10-22 or 17-40L do u need both?

mistry wrote in post #2016252
As the title say, do I need both. So far I have the kit lens and a 50mm 1.8

When I got my nifty i realised how bad the kit was, so was looking to replace it, and I love the effects that can be achieved with the 10-22 so have arranged to buy one, but have also found a good deal on a 17-40L, So the question is do you need both? or would I be better getting something like the 17-85 IS?

Thanks in advance

As a replacement for your kit lens, the 17-40 L will definitely fit the bill. The 10-22mm is great if you need it, but really is too short as a general purpose lens. You already have a 50mm, which you should keep, but the added quality of the 17-40L over your kit lens will amaze you. It is also not so wide as to limit its use as a walkaround lens. I user it as my walkaround as well as for landscapes, portraits, etc.

Correct. I was wrong on the 1.3x factor based on Canon's website. I am, however, correct on stating that the 30D and 20D are 1.6x crop cameras. Sorry for misleading...

Where was I getting that 1.3x factor from??? What a crazy day!

I have the 17-85 and the 10-22. I bought the 10-22 to compliment the 17mm as there were a few times it was not wide enough. I might get the 24-105 but would sure end up switched lots for the wide angle because lots of my shots are in the 17-24 range. While there is no doubt the 17-40 is a great lens it is too short for me to use as a walk-about.

I still don't really know what the ultimate combo is for me. Once I buy a second body (the 5D or its future replacement) then the 24-105 would be tops on the list as a walk-about lens. I would then get rid of my 10-22 and 17-85 and keep the 20D for the telephoto stuff.