Full Frame Replacement for Canon 10-22

I would Keep the 7d and 10-22. Also take a look at the tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 very cheap with good reviews. Loving mine.

I would also keep the 7D and 10-22........... it's what I did. Let your wife know who wears the pants in the family!

Well, where to start ?
My bro used to get married recently, and I've had a not-so-small talk with the pro shooter, a nice female photog.
To her, a f/2.8 lens did not count as being fast glass... Yes, she was using two 5D3 cameras frequently.
If wedding photography is Your goal, skip all f/4 or variable aperture lenses.
Her cameras were equipped with a 50/1.2 and 85/1.2, ready in her bag a 35/1.4 and a 135/2. No zooms. Two giant flashlights saw no use.
She told me, the next lens she was after is the 24/1.4 Mk.2, but mostly for travel use.
---
This is not my point of view, just another Pro's opinion.
---
Wide angle zoom lenses suffer from widespread sample variation. Don't purchase such a lens off the peg, or the first used sample that crosses Your path. Ebay and craigslist are full of monday's models that change hands faster than You can say Jack Robinson.
---
The 16-35L Mk.1 and the 17-35L are much worse than the 16-35L2. Don't bother.
With Canon's current lineup, You're indeed better off using fast primes. Sigma Art comes to mind.
My personal experience (landscape photog) is, that larger sensors always yield better results than APS or smaller. That might be different for your intended purpose over all.
At the same time, I really hate hauling a heavy FF camera and big lenses to remote locations...

Loved the Tokina 16-28 but it really let me down when it came to do nighttime city shots for a few clients. Talk about flare. Rainbow rings around every single light source! Couldn't go wrong with it during the day but whenever a bright light source entered, particularly at night, forget it!

What do you shoot? Many landscape photogs value a sharp, full frame corner to corner sharp, ultra wide zoom/prime above a faster aperture lens because they will be using a tripod 99% of the time. Is this how you used your 10-22? Is corner sharpness more valuable to you then an f/2.8 aperture? If you don't need f/2.8, and you're on a budget, the 17-40L will be perfectly capable. If you can stretch your budget, the new 16-35 f/4L IS, and if you NEED f/2.8, get the 16-35/2.8 (mk1 if budget, mk2 if money flying out your behind). Of course since none of these lenses are dirt cheap used or new, you might consider hanging on to your current setup. Yes, full-frame has advantages, but will you notice them? Is it worth it to get ride of a perfectly capable aps-c body and ef-s UWA lens, for one full frame UWA lens? Again, if selling your 7D and 10-22 is necessary to pay for the 5d3, then I think the 17-40L is your lens. It's a very capable lens.

Get the 16-35mm F4 IS, it's the best wide angle zoom Canon has the moment.
But the 10-22mm will work just fine, it's soft in the corners on full frame but it's damn sharp in the centre.

Do yourself a favor and save for the 16-35 F4 IS. It really is fantastic, sharp as a razor throughout.

I always thought the 17-40 was equal to the 10-22 in almost all respects except weather sealing.

GuitarDTO wrote in post #17138140
Do yourself a favor and save for the 16-35 F4 IS. It really is fantastic, sharp as a razor throughout.

I still leaning away from this. If I'm going to spend that kind of money, I'll want to have 2.8. It's more important to my kind of work that IS and sharpness.

I've decided between the 17-40 and older 16-35 2.8, depending on what kind of deals I can find when I decide to make the move.

I'm still struggling to decide between the older 16-35 2.8 and the 17-40.I think I can get the 16-35 2.8 for about $925 (which seems expensive for a lens that old), or the 17-40 for between $500-600. I like the 17-40 for its size and cost...but the 16-35 for it's 2.8.

16-35 F4-L would be my choice.

Leigh

The 17-40 is a fine lens. It isn't flawless, but the corner sharpness issues aren't problems for many people. Pros who absolutely need that corner sharpness might need to get something more expensive, but for most the 17-40 is an upgrade over the 10-22.

If budget allows I would go for the 16-35/4. The 6D's high ISO performance is good enough so the speed advantage of a 2.8 isn't particularly compelling to me in a UWA.

Leigh wrote in post #17146448
16-35 F4-L would be my choice.

Leigh

I'm staying away from the f4 IS because for the cost, I'd definitely rather have 2.8 than IS and sharper corners. If I primarily shot landscapes, that'd be my choice.

I'll be using this lens wide open to photograph people, events, weddings, etc or at f8 or higher for landscapes.

I'm pretty sure I'll happy with the image quality I'll get out of either the 16-35 2.8 i or the 17-40. Obviously I can't know for sure until I have try it out.

The smaller size and the lower cost makes the 17-40 a really solid option. It should perform just as well as my 10-22, and is probably the right replacement for my 10-22.

Now what I'm struggling through is deciding is the extra few hundred dollars for an older lens (but gaining a stop) will be worth it for me. I afraid I'll regret getting the 17-40...but I'm also hesitant to get the 16-35 for some reason....

I'm not considering the Tokina 16-28 2.8 because of the bulbous front that won't take my filters.

I'm also staying away from the 16-35 2.8L ii because of the filters and cost. One day I'll upgrade to it and the newer 24-70 2.8, but I just don't have the need for it right now. Maybe one day, but not now.

And I'm staying from the new 16-35 f4 because for what I shoot, I'd get more value out of 2.8 than the IS and sharpness.

Thanks for the input. It's giving me a lot to consider. I'll still take any insight I can get!

if you dont care about corners, might as well get the tamron 17-35. Gives you 2.8 on the wide end and goes to F4. Otherwise, just get the 17-40.

Charlie wrote in post #17146624
if you dont care about corners, might as well get the tamron 17-35. Gives you 2.8 on the wide end and goes to F4. Otherwise, just get the 17-40.

It's not that I don't care about corners....they're just not at the top of priority list. I'll look into it.