully less hard to remove ugly LoCAs on the 100 IS. Unfortunately it is a much bigger lens than the 60.
Bottom line here is, knowing that the EF-S line is not compatible with FF cameras, why would you buy these lenses if you did in fact want to move to FF? Don't expect canon to re-engineer their whole system because you either didn't do the research, or, cause you were fine with crop, invested in crop, then one day decided you wanted FF.
Like with almost everybody else, my current lens park has been assembled over numbr of years (since 2005). I did not want to move to FF. I will not move to FF any time soon.
All I am syaing is: Canon is making it financially rather hard for most of its APS-C user base to "upgrade" to FF. Plus I do not consider the possible small gains in photographic capabilities and IQ significant enough to justify the expense. Neither for myself nor for the vast majority of fellow non-income from photography earners with a good Canon APS-C setup of body and lenses. Unless one has specific photographic interests that bbenefit from FF in a big way. Or if money is little or no object. In that case I would like a 5D III please, and a EF 14L II, a TS-17/4 and an EF 24-70L II to go with it. In additon to my 7D and EF-S lenses, not instead! :-)