Sell 17-55 IS for 16-35 mkII?

Um, but wouldn't he be missing about 35-110mm Jamie? (maybe I'm reading your post wrong?) I agree the 16-35 is a great choice, but his other lens would be the 70-200 on the 30D. You did say "extra wide angle range on your 5D".

Nope - he'd only be missing the 56mm - 70mm range.

All I was saying is that each lens would do double duty by using them on one body or the other depending on the situation. I.e. when he wants an UWA, he'd put the 16-35 on the 5D, when he wants a "Normal" zoom, he puts the 16-35 on the 30D (for an effective FOV of 28-56mm's).

OR, if it makes it easier, look at it this way. He can put the 16-35 on his 30D and have just about the same setup that he has now. The advantage that the 16-35 has over the 17-55, however, is that he can use it on his 5D when he wants to change it up a bit.

The great thing about SLR's is that the lenses aren't welded to the camera .

True Jamie - but the whole point of the OP was that he wanted to use the 5D most of the time. At the moment he is shooting with the 30D and a standard zoom. He wants a standard zoom for the 5D as I understand it.

I agree that the 16-35 is going to be more useful across two bodies as long as he is willing to use the Sigma as his standard zoom on the 5D.

Hmmmm - so maybe I missed the point. Carry on.

And discussions like this is why I got rid of the 20D in favor of a 2nd 5D. Trying not to have overlapping lenses, but to use the lens on the body that made the most sense was making my head spin!

jamiewexler wrote in post #4224926
Nope - he'd only be missing the 56mm - 70mm range.

All I was saying is that each lens would do double duty by using them on one body or the other depending on the situation. I.e. when he wants an UWA, he'd put the 16-35 on the 5D, when he wants a "Normal" zoom, he puts the 16-35 on the 30D (for an effective FOV of 28-56mm's).

OR, if it makes it easier, look at it this way. He can put the 16-35 on his 30D and have just about the same setup that he has now. The advantage that the 16-35 has over the 17-55, however, is that he can use it on his 5D when he wants to change it up a bit.

The great thing about SLR's is that the lenses aren't welded to the camera .

Okay, you didn't say that at first... that's why I was confused. No biggie, and I agree. Changing lenses before an exit might be an issue though. I'd think that part over.

jamiewexler wrote in post #4224990
And discussions like this is why I got rid of the 20D in favor of a 2nd 5D. Trying not to have overlapping lenses, but to use the lens on the body that made the most sense was making my head spin!

Yeah, on paper doubling up the lenses looks great for lots of versatility, but I wouldn't like to be flipping them about at a wedding.

My ideal wedding lens would be a 24-105 2.8 (FF equiv), it'd do about 98% of the wedding. If Sigma could master a 2.8 version of their 18-200 OS it'd be Nirvana.

To the OP, swap your Sigma 24-70 for the Canon, the focus motor on that Sigma is singularly frustrating. Then sell the 17-55 for a 17-40 f4, awesome lens you can use as a std on the crop body and a wide zoom on the 5d.

I use:

17-35 on the 5D for wide
24-105 on the 5D for general coverage in decent light
70-200 on the crop.

I'd consider the 16-35 and the 24-105. If you can't do that I'd go for the 24-70 like everyone else said.

For wedding work getting the 16-35 doesn't make any sense to me

So what if you're using the 30D & 17-55 more than the 5D? It's a stellar combo.

Dorman wrote in post #4229039
For wedding work getting the 16-35 doesn't make any sense to me

So what if you're using the 30D & 17-55 more than the 5D? It's a stellar combo.

Noise issue. Bigger brighter viewfinder for chapel/reception.

Seems like the general consensus is the 24-70mm. Might just do that then and maybe purchase the Sigma/Canon 10-20/22 or even the 17-40L

Thanks folks, appreciate everyones input

The 5D/30D combo is pretty effective, but I do like most others suggest and keep the 24-70L on the 5D most of the time, and the 70-200L on the 30D. I am only using my 30D for the cermony and sometimes getting ready, depending on the size of the room. I stick with the 5D for 80% of my coverage. the 24-70L is good for getting ready, wider ceremony coverage (processional/recessio​nal, etc) and I tend to lean on the 85mm for most of my reception coverage and bridals. I need the better viewfinder of the 5D to see what I'm really focusin on, which is even harder at wider angles, so I parted w/my 17-55 a long time ago.

If you need 16mm then the hole from 35mm to 112 would be unworkable for most. You could even get a 24-105 f4 for the ff to use in most shots and a 10-22 for the crop body for when you need ultra-wide.

2 ff bodies with a 16-35 and a 70-200 would also work but is a bigger outlay. I think that would be my ideal setup. In the meantime I want to get a ff for my 70-200, then use my 10-22 on my crop body most of the time. This would give me the classic 16-35 + 70-200 effective coverage, and for me the 5D would be best used on the skintones in portraits with the longer lens than groupshots etc with a wider lens.

Crocodile wrote in post #4235377
If you need 16mm then the hole from 35mm to 112 would be unworkable for most. You could even get a 24-105 f4 for the ff to use in most shots and a 10-22 for the crop body for when you need ultra-wide.

2 ff bodies with a 16-35 and a 70-200 would also work but is a bigger outlay. I think that would be my ideal setup. In the meantime I want to get a ff for my 70-200, then use my 10-22 on my crop body most of the time. This would give me the classic 16-35 + 70-200 effective coverage, and for me the 5D would be best used on the skintones in portraits with the longer lens than groupshots etc with a wider lens.

Yeah thats what I was thinking as well but it comes back to using the 30D as my main cam which I wanted to avoid. Thanks for the input though