Please help me.

[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.