Most samples I have seem from this lens are not good. But the few random one I have seen on the 7D review on this site are even worse:

20mm, F8, both sides soft:

http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos7d_samples/originals/img_9528.jpg;

35mm, F8, right side strongly soft (bad lens copy?):

http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos7d_samples/originals/img_9695.jpg;

40mm, F9, right side strongly soft:

http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos7d_samples/originals/img_9630.jpg;

22mm, F9, both sides soft (specially the right, note that center is sharper even behind the boat):

http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos7d_samples/originals/img_9624.jpg;

And the sharp areas are not so sharp as they should be, which points to a poor lens, even if you pick a good copy. This isn't indeed a "wov!" lens. And note that this is not due to depth of field, most are focused on infinity (with F9 in APS being roughly equivalent to F14 in full frame) or are wide angle. These pictures downsized to 8mp are still soft. What is the point of a 18mp camera with toy lenses?

The 17-55 is not right for me due to flare. The others are the hiperzooms, even worse. This leaves the 18-55 IS as the still best Canon general purpose zoom for APS (with a rotating front element, though) in addition far cheaper. Ok, 15mm are not 18mm, but both aren't wide enough for architecture anyway. The kit lens and 10-22 combo is far better in terms of image quality and costs the same, with 10-15mm range far more useful than the 55-85 one.