17-55 or 10-22

dino8031 wrote in post #7855435
The answer of course is get both. I own both and love both of them.

Dust has not been a problem with either lens, both of which generally wear good quality filters.

Forget about Full Frame for now. Both lenses have excellent resale value and are easy to resell.

Thanks. I am not planning on FF at this point. Dad has a 5D which is at my disposal.

carpenter wrote in post #7855531
IQ is not MUCH better from the 24-70. Owned them both. 17-55 is sharper and IQ is on par. Build quality is not on par however. Also there is a vast difference between 17mm and 24mm on a crop.

I've owned the brick. For me, it was just too heavy for a casual walk around lens. Great build though and I liked the IQ produced by it. It just wasn't the perfect match for me.

I had both and then decided to sell the 10-22 because I found 17mm wide enough and I was hardly using the 10-22 after i bought the 17-55. Image quality from both lenses is superb!

My next lens will be the 10-22, to go along with my 24-70L.

In the beginning I was very indecisive between the 17-55 and the 24-70. To me, the picture quality out of the camera was won by the 24-70, with more rich color and beautiful background blur, in addition to a more useable reach. The 17-24 difference was great, but I decided that in the future the 10-22 would cover my wide needs, and the 70-200 would cover my tele.

The 17-55 is a sweet lens, but it didn't fit into my game plan, and the 24-70 just had "it" that the 17-55 didn't when I saw the pictures. BUT, I went through a copy of the 24-70 before I got my current, which is very sharp. The 17-55 I had for a bit was extremely sharp as well. Either way you go, you will be happy.

dino8031 wrote in post #7855435
The answer of course is get both. I own both and love both of them.

Dust has not been a problem with either lens, both of which generally wear good quality filters.

Forget about Full Frame for now. Both lenses have excellent resale value and are easy to resell.

+1

I own both lenses, and the 17-55 is the most practical of the two. However, the 10-22 is definitely funner to use. If you're happy with the Sigma, rent the 10-22 for a day or a week and see how you like it. You'll be surprised at just how much that lens takes in at 10mm.

Medic85 wrote in post #7856119
Thanks. I am not planning on FF at this point. Dad has a 5D which is at my disposal.

You know I think I knew that your Dad a 5D, didn't you mention it in another thread a while back? Cool for you for sure!!

The 17-55 is a nice bit of gear. It will be interesting to see how the newly announced Sigma 17-50mm HSM OS lense is going to work out and compare.

carpenter wrote in post #7855531
IQ is not MUCH better from the 24-70. Owned them both. 17-55 is sharper and IQ is on par. Build quality is not on par however. Also there is a vast difference between 17mm and 24mm on a crop.

Prolly should not have added the "much" part. But I too have used the 24-70L that my neighbor has and love it. I don't find it too heavy at all, but it is HEAVY though I can manage it well enough. And I just like the build quality as I assume the 17-55 is the same build as my 55-250...if I am spending a grand on a lens I want a better build externally and there is the weather sealing on the 24-70L, I shoot around the beach and on hikes a lot so that sort of thing matters to me now that I know better.

still, I never intended to put anyone in a defensive "I must defend my preference" mindset, the 17-55 is NOT even close to a crappy lens nor is it not worth the price...even the Sigma 24-70 HSM is in the same price range at around $900 w/o stabilization (won't seem me paying that much for the Sigma version). Kinda interested in seeing what the new Sigma 17-50 f/2.8-f/4.5 HSM OS model though it's a crop only model as well.

The 10-22 is one of my favorite lens. IMO, such a lens helps you overcome the limitations of a crop camera.

I struggled with this dilemma for a bit too, especially not wanting to overlap on the focal lengths.

Alas, I just went for the 17-55, figuring that 17 may just be wide enough and so far I am very pleased.

Eventually I will also get the 10-22 but now the 17-55 fills the bill.

Go with whichever lens you think you'll use more. I agree that you'll most likely end up with both.

Go for the versatile Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens, you will not regret it. I have zero complaints regarding this lens. It is used most often on my 50D.

I just rented a 10-22 for a trip to Paris and was really impressed with this lens.

I paired it with a 24-105, and 70-200. I would go for expanding your range rather than replacing your current setup unless there is something about your current set up that you feel is lacking.

I own both lenses and find them both to be great. However I find myself using the 17-55 much more often the the 10-22. 17mm is quite wide for most situations and at 2.8 it lets plenty of light in and creates a nice bokeh.

You can't go wrong with either lens but I'd say if it came down to it, I'd get the 17-55 first then the 10-22.

Nick

brecklundin wrote in post #7864066
You know I think I knew that your Dad a 5D, didn't you mention it in another thread a while back? Cool for you for sure!!

The 17-55 is a nice bit of gear. It will be interesting to see how the newly announced Sigma 17-50mm HSM OS lense is going to work out and compare.


Prolly should not have added the "much" part. But I too have used the 24-70L that my neighbor has and love it. I don't find it too heavy at all, but it is HEAVY though I can manage it well enough. And I just like the build quality as I assume the 17-55 is the same build as my 55-250...if I am spending a grand on a lens I want a better build externally and there is the weather sealing on the 24-70L, I shoot around the beach and on hikes a lot so that sort of thing matters to me now that I know better.

still, I never intended to put anyone in a defensive "I must defend my preference" mindset, the 17-55 is NOT even close to a crappy lens nor is it not worth the price...even the Sigma 24-70 HSM is in the same price range at around $900 w/o stabilization (won't seem me paying that much for the Sigma version). Kinda interested in seeing what the new Sigma 17-50 f/2.8-f/4.5 HSM OS model though it's a crop only model as well.

I didn't know that this was coming out. When was it announced? My only issue with Sigma is their lack of consistency with QC. I've been lucky with my Sigma purchases but I'm sure my luck is bound to run out one day

Jeff81 wrote in post #7865190
Go with whichever lens you think you'll use more. I agree that you'll most likely end up with both.

That's what's making this difficult to decide on. I don't know which one I'll use more often. I haven't used my 24-60 since I got my70-200. It's such a versatile lens but I can't use it for everything. When I do use the Sigma, I find myself wanting something wider. It's really a matter of just how wide I want to go. I have to figure out if 17mm is going to be wide enough....(probably not)

the 14II wont be as wide as your 10-22 anyway, unless you are full frame.. Although quality is probably far superior.. i wouldn't know

Haha, me neither! I'll never know from personal expierence...unless I win the lottery