10-22 & 24-70 or just a 17-55?

Nature/outdoor photographer using a APS-C (1.6) body.

Option 1: EF-S 10-22 and a EF-24-70 so I can shoot the wider views, or

Option 2: EF-S 17-55 (Is this wide enough)

I would rather not own a 10-22 and a 17-55 (too much overlapping focal length and I dislike paying twice for the same thing). So, my question is: Will I really need a 10-22 if I have the 17-55 or should I just go with a 10-22 and 24-70 combo?

IS is really irrelevant as I shoot most often from a tripod.

Thanks and I am looking forward to hearing the reasoning.

I have the Sigma 10-20 and the Canon 24-70 and I think it is a great combo. I had a 40D and a 50D and the great part is I can still use them both on the 1D.
To be honest ( I am not trying to start anything here) if you mainly shoot out side I would say a 10-20 ( or something like it) and a 24-105mm would be an awesome combo.

If this helps the only two lenses I currently own is the 10-22 and 17-55. Sold everything else cuz I nevered used them. So no I dont think its too much overlap. but between the two options u have given I'd go with option 1

I found that the 17-55 was enough for me. When I had my 12-24 and 24-105 combo I was changing lenses a lot, which I didn't like. I also found that for 99% of my shots 17mm was sufficient. Really it just depends on what you like. I wasn't able to figure it out for myself until I had tried both combos. Good luck!

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and 17-55 f2.8 IS are my choice. No overlap and both excellent lenses at f2.8 throughout the entire range.

I usee the 17-55 2.8 IS efs. It performed better for me than my 24-70 did at wide arperatures and no longer need 2 lenses for the range. The minor difference between 55 andf 70 is not missed by me. IQ of my 17-55 is excellent and it is a lot lighter to carry around the neck. My next most used lens is the 100-400L IS. It likes light. Very versatile and quick to use on the fly. Good IQ. I also have a 300 2.8 that is a super lens, I sometimes use it and oaccasionally put 1.4x or 2x on it. It soes not zoom well and is defintetely more hassle to use. Some situations, its worth it though.. Usually it is a tripod thing. The zoom works good on a hike or other away from the camp or car occasions.

Another vote for including the Tokina 11-16 - it's an amazing lens. I use it along with a 17-40 on my 40D and they provide such excellent cover to the wide-mid range that I'm forgoing moving to ff a bit longer.

I agree with above I don't enjoy changing lenses that often either so personally I would prefer to stick with the single lens solution, but if you are doing outdoor landscape photography I think it would benefit you to get the 10-22 as well for a more dramatic view.

I have both the 17-55 and 24-70 and I think they are equally fantastic lenses.

A 17-5n just would not cut it for me. Not wide enough when you need wide and not long enough when you need longer.

I would not change my 10-22/28-75 for any other combo other than a 10-22/24-70, when there is finally a 24-70 out that is worth switchig to, imo.

Couldn't care less how good any of the 17-5n's are.

Still, it depends what and how you like to shoot.

Honestly, if you like wide, 17mm is NOT going to be wide enough on crop.

the 10-22 canon is fantastic.

I have the Tokina 11-16 F2.8 and Sigma 18-50 F2.8 and love them both. They create very different type of shots though so overlapping doesn't matter because the 17-55 cannot go to 10 or 11 which is where you'll be shooting mostly anyways. Ya get a UWA to use it as a UWA, not at 22 or its longest FL.

Yep, agree with that. Virtually all my Sigma 10-20 shots are taken between 10 and 12mm and this seems the be the sweet spot for the lens. When I want UWA I use the UWA lens! For everything else the 17-55 does the job for me nicely and thankfully the IQ is fantastic. I'll be picking up a 70-200 in the near future to take care of the longer range.

Need to ditch that 17-70 and 18-55 to help fund it.

From those I would pick option 1...

I'm going with the Canon 10-22mm and 24-105mm.

10 vs. 17 is a BIG difference IMO.

I love the combo of a 10-22 and either a 24-70 or 24-105. I find 24 wide enough as a walk around lens and then pop on the 10-22 when needed for more dramatic scenes or tight spaces.