17-55IS instead 10-22 and Tamron28-75???

[LuisE]

I find my self doing a lot of weddings (low light conditions). Need to replace my good copy of TAMRON 28-75 that has worked good so far but I am not 100% happy.

Since I have 10-22 and the Tamron, I am thinking on selling them and get the 17-55IS. I would like the 24-70L but think IS is great feature for my job.

Still thinking about it. PLease let me know what do you think. Shoul I keep the 10-22?? Do I need the 55-70 range??

Thanks ,

LuisE

[Dorman]

It's a tough call to part with those two stellar lenses or not. My only suggestion would be that if you're doing alot of weddings I would invest in a 2nd body first, maybe just a 300D or 350D. Then I'd sell these two lenses and buy the 17-55 IS. Then when you're shooting weddings you'd have the 17-55 IS on one body and the 70-200 IS on the other.

[FIREWALLROB]

It's a tough call to part with those two stellar lenses or not. My only suggestion would be that if you're doing alot of weddings I would invest in a 2nd body first, maybe just a 300D or 350D. Then I'd sell these two lenses and buy the 17-55 IS. Then when you're shooting weddings you'd have the 17-55 IS on one body and the 70-200 IS on the other.

If I could keep just one lens on a 20D, it would be a 10-22. nothing else was wide enough for me.

[LuisE]

It's a tough call to part with those two stellar lenses or not. My only suggestion would be that if you're doing alot of weddings I would invest in a 2nd body first, maybe just a 300D or 350D. Then I'd sell these two lenses and buy the 17-55 IS. Then when you're shooting weddings you'd have the 17-55 IS on one body and the 70-200 IS on the other.

Thanks Dorman, I already have a 350D as a second body. Need to upgrade my sign.
Thanks for the help.

LuisE

[Digitally_Altered]

I would keep the 10-22 (just got one - very nice and w-i-d-e) and I thing you would be very pleased with the 17-55 2.8 IS, very good for low light...

[Wilt]

While 17-55 IS is fantastic people lens, not too wide to create easily the exaggerated body parts of those standing close by. But, equivalent to 28mm FF it is not wide enough for scene-setting shots of church interiors IMHO. I would keep the 10-22 even if you get the 17-55 IS. In fact I have the 10-22 and 28-75 myself, and am chomping at the bit to buy the 17-55 IS. But with less weight than the 17-55 IS, I would be tempted to keep the 28-75 as my walkabout lens for holidays, and the 17-55 IS is my 'working' lens. (My wish from Santa is that Canon would make a 17-85 f/2.8 IS available to us!)

[runninmann]

You mention that you are not 100% happy with the Tamron. What are you unhappy with? Will the 17-55 resolve the issues that you have with the 28-75? How much do you use the 10-15 mm and 60-75 mm lengths? Can those lengths be replaced with foot zoom? Since you already have a 2nd body, perhaps a 2-lens solution is better for you.

[LuisE]

You mention that you are not 100% happy with the Tamron. What are you unhappy with? Will the 17-55 resolve the issues that you have with the 28-75? How much do you use the 10-15 mm and 60-75 mm lengths? Can those lengths be replaced with foot zoom? Since you already have a 2nd body, perhaps a 2-lens solution is better for you.

The main problem I have seen is the focus speed. also I got the 70-200 IS,and I really see tha advantage of the IS in low light conditions and since wedding has become my main bussines I want to make sure of getting the best results.

I have already ordered the 17-55 and also decided to keep the 10-22. Thanks for your help.

LuisE