Please help me.

[Anthonyhnj]

There have been some excellent recommendations already, so I will not add any more. However what was it made you switch to a MFT camera, and then what made you return to DSLRs?

Although the concept of micro 4/3 is there, The practicality for me never really worked. It's very liberating to carry two bodies and a bunch of lenses all in one small bag.  That being said I'm 6'5 and have hands that are the size of baseball gloves, lol. Also, I shoot a lot of indoor shots using flash,( I know, I know, I said the F word.) of my kids and family. For me, the flash exposure compensation on micro 4/3 is still not there yet, I constantly was adjusting flash setting and at best the results were very inconsistent.  After shooting the kids on Christmas morning I finally have enough And decided I wanted to move back to DSLR. IMO canon has the best flash exposure in the game. 

Anthony

[noisejammer]

The pixels of an APS-C camera are small so that photons are always at a premium. Because of this, I'm inclined to advise against the 10-22 and 8-16 offerings because they are very slow optically.

Similarly, I was fairly unimpressed with the way a 17-40 worked on my 7D, but it works very well indeed on a full frame camera. So temper your desire for an L lens with your long term aspirations.

When looking at lenses suited for the 60D, I'd say the Tokina 11-16/2.8 and the Canon 17-55/2.8 are about as good as you will get.

[Anthonyhnj]

Wow, some great responses, thanks to all.  I recently rented the 15-85 and I don't know if I have a bad copy or not, but I'm not very impressed. I find there's a lot of distortion at the wide end.  I may rent the 17-55 and see what's that about before I make my decision. I just purchased the  10-22.  For you prime people, How do you find the canon 24 usm is and the 28 1.8 vs 28 usm is? Or even the 35 usm is. I know they're not very wide but how do you feel as a day to day lens on the crop body.

Anthony

[Stig]

IMO, the EF-S 17-55mm is the best general purpose zoom lens for APS-C. 

+1

it was my upgrade from the kit zoom, I also considered 24-105, but I thought it wouldn't be wide enough on crop for standard walkaround and 15-85, but then went for the fast constant aperture and didn't regret it... until I went FF sooner than I thought I could and had to buy a new lens as well (24-105)

IMO, for a two lens setup, not a bad idea would be to go for 15-85 for general, travel... and add the cheap 50mm 1.8 for a fast prime... for me it was my best new lens investment (introduced me to the concept of DOF and new low light options for a nice price : ) ), however you already have the 40 and find it too long... so I hear the 10-22 is great and therefore, how about plan B: 10-22 + 24-105 no overlap, only a tiny gap and a great general zoom ready should you move to FF 

btw., when I was thinking about a wide zoom for my aps-c, I was thinking about the sigma 8-16... even wider than the canon 10-22 and a nice combo could be 8-16 + 17-55, no overlap, no gap http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

[bholliman]

I'll agree with those recommending the EF-S 10-22, 15-85 and 17-55.  All three are excellent lenses on a crop body and of L quality.   I've owned the later two and rented the 10-22 for two vacations, so have extensive experience with all three.

I recently rented the 15-85 and I don't know if I have a bad copy or not, but I'm not very impressed. I find there's a lot of distortion at the wide end. 

The 15-85 has a little distortion at the wide end, similar to the 24-105L on a FF camera, but this is a minor negative in my opinion, easy to correct in PP.  Its very sharp with good color rendition, has a good zoom range and a convenient size for a walk-around lens.  The decision between the 15-85 and 17-55 will depend on if you need a 2.8 aperture or the additional range of the 15-85 more.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[Marsu42]

17-40L is a good call ...has a broad usable focal range on a crop body.

Yes and no: it's ok on crop, light & good flare control - though the 17-40L is better on ff plus it's not sharp esp. at open aperture in comparison to the ef-s lenses. I'd only get the 17-40L for crop if upgrading/dual-using to/with ff is planned, or if weather sealing is important - in the latter category the 17-40L shines as an internal zoom.

If your budget allows, consider the 16-35II f/2.8 instead of 17-40 f/4, you will then have two fast lenses. But the f4 lens is no slouch and both are great walk arounds for crops.

Here I have to disagree - since there is the Tokina 11-16 for crop imho the 16-35L is complete overkill - constructing an uwa zoom for ff is much harder esp. if the corners have to be sharp, that's why the 16-35L is so expensive. On crop the mirror is smaller, the ef-s lens is nearer to the sensor and a good performing f2.8 uwa is cheaper to produce. Next to that, the 16-35L is heavy, and you're not even using part of the glass.

Disclaimer: I'd gladly switch my 17-40L for a 16-35L for free, but only because I'll get a 6d sooner or later.

[Anthonyhnj]

So does having the 10-22 overlap with the 15-85 to much?

[papa-razzi]

Wow, some great responses, thanks to all.  I recently rented the 15-85 and I don't know if I have a bad copy or not, but I'm not very impressed. I find there's a lot of distortion at the wide end.  I may rent the 17-55 and see what's that about before I make my decision. I just purchased the  10-22.  For you prime people, How do you find the canon 24 usm is and the 28 1.8 vs 28 usm is? Or even the 35 usm is. I know they're not very wide but how do you feel as a day to day lens on the crop body.

Anthony

Anthony, I have a 7D.  I waited forever for the long rumored 24-70 f/2.8L to be updated with IS.  After waiting a year I pulled the trigger on the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM.  After a few days with the lens I wished I would have purchased it a year earler.  This lens was made for crop cameras and is the 24-70 FF equivalent (only it has IS).  I wouldn't hesitate to get this lens.

I have a friend that purchased a EF-S 15-85, and we were shooting at an indoor church social (flash not usable) and he couldn't get any pictures because of the higher f-stop.  Later that week he sold his 15-85 and purchased the 17-55.  For me, the wider aperture trumps the longer focal range every day.

Even if I had a FF camera, I would still keep the 17-55 as long I had my crop camera.  If I sold the crop, I would sell the lens with it.  I don't buy into the concept of limiting my lens selection to EF only in the event that some day I may end up with a FF camera.

With the 17-55 f/2.8, I don't see a reason to get any primes that are not faster than f/2.8.  So the new 24 & 28 f/2.8 IS primes dont add anything beyond what you already have with a 17-55.

[alan_k]

I can only go by my experience, but I love the Sig 8-16. It's hard enough to go wide on APS-C, and I found myself using it primarily at the 8mm end. My use has been primarily outdoors and sometimes on a tripod. It doesn't play well with filters so that would be my main reason I would recommend against it (that and it's fish-eye-y which you may or may not want to deal with).

I moved from the Tamron 17-50 to the Canon 17-40L. The Tamron (nonVC) is a really nice lens but is kind of noisy  and lacks full time MF. I debated between the 17-55 EF-s and the 17-40L, and decided the weather sealing was important enough for me- I spend a couple months a year in a very dusty environment and I saw some complaints about dust getting in the 17-55. I bought a Sigma 30mm/1.4 if I need to work in low light.