Everybody likes confirmation of their plans, eh?

I know, I know, it's a silly emotional need but I value the opinions of POTNers..

I do mostly outdoor landscape and nature stuff, very little low light except for long exposure work. Maybe 10% indoors/low light of the kids and such. Virtually no sports (at least for now, the 2 year old grandson may end up on the soccer field at some point ). I am seriously planning an upgrade to a 5D/II in the summer of 2013, keeping the 50D as a spare/wife's camera.

I'm thinking of the Canon 17-40mm f/4 and the Canon 24-105mm f/4, paired with selling off the EF-S 10-22mm UWA, since it's a no-go on the 5D. This recoups some of the $$$ on the two L guys.

Is there any overriding reason, given my shooting, that this is a BAD idea?

no, i had the 17-40 and for a short time the 16-35 - kept the 17-40. it's a very nice lens for the money.

Sounds solid. You might also consider getting rid of the 28-135 if you're getting a 24-105, unless you're planning on keeping it on the 50D.

No, it's not a bad idea by any means.

However, I would say that you'll see little difference in your images comparing the 28-135 you have now and the 24-105 you're considering. Focus speed and close focusing ability of the two lenses aren't all that different, either. The main difference will be the build quality, sealing and durability that the L lens offers. The 24-105 is top L quality build, while the 28-135 is more mid-grade. Considering that a 28-135 does the job nearly as well and I can buy one off Craigslist for $200-250, I would probably only do that particular "upgrade" if I were getting the 5DII in kit with the 24-105, which is often a pretty good deal. And even then I'd be sort of tempted to sell the 24-105 to recoup some of the total cost just to be able to keep the 10-22 to use on the 50D or to help fund a 24-70/2.8.

The 17-40 also might be fine. You're right about the 10-22 not being very usable on the FF camera (there are modifications to allow it to mount, but it still vignettes pretty strongly... I use a Tokina 12-24/4 instead, which does happen work on FF as wide as 18 or 19mm.) Personally I like and use a Canon 20/2.8 as my widest full frame lens. But, you may need something wider and the flexibility of a zoom. Lanscape shooting isn't a high priority for me.

Not saying your plan is bad in any way... just that there are some alternatives you might want to consider.

For me, getting back to full frame for the first time in a long time a few years ago, the most important lens and one I bought immediately was the 135/2L. But, it sounds as if I do more portrait shooting than you. I do a lot of sports as well, but for me that's not a consideration because I don't use 5DII much for that. It's just not an AI Servo/sports/action camera... It's a great One Shot/portrait, landscape, macro camera.

Sounds like a good plan to me as well. The 17-40 and 24-105 make a nice pair. I would sell the 10-22, 28-135 and the 28 . You have everything else covered.

Thanks folks - re: the 28-135, I was thinking that if I kept the 50D (which is only two years old) for little missus, then it would be all she'd probably need or want there. As some have noted, it's a very decent lens, and even on a crop sensor body it's pretty functional.

Sounds like a plan. You will be pleased the IQ blew me away when I first received mine from crop sensor

Sounds like a good setup. However I hate f/4. Bad bokeh quality and you won't be able to control depth of field as well. I really prefer the f/2.8 and yes they're more expensive and very heavy. If you find yourself needing more light then you can always sell your L for little loss and upgrade. The 5D2 has very good high ISO so I don't think it should be a big deal. I'm just anti-high-ISO.

Seems like a great plan. I just moved to a 5D3 from 1D3/50D combo. I had the 24-105 and 24-70 for several years and almost always used the 24-105. Its a great lens, and perfect walk around for full frame. I do a lot of sports however, and so I parted with the 24-105 and 24-70 to get a 24-70 II... much more like the 24-105 in ergonomics. I also just ordered a 17-40 to take advantage of the wide side of full frame.

Thank you all, again. As has been noted, I'm not too concerned with the f/4 limitation, as a huge percentage of my stuff is outdoors in fairly good light, and at apertures in the f/8 to f/20 range. If I did more indoor or low light stuff or sports, yeah, I'd be looking towards the f/2.8 end of things but for now, with my practice, those lenses are simply not worth the extra money TO ME. I rented the 24-105 for our trip to Utah this summer, and in general was very pleased with its work. Spotted Wolf Canyon along I-70 near Green River.