You guys are all awesome! Thanks to everyone that's replied. This thread has made me realize I might have been thinking about things the wrong way and has got me thinking differently.
MalVeauX wrote in post #18060967
If you're going to go full frame, just do it. Otherwise, don't plan on it by using specific glass thinking one day you'll do it. Go for the now. Whatever you get, you can sell and put towards something else if you do switch formats. It doesn't matter much. There's nothing ultimately specific about a full frame that is better enough these days compared to a modern APS-C (let alone some modern Micro 4/3's!) for a lot of photography. Just because someone else uses it for what they do doesn't mean it's the way to go. Focus on what you do and what you want to spend and what you want to get out of it.
17-50 is the 24-70 of APS-C. If you want that focal range that you see on a full frame, then a 17-50 is it.
Otherwise, if you want more quality and speed, the 18-35 F1.8 ART is unrivaled because Sigma has the field on innovating new lenses like this right now.
There's no disadvantage to using APS-C other than yourself. The advantages to full frame are the focal lengths relative to the sensor size producing an angle of view, potentially shallower DOF if you really feel you need it ultra thin for some reason, and a wee bit better high ISO performance. I shoot APS-C, APS-H & Full Frame. I use full frame specifically for how it interacts with focal lengths and depth of field, as I like how wide lenses are more prevalent for a larger sensor, and F2.8 on a full frame is pretty shallow DOF, let alone faster. But other than those two applications, I can use an APS-C and you wouldn't know the difference unless I just told you or you saw the EXIF. And that's the rub.
This is some awesome advice, thanks! I think I was caught looking too far down the road and what I could potentially be doing. I don't have the budget right now to go full frame and while it would be nice, this venture isn't making money and until it (ever) does, then I think I should just take the approach of investing in the now like you've suggested. The truth is, I'm using a very good APS-C body and should get the glass to go with it.
Perhaps I just stick with the 17-55 for now, get a longer telephoto / a prime to fill in the gaps and then go from there unless getting the 16-35 1.8 is going to make a noticeable jump in IQ from the 17-55.
DreDaze wrote in post #18060951
the features that make the 7DII cost more than say a 70D aren't something that you would really see a benefit for in event kind of work...you don't need a ton of AF points, don't need 10fps...it just seems like paying more for features that you wouldn't use for events
I see your point. The camera is used for more than just event work, it's my everyday camera and I'm trying to play around with different types of photography as a hobby. Also, I did get the 7DII for a really good price so it just made sense to get it instead of the 70D at the time.