10-22 + ?

Should I go 10-22 + 17-55 IS or
10-22 + 28-105

I may not need the f/2.8 so my question is, should I just save serious dollars and go with the 10-22 + 28-105 combo...

Is there a huge difference in image quality of the 17-55 vs the 28-105??

<<Obviously confused>>

Let me throw a couple more into the mix for you ;D

3rd party:
Sigma 24-70 f2.8
Tamron 28-75 f2.8

Canon:
Canon 28-135 IS

What's making you pick the 28-105? I dont know much about this lens so Im out of the loop in this.

The 24-105 F4 L, and if you go FF in the future, it would make sense. As for the 10-22, from first hand this a great piece of glass...it's my most used lens for work in the real estate industry.

I've heard a lot of good things about it, but was not too sure how image quality may compare to the 17-55.

I went 10-22mm and 24-105mm and love this combo...

By-tor wrote in post #7682048
I went 10-22mm and 24-105mm and love this combo...

great combo

I had 10-22 and 24-105 on 40D, but found I spent a lot of time switching lenses. Often 24mm on 1.6x crop wasn't "wide enough" so I'd put the 10-22 on, but then within minutes I'd need more reach and put the 24-105 back on.

If I could go back in time I would probably just have bought a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS for my 40D - I rarely needed wider than 17mm and I rarely needed longer than 55mm. Now that I am using a 5D2 I find the 24-105mm works perfectly and reduces the amount of lens-swapping I have to do on any given trip.

Thanks for the info sleepo. You've addressed something else I had been wondering, specifically, if one owned a 17-55 how much would the 10-22 really be needed. Personally, I know of three occasions when using the 18-55 that I had wished I had a wider view.

I suppose it really depends on what you want, and how much you object to swapping lenses.

I really loved the 10-22, and only sold it because it doesn't fit the new camera. But my creative skills weren't (and still aren't) good enough to make proper use of UWA - I was very much a "cram as much as possible into the shot" type person rather than using it creatively. As a result, once I'd taken a few wide shots I felt the need to go back to something more flexible - i.e. the nice easy zoom life presented by the 24-105. This combined with my dislike of lens-changing (I'm paranoid about dropping lenses - stupid I know) meant that the 10-22 didn't get as much use as it should have done. And IMHO there is little worse than lenses sitting unused on the shelf.

Given that you're set on the 10-22 but unsure on your other options, perhaps you should just get the 10-22 for now? Personally if I had *only* a 10-22, and no 24-105 comfort blanket, I reckon I'd be forced to think more creatively about shots than I otherwise would, and as a result my photographs would be "better" - in a similar way that primes force you to give more consideration to composition and positioning than zooms.

The 28-105 is pretty good for what it is. I had one originally, and then I replaced it with the 17-55. I also had the 10-22 at the same time, and I used both of them frequently, but I normally shoot wide. It depends what your style really is; I don't mind having gaps missing on the telephoto end so much.