Originally Posted by MistaBernie
So, it's settled!
I just bought a 70-200 F/4L. In honesty though, I think I am gonna shop the 17-85 out and pick up a 10-22, even though it's a bit on the expensive side... kind of hard to justify selling the 17-85 for a 10-22 when in reality it doesn't get me all that much closer (even though from everything I've read, the IQ is amazing in comparison)..
The other idea may be to go 17-40 instead of 17-85... then I'd essentially have the 17-40, 28-135 and 70-200... wow, that's redundant though. Maybe it'd just be best to sell everything I have now (except the 70-200 which is still en route) and pick up a 17-40 and use those two for now..
Yes, I'm liking this idea. Especially since my 70-200 (well besides my kit lens) is my first brand new lens... win a couple of months, when that's paid off (or as soon as this month if I sell the rest of my lenses) then I could get the 17-40 almost right away too... Question -- how does the 17-40 do in low light? I know it's F4, vs the 3.5 of the 10-22..
It depends on what you like to shoot. If you have just the 17-40 and the 70-200/4, your indoor low-light shooting will suffer greatly. Neither is going to well indoors unless shooting static subjects with a tripod, or really jacking up the ISO to 1600+.
However, if shooting mostly outdoors in good light, then the 17-40 and 70-200/4 is a killer combo. The 17-40 is a great lens in terms of IQ on a crop sensor, but the range is a bit awkward - not particularly wide nor long.
I say get the 10-22, keep the 70-200, then grab a 50/1.8 or 35/2 (or save for the 50/1.4).
The 10-22 actually works fairly well for low-light hand held shots owing to the extreme wide angle.