Crop body lens combo

So I have a canon t2i and the EF-S 17-55. Its a great lens and I am happy with it. However I am thinking of getting the canon EF-S 10-22 because I like shooting landscapes and city-scapes. Now with these 2 lenses there is going to be a big overlap on focal length. So I am thinking of selling the 17-55 and getting a 24-70 (most likely tamron). The combo of 10-22 and 24-70 will cover all the focal range I want (I have a 100-400 for wildlife). So my question how is the 24-70 on a crop? Those who have used it did you find yourself wanting more on the shorter range?

there's nothing wrong with a little overlap...it prevents having to switch lenses as much...unless you're after longer than 55mm i wouldn't switch because the two overlap each other.

I have the 24-105 on my 7D and love the focal range. Folks will tell you that 24mm on a crop isn't "wide enough". Realistically, it is actually pretty wide. Certainly useful for landscapes and walkaround sorts of shots. With the 10-22 (I have the Tokina 11-16) you have alot of ground covered.

10-22, 24-70 (or 24-105) and 100-400 is a pretty decent setup. You have everything covered.

Eventually you may want to add some primes for focal lengths you use alot or need absolutely the best sharpness/speed for. But for now, you would be set.

Don't overthink it.

After having the 17-55 i think no other lens will satisfy you sharp-wise.

There's nothing wrong with some overlapping, specially between those two lenses with such different uses.

Maybe I will get a used 24-70 and try it before selling the 17-55. I am not a professional so I don't need my pics to be super sharp.

I second Dre's comment.

Do you ever feel that the 17-55 is a little too short (do you have a lot of pics at the 55 end)? If not, I probably wouldn't bother changing. Take a look at the pics you take and see what focal length the majority are taken with.

While there is overlap between the 10-22 and 17-55, that overlap gives you flexibility. If you switch to a 24-70, you have a mandatory lens change at 22-24mm. For me, the inconvenience of that forced lens swap becomes a nuisance, since I often shoot both the wide and long end of the zoom 17-5x zooms in one outing.

I'm using a 12-24 tokina, a 24-105 and a 100-400 paired with a T3i as my setup. I have everything pretty covered from 12-400 mm. (I also have a 1.4 extender if needed)

Here for what it is worth is MHO.

Having lenses with overlap is real nice. If money it tight, you can get away without overlap - it works. I have done it for years. But in an ideal situation I would much rather have the overlap, as it cuts down on the switching of lenses. With no overlap, I often would have two bodies (different lenses) with me to compensate.

Copidosoma wrote in post #15249593
10-22, 24-70 (or 24-105) and 100-400 is a pretty decent setup. You have everything covered.

Completely agree.

I have 10-22, 24-105 on t2i. Next is 100-400 on my list, which will complete my setup.

jimewall wrote in post #15253448
Here for what it is worth is MHO.

... But in an ideal situation I would much rather have the overlap, as it cuts down on the switching of lenses...

Don't worry about the overlap ... it can be a good thing. Your 17-55 is a good lens ... no need to change unless you want longer, then something like the 24-105 might be a good addition. Later on, if you still want longer then you can look at one of the 70-200 lenses, but you might want to invest in a prime prior to that.

I wouldn't switch. The difference between 55 and 70 mm is small. You will end up with a more expensive, bigger, heavier lens. With very little additional reach. The same F-stop. And you lose IS (if you go with the Canon).

I'd forget about getting a 24-70 and I'd sell the 100-400 and think about getting a 70-200 lens even if it's an F4 as having a 24-70 a long with a 17-55 seems almost pointless in my opinion....two steps forward and you make up the extra 15mm difference with the picture already have been taken vs switching lenses or even switching cameras and zooming in.

17-55 + 70-200 is the best way to go in my opinion as you have a nice wide angle at 17mm and at 200mm you have a nice telephoto and you can even get a tele converter 1.4/1.5X for it if you shoot wildlife occasionally which will make it a 300m lens with a non variable aperture which will make getting correctly exposed shots easier and much faster....both lenses will be very sharp and very fast.

Ultimate crop combo IMO
17-55
70-200 2.8 IS II
10-22
+ a fast prime or two to suit what you shoot.

El Pedro wrote in post #15253952
Ultimate crop combo IMO
17-55
70-200 2.8 IS II
10-22
+ a fast prime or two to suit what you shoot.

I tend to agree

Sovern wrote in post #15253685
I'd forget about getting a 24-70 and I'd sell the 100-400 and think about getting a 70-200 lens even if it's an F4 as having a 24-70 a long with a 17-55 seems almost pointless in my opinion....two steps forward and you make up the extra 15mm difference with the picture already have been taken vs switching lenses or even switching cameras and zooming in.

17-55 + 70-200 is the best way to go in my opinion as you have a nice wide angle at 17mm and at 200mm you have a nice telephoto and you can even get a tele converter 1.4/1.5X for it if you shoot wildlife occasionally which will make it a 300m lens with a non variable aperture which will make getting correctly exposed shots easier and much faster....both lenses will be very sharp and very fast.

clearly you don't shoot much wildlife...there's no way in hell one should go from a 100-400L to a 70-200 with a 1.4X for wildlife shooting...