Dilemma

Hi guys. I'm looking for some new lenses. I need a UWA and a widish-general purpose zoom. I can't decide between the following two combinations:
Canon 10-22 + Tamron 17-50
Sigma 10-30 + Canon 17-55
As you can see, they come down to about the same price. The problem is I haven't gone out and shot enough to really know whether I should invest more in the UWA or the zoom; and this will be my first UWA as well. I'm shooting on a APS-C (60D), and my other lenses are a Canon 50mm 1.4 and a Canon 70-300. Thanks!

Canon 10-22 + Canon 17-55

or canon 10-22 and sigma 17-50. I hear the sigma is about 95% IQ of the canon 17-55

snowboardpunk wrote in post #15048101
or canon 10-22 and sigma 17-50. I hear the sigma is about 95% IQ of the canon 17-55

Maybe so, but that 5% inferiority can make all the difference

Have you considered the 15-85? I beats the 17-55 on both ends, doesn't flare like the 17-55, is $300 cheaper and IQ is nearly the same. Alas, it is not f/2.8. You may not need the 10-22, if 15 is wide enough.

TSchrief wrote in post #15048783
Have you considered the 15-85? I beats the 17-55 on both ends, doesn't flare like the 17-55, is $300 cheaper and IQ is nearly the same. Alas, it is not f/2.8. You may not need the 10-22, if 15 is wide enough.

I agree. The 15-85 does it all.

if you want an ultrwaide i suggest getting a 24-70, 28-75 range to complement so you arent overlapping so much focal length.

with my 60D i used a canon 10-22 and a tamron 28-75 and that suited me very well.

the 15-85 works well as a walkaround but you don't get to play with the distortion that the 10-22 will give you at 10mm and that can be fun.

I was faced with the same decision between the Canon 17-55mm vs the Sigma 17-50mm and had the use of both for about a week. The Sigma was about $200 less and also came with a hood and case. Hood you need (Canon's about $25) case is your personal preference. Both extent in zooming but the Sigma was shorter, about 3/4 inch as I recall and worked better a far as fit in my equipment bag. The Canon AF was quieter, manual focus was about 1/4 turn vs. Sigma 1/8 turn. The Canon has full time manual focus, Sigma does not.

IQ was virtually the same on my test work and the Sigma was spot on as far as front/back focus on my 60D. Canon was very slightly off. Luck of the draw, someone else could have the opposite.

Final decision was the Sigma based on the price. Wonderful lens.

i'd go with the 10-22 and something else (your choice). if you want one, i have to agree with the 15-85 suggestions, it's a good one.

... or Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 and Sigma 17-50 OS - great combo for much less than the Canon's flavour.

With B&H prices, the Sigma combo will cost 1098$, wheras the Canon's combo will cost 1917$ (with two lens hoods - ridiculous that Canon doesn't include them with many lenses!). So it is almost double, for very marginal difference in IQ.

And then spend the 800$ you saved for some nice telephoto (sell your 70-300 I assume it's not L?) - like Canon 70-200 f4 L non-IS, or perhaps second hand IS version. Or go for the portrait magic of 135L (second hand).

rklepper wrote in post #15048075
Canon 10-22 + Canon 17-55

+1

msowsun wrote in post #15049063
I agree. The 15-85 does it all.

Almost all. I still like to have my 10-22 available.

Tokina 11-16 might be worth looking at as well. Very sharp and f2.8.

rklepper wrote in post #15048075
Canon 10-22 + Canon 17-55

Agreed.

The 15-85 might be able to replace the 17-55 but certaintly shouldn't be considered in place of the 10-22. The 5mm makes a huge difference and the 10-22 is such a joy to shoot with, love that lens.

Thanks for the response guys. I've (tentatively) decided that I'm keeping the Tamron 17-50. I don't know about the 50 1.4; I like it a lot, but I think that the 17-50 and the 50 together is kind of redundant. But I love the wide aperture! Arrghh. I might replace it with an UWA. I don't know yet. Help?
Also, I've (again, tentatively) decided to replace my 70-300 with the 135L. My only concern is that its a prime. I don't know whether it will be versatile enough for me. Should I get it, or another one?
Thanks!