Upgrading to ff. what lenses to replace my EF-S

The first of the year I plan on upgrading my 50D to the 5D Mark II and will need to get rid of my EF-S lenses. Right now I have:

Canon 10-22mm
Canon 17-55mm

Which lenses would be nice replacements for these? My thoughts were the 16-35 and 24-70, but would that be too much of an overlap to be beneficial. I'm not a huge fan of primes as of yet, but I've only played with the 50mm 1.8.

dsd17 wrote in post #8397119
The first of the year I plan on upgrading my 50D to the 5D Mark II and will need to get rid of my EF-S lenses. Right now I have:

Canon 10-22mm
Canon 17-55mm

Which lenses would be nice replacements for these? My thoughts were the 16-35 and 24-70, but would that be too much of an overlap to be beneficial. I'm not a huge fan of primes as of yet, but I've only played with the 50mm 1.8.

17-40 / 16-35 / Sigma 12-24 to replace your 10-22
24-70 or 24-105 to replace the 17-55

Those are the closest equivalents.

dsd17 wrote in post #8397119
My thoughts were the 16-35 and 24-70, but would that be too much of an overlap to be beneficial.

Huh? What makes 10-22 and 17-55 so much better?

If you must buy L lenses, you don't have many choices. 16-35 or 17-40, 24-70 or 24-105.

Easy.

16-35 2.8 and 24-70 2.8.

toxic wrote in post #8397142
Huh? What makes 10-22 and 17-55 so much better?

Huh? Where did I say those were better?

dsd17 wrote in post #8397255
Huh? Where did I say those were better?

Toxic wasn't very diplomatic about it, but what he meant is that 10-22 and 17-55 overlap by the same amount as 16-35 and 28-90 (and therefore the 24-70 overlaps by only a little bit more). In any case, overlap is a good thing, IMHO.

i'd go 16-35L as one of your 2 lenses, for sure.

if youre looking for something at the same price point, then the 17-40 f4L and 24-70 f2.8L is the combo that you want.

17-40 and 24-105 would be the most affordable choice and for me the FL is more useful on the 24-105, plus it's a lot lighter and easier to carry around than the Brick. Unless you truly need the 2.8 I would go for those two first.

First off, upgrading the 10-22 is a long time coming. That thing SUCKS, well at least when compared to other offerings. Namely - the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG EX HSM.
The Tokina is the fastest and sharpest lens in the class and the only one that offers f/2.8 to all 3 formats including the widest one at that aperature for crop. Its usable on APS-H (from 12.5~13mm) and FF (from 14mm).

The Sigma will reintroduce you to UWA. Once you use the Sigma @ 12mm on FF, you will learn that the term ULTRA Wide Angle should be reserved for this lens alone... either that or it needs a new class distinction, because this lens stands alone. The Canon EF-S 10-22 was great when it was out there by itself, but times have changed and the market is full of options for UWA shooters. If you simply wish to replace the focal lengths of your 10-22 on FF, i.e. retain the same FOV's... get the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L - its an awesome lens, but its expensive, and it doesn't go nearly as wide as the Sigma 12-24.

I'd go with the 12-24 or 17-40 and the 24-70 f/2.8L...

The 24-105 is a good choice too however

17-40 is superior to the 16-35I and equal to the 16-35II in outright resolution abilities. Sure the 16-35II is much faster... but who needs to shoot at f/2.8 at wide angles? I always shoot my 17-40 at f/8 or so.

thank you to everyone who's replied so far. I really appreciate it.

toxic wrote in post #8397142
Huh? What makes 10-22 and 17-55 so much better?

If you must buy L lenses, you don't have many choices. 16-35 or 17-40, 24-70 or 24-105.

But they are leally nice choices

Synenergy52 wrote in post #8397900
who needs to shoot at f/2.8 at wide angles?

I do all the time, but I also use that as my general walk-around lens as well