If I buy a 17-55mm should I keep the 10-22mm?

Up until a 2 months ago I was strictly a point and shoot girl, so please bear with my ignorance.

I purchased a 40d a month and a half ago and since then I've been playing musical lenses. Buy one, keep it for a week, sell it because I read of a better lens for my needs. It wasn't until I found this site that I began to understand the concept of crop framed cams and how lenses apply.

Currently, I have:

10-22 for wide angle,
24-105L for walk around
70-200 f4 for long range zoom
and a 50mm 1.4 prime which I never use and am now selling

So, here's is my quandary...if I get the 17-55mm for a walk-around (which I hear is the way to go for a crop) and get rid of the 24-105, does it make sense to still keep the 10-22 for wide angle/landscape photography? And I understand that many use a 35mm lens as a walk-around...what would be the advantage to buying a 35mm f2 if I buy the 17-55?

Thank you!!

I Guess it depends on what you are shooting, and how wide you want to go. They are both extremely great lenses. From the looks of things, it doesn't seem like you are into portraits, or telephoto, so I wouldn't really sell the 10-22 to get one of those types of lenses. The 17-55 has IS and is a great walk around for a crop, but, the 10-22 is a specialty ultra wide angle (UWA) lens that can make all the difference in some situations. I'd keep it, and I wouldn't buy the 35 f2.

I'll be in the US at the end of this month, and the 10-22 is on my shopping list - I will most certainly keep my ultimate walk-around lens 17-55.
The focal length plus IS and 2.8 makes it a very versatile lens.

If you shoot anything like me, your 10-22 will not be used a ton, as the 17-55 will almost always be on your camera. That being said, if you can afford to keep it, the 10-22 is a ton of fun to use. The difference in FOV is HUGE between 10 and 17mm. I love some of the cool shots that you get with the UWA lens that you will not get from the 17-55 (like being able to get a bobble head shot of someone). I happen to love having both, but the 10-22 doesn't get used a ton.

As for your prime question, why don't you use your 50? Is it that it's too long or do you just not need the speed of f/1.4? The only reason you'd really use a fast prime would be for low light shooting, as the 17-55 is just a great all around lens. If you never shoot in low light and/or use a flash all the time, just stick with the zoom.

Thank you both. That is what I was thinking. I like to have the option to go ultra-wide (i live next to the mountains), but also want a good walk-around with a greater zoom range for random shots of family, animals, whatever happens to come my way. It's nice to hear that I can skip the 35mm. I know many like to have one good prime in addition to there zooms, but if the 17-55 is all that and a bag of chips, it sounds like I won't need it.

TaDa wrote in post #5898924
If you shoot anything like me, your 10-22 will not be used a ton, as the 17-55 will almost always be on your camera. That being said, if you can afford to keep it, the 10-22 is a ton of fun to use. The difference in FOV is HUGE between 10 and 17mm. I love some of the cool shots that you get with the UWA lens that you will not get from the 17-55 (like being able to get a bobble head shot of someone). I happen to love having both, but the 10-22 doesn't get used a ton.

As for your prime question, why don't you use your 50? Is it that it's too long or do you just not need the speed of f/1.4? The only reason you'd really use a fast prime would be for low light shooting, as the 17-55 is just a great all around lens. If you never shoot in low light and/or use a flash all the time, just stick with the zoom.

I LOVE speed and was sorry to see my 135 f/2L go.

I do sometimes shoot in low light, but have recently learned (today) that the 35mm equals the 50mm on a cropped-frame cam. I bought the 50mm last month when I was on a lens buying spree, and it just hasn't been used, only because the 24-105 has been glued to my cam.

Since it sounds like you enjoy landscape, the 10-22 is a must have. The main reason that I have my Sigma 30mm is for its speed. f/1.4 being 2 whole stops faster than my 2.8 just gives me usable shutter speeds when I want to shoot natural light shots of my son indoors. If you do not tend to do a lot of indoor/poor light shooting, then the 17-55 stands its own against the 30mm as far as image quality.

All that you'd be comparing between the 50mm and the 35mm would be the field of view. The crop will show you the same amount of a subject with the 35mm that a full frame camera would with the 50mm. I sold my Canon 50mm for the Sigma 30mm because the 50 was a little long for me when shooting in my living room.

It would be wise to keep your UWA 10-22. The 17-55 will complement it well

bluflax11 wrote in post #5898871
Currently, I have:

10-22 for wide angle,
24-105L for walk around
70-200 f4 for long range zoom
and a 50mm 1.4 prime which I never use and am now selling

You currently have my ideal lens collection. Ok, I would probably prefer the EF 85 F/1.8 over the 50mm F/1.4 for portrait work but if I did have the 50mm 1.4, I'd be happy with it.

This whole discussion actually brings up a good point. Since you have the 17-22mm range covered by your 10-22, why are you considering the 17-55? Doesn't sound like you NEED the 2.8? If you only had 1 lens between the 17-55 or the 24-105, then no brainer to get the 17-55 because the 24mm isn't wide enough on a crop, but since you have the wide end covered, just wondering why you're looking to do the switch. Both have IS, and the colors out of the 24-105 will be warmer as the 17-55 tends to put a cooler tone on images.

TaDa wrote in post #5898975
This whole discussion actually brings up a good point. Since you have the 17-22mm range covered by your 10-22, why are you considering the 17-55? Doesn't sound like you NEED the 2.8? If you only had 1 lens between the 17-55 or the 24-105, then no brainer to get the 17-55 because the 24mm isn't wide enough on a crop, but since you have the wide end covered, just wondering why you're looking to do the switch. Both have IS, and the colors out of the 24-105 will be warmer as the 17-55 tends to put a cooler tone on images.

Because I don't know what the heck I am doing. My head is spinning after reading through this forum. I've read in many, many posts that the 24-105 is pretty much wasted on a 1.6x crop and I am looking for a walk-around. I have also read that there is a significant difference between the 10-22 and the 17-55, enough to warrant keeping both. Since I have a 70-200, maybe the 17-55 would be the perfect walk-around despite the overlap with the 10-22. I just don't know. I'm really looking for a good walk-around for my 40D.

On this subject, anyone know how the Sigma 18-50 compares to the canon 17-55? The price difference is something to definitely consider.

I have 10-22 and 17-55. They are different lenses for different purposes. The focal length overlap does not bother me at all. In fact, it would be super annoying if the 10-22 was actually just a 10-17 and that if you wanted 18mm you would be forced to swap lenses. Same thing in reverse, coming down the focal length range. Basically, if you're shooting landscapes and architecture the 10-22 is a good choice. If you're shooting general walkabout stuff, or weddings and the like, indoors, or even portraits, at a stretch, then the 17-55 is brilliant. The overlap is really neither here nor there. Each of them gives you the range required for the uses that lens is put to.

I don't know if the following will make sense to anyone else, but this is how I look at it....

It's a bit like gears on a mountain bike. You have three sprockets on the front, giving you three ranges of gears. That's a bit like three separate zoom lenses, such as 10-22, 17-55 and 28-135, for example. Then you have 7-8 gears on the rear, with a finer degree of control/adjustment between gears. That is like the spread through the zoom range of each individual lens. If you do the maths on the gear ratios you will find there is an overlap between the highest gear or two in the low range and the lowest gear or two in the mid range. Similarly the highest gears in the mid range will overlap with the lowest gears in the high range. So really you don't have 21 or 24 completely distinct and separate gear ratios. You probably lose 2-4 ratios to overlap. That's a really not a problem. You just have to appreciate that you have three ranges of gears. For the really tough climbs you'll be on the granny ring at the front (10-22). For the easier climbs you'll be on the middle ring (17-55) and for really gunning it on the flats and downhills you'll be on the big ring (28-135). So it's more about having the range you want available for the kind of work you are doing. It's not about having an exact contiguous range from lowest/widest to highest/longest.

Let me ask you this...

Have you ever missed shots with your 24-105 because your lens was not wide enough? Or did you just switch to your 10-22?

p.s. If I went purely what was posted on here, I'd own the 200mm f/2, the 600mm f/4, and would currently be living out of an old refrigerator box.

bluflax11 wrote in post #5898997
Because I don't know what the heck I am doing. My head is spinning after reading through this forum. I've read in many, many posts that the 24-105 is pretty much wasted on a 1.6x crop and I am looking for a walk-around. I have also read that there is a significant difference between the 10-22 and the 17-55, enough to warrant keeping both. Since I have a 70-200, maybe the 17-55 would be the perfect walk-around despite the overlap with the 10-22. I just don't know. I'm really looking for a good walk-around for my 40D.

On this subject, anyone know how the Sigma 18-50 compares to the canon 17-55? The price difference is something to definitely consider.

When I had a 1.6X body I owned both the 10-22 and the 17-55. Now on FF I have the counterparts, the 17-40 and the 24-105.

In both cases I think it is nice to own both even though they overlap a lot because they are used differently. A lens like the 17-55 on 1.6X is a fast generalist lens, the kind of lens that is the first one you grab and a lens that you can use for occasions when you are only carrying one lens. The 10-22 is your dedicated UWA, you don't use it as much but when you need it nothing else will do.

Now, if you really don't need a one lens solution much (you are content to carry two lenses or more all the time) then a 10-22 + 24-XX combination is fine on a 1.6X camera. The only thing left to consider is if the f/4 24-105 is fast enough for you on a 1.6X body. I find f/4 to be much less of a limitation on FF than 1.6X due to both high ISO noise and DOF considerations.

For now I might suggest to you to put the 17-55 idea on hold. Work for a while with what you have (like another 6 months) and really see how you use your gear. Then you may get a better feel of what you truly want.

Vendee wrote in post #5898963
You currently have my ideal lens collection. Ok, I would probably prefer the EF 85 F/1.8 over the 50mm F/1.4 for portrait work but if I did have the 50mm 1.4, I'd be happy with it.

TaDa wrote in post #5898975
This whole discussion actually brings up a good point. Since you have the 17-22mm range covered by your 10-22, why are you considering the 17-55? Doesn't sound like you NEED the 2.8? If you only had 1 lens between the 17-55 or the 24-105, then no brainer to get the 17-55 because the 24mm isn't wide enough on a crop, but since you have the wide end covered, just wondering why you're looking to do the switch. Both have IS, and the colors out of the 24-105 will be warmer as the 17-55 tends to put a cooler tone on images.

I think so too. Keep what you have. The 10-22 is a fine lens, the 24-105 is another fine lens that compliments the 10-22 well. Maybe look into getting a wider prime to replace your 50 1.4. Outside of that, you're in a great shape.