New Shooter with big hole in lens setup

I'm a new T1i shooter who has had a DSLR for a few months but have only been able to use it sparsely (damn job and other hobbies). My current lens lineup has a huge hole in the middle.

10-22mm, 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 (the 1.4 is from my wedding photog buddy .... the 1.4 was collecting dust in his setup apparently), 55-250mm IS.

Yes, huge hole in the 22-50 range. While I don't know what I like to shoot most yet, I do know I enjoy, I love the wide angle shots I see often. That's why I ended with the 10-22mm, plus I got a great deal on it, so I would most definitely profit if I resold it. The 55-250 I bought because it was cheap, and if I don't need telephoto that often so if I do, I have a cheap lens for it. The 50mm 1.8 is obvious.

I find the 50mm to be too long on a crop sometimes, and not long enough at other times. SO I'm thinking, I need maybe a prime 28/30/35. I shoot a lot at gatherings, weddings etc. (recreationally) so a low light fast prime is ideal? But then I would love to have a walk around zoom with great contrast and color. The 17-40mm F4/L looks very interesting.

So, two scenarios. Keep my current setup and save for a ~30mm prime, like the Sigma, or the Canon 35/2. Or, sell my 10-22mm (but I may miss that last 7mm, you always miss it when you lose it) and get the 17-40L, which will allow me a better walk around lens, but will lose the low light capability. But I guess I can still save up for a 30mm prime as well in the second scenario.

For those that have used both, if any, how does color contrast on the 10-22mm compare to the 17-40? I hear the word "L Quality" tossed around with the 10-22mm, but you know how that goes sometimes.

So those are my two options right now, to fill that "gap"

17-55mm f/2.8 IS!

The 17-55mm from what I know is super nice, but way out of the weight class I plan on carrying around. The 10-22mm is about as heavy and big as I want to carry, and I think the 17-40 is similar ...

18-55 IS Kit lens?

17-55 is my go to lens.

Kaigler wrote in post #8895467
17-55 is my go to lens.

Same here.

I've a 28mm f/1.8 USM. Can't fault it. There's no zoom and IS, but there's 1.8 rather than 2.8.

Choice is yours.

jdang307 wrote in post #8895445
The 10-22mm is about as heavy and big as I want to carry, and I think the 17-40 is similar ...

Yes, but the 17-55 is far more versatile than the 17-40L. If anything, I'd be lamenting the build quality rather than the weight. For what the 17-55 offers in the way of image quality, speed and the stabilisation, I wouldn't even think twice about the weight vs. the 17-40L. For me, it would be a non-issue.

To answer your question, I'd personally get either a 17-55 for a Sigma 30/1.4. If you shoot mainly landscapes however, the 17-40L would be a better choice.

If you like primes, go for the Sigma 30 f/1.4. If you need the flexibility of a zoom, I'd go for the new Tamron 17-50 VC. The 17-55 is good, but it's overpriced in my opinion, as it offers nothing in image quality OR build over the Tamrons, and now that the Tammy 17-50 has stabilization, the Canon's only advatage is USM vs micromotor focusing, which may or may not be worth the extra couple hundred dollars to you.

x2 on the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.. nice little lens for sure! Pair that up with a 85 f/1.8 and it's a nice pair of primes.

A good zoom is a must though, if you want small and light check out the Sigma 24-60 f/2.8, they are discontinued though so you'd likely have to find a used one..

I ordered a Tamron 17-50 VC, hoping it is going to be good as there as not any reviews on the Canon version yet (Nikon version appears to be good). I'm not sure what the weight difference is between it and the Canon 17-55..

Yeah, the 17-50 tamron (non VC and VC) is in the running as well. I just need to buy something and be done with it, to see if I like or need to move on.

But the 10-22mm is so hard to let go ..

I'd say a 35 prime.

However, I had what I thought was a huge hole from 35mm to 70mm for a long time. I kept thinking, I needed something in between there.

I didn't. That is really not that huge of hole and neither is yours.

jdang307 wrote in post #8898505
Yeah, the 17-50 tamron (non VC and VC) is in the running as well. I just need to buy something and be done with it, to see if I like or need to move on.

But the 10-22mm is so hard to let go ..

Get the 28-75 Tamron 2.8. Your 10-22 is still useful and you're filling the void. Sell the 50 1.8.

10-22, 28-75, 55-250. With a 50 prime and you could add wider prime 35/2 and a longer prime 85 1.8 and be very happy.

I have an 18-55 IS, which is nice, but for almost all purposes my Sigma 30mm has replaced it. I just use my 18-55 when I need wide and so it might as well be an 18-24mm. I should trade it for a 10-20, but I can't afford it right now.

I could actually sell my 10-22mm and get a 10-20mm which looks just as good from most reviews, and fund the 28-75, which I have actually looked at, or the Sigma 30mm. Hmm ... The tamron I looked at because I wanted to do some food photography and it has a mini macro capability. How are the colors, contrast sharpness etc? AF doesn't have to be fast at all for food photog

Thanks for the advice everyone, but I think I'll save up for a 30 sigma or 28-75. I love the wide aperture and playing with bokeh. Perfect world I can just buy them all. Oh well.