Get Sigma 35mm and Sell 17-55?

I am considering purchasing the Sigma 35mm for my 60D and it will be my first prime lens. I currently have a 10-22 and 17-55. I'm not going to sell the 17-55 immediately, but I anticipate that the Sigma will be on my camera most of the time. Most of what is shoot are travel photos. Landscape and snapshots of my gf and I. I am anticipating a move to FF but I don't quite want to go through the expense and trouble so I am hoping to upgrade more slowly. Deep in my mind, I'm hoping Canon would come up with something like the 5DIII but with a better sensor. Any thoughts or suggestions?

keep your 17 - 55 because it'll help with the travel shots, you can always sell it later if and when you go full frame.

BigBadWolfie wrote in post #15418342
I am considering purchasing the Sigma 35mm for my 60D and it will be my first prime lens. I currently have a 10-22 and 17-55. I'm not going to sell the 17-55 immediately, but I anticipate that the Sigma will be on my camera most of the time. Most of what is shoot are travel photos. Landscape and snapshots of my gf and I. I am anticipating a move to FF but I don't quite want to go through the expense and trouble so I am hoping to upgrade more slowly. Deep in my mind, I'm hoping Canon would come up with something like the 5DIII but with a better sensor. Any thoughts or suggestions?

the thought i had was "wow this dude is impulsive and all over the map" .

I think after you shoot them for a couple months, you will have a pretty good idea which one you want to keep. If you still can't decide, maybe you need both

ed rader wrote in post #15418431
the thought i had was "wow this dude is impulsive and all over the map" .

Thanks probably a fair assessment.

I decided to get a sigma 35 1.4 instead of the 24-105 with my 5DIII. Time will tell whether or not I need the flexibility of the zoom, but so far I'm happy with the 35. I do mostly the same as you; travel and landscape.

I've been living off mostly primes for the past year (my 70-200mm is back at home in the U.S.)

I love my primes b/c their IQ and bokeh rendition are ridiculously awesome!

HOWEVER, I learned (the hard way) that a good standard zoom is really critical in most lens lineups for hobbyists. If I know what I want to shoot beforehand, I can bring my primes, but after using primes exclusively for a year, I feel that a good zoom is like multiple f/2.8 primes packed into one.

I should be able to use my zoom now to change perception like I would for primes.

Not sure if that made much sense. In a nutshell, keep your 17-55. lol

Zoom lenses are very convenient for travel, which you state is one of your primary uses. So, I would hang onto the 17-55mm until you move to full frame, and then replace it with one of the 24-70mm or 24-105 options.

I find use for both zoom and prime lenses, depending on what I am shooting. I could not imagine giving up either type of lens.

I usually leave my prime lenses at home when I'm travelling. In order to cover a reasonable focal length range with primes (via cropping between them) you need a lot more lenses overall than can be managed with zooms.

And I really don't need the very fast apertures that primes allow when I am travelling very often.

So to my 1-2 IS equipped slower zoom lenses are pretty much ideal for travel.

JeffreyG wrote in post #15419515
I usually leave my prime lenses at home when I'm travelling. In order to cover a reasonable focal length range with primes (via cropping between them) you need a lot more lenses overall than can be managed with zooms.

And I really don't need the very fast apertures that primes allow when I am travelling very often.

So to my 1-2 IS equipped slower zoom lenses are pretty much ideal for travel.

I have found this to be true; I have often brought my primes along when travelling, but they usually stay in the bag. I just like the results so much when I use them, that I have a hard time leaving them at home thanks to the little voice in my head that says "what if?"

JeffreyG wrote in post #15419515
I usually leave my prime lenses at home when I'm travelling. In order to cover a reasonable focal length range with primes (via cropping between them) you need a lot more lenses overall than can be managed with zooms.

And I really don't need the very fast apertures that primes allow when I am travelling very often.

So to my 1-2 IS equipped slower zoom lenses are pretty much ideal for travel.

I am pretty much the same way. For most trips, the 5D3, along with the 24-105L and one telephoto (70-200 f/4 IS or 100-400L) is sufficient. If I plan on taking a lot of wildlife shots, the 7D comes along, too -- which may also result in packing the EFS 10-22mm, depending on the destination.

I'm the opposite of a lot of these people, I'd much rather have two primes with me. Between a 35 and an 85 I can shoot just about anything I want. In some cases I might swap the 85 for a 300 f4L IS(but I don't quite own that one yet ).

Save $500 and get the 30mm f/1.4 instead.

Hmm... I guess the consensus simply is to get this lens as a compliment to what I have?

BigBadWolfie wrote in post #15422821
Hmm... I guess the consensus simply is to get this lens as a compliment to what I have?

That would be my suggestion. When I shot with only a crop body, I had a 17-55mm f/2.8 and supplemented it with a Canon 28mm f/1.8. The prime lens was still usable once I bought a full frame body, too. That is it's big advantage over the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

The new Siggy 35mm f/1.4, though, would be a good solution for both crop and FF, depending on whether that focal length would be useful to you on both formats. Personally, I prefer 50mm as my "normal" prime on a FF, so the 28mm is more useful as a wide angle prime on FF to complement the 50mm.