Should I sell my 17-55 f2.8 ?

[Jelster]

Strange dilemma I seem to be in at the moment. Until recently my trusty 7D did all my photography, no matter what the subject was. However I bought a 6D at the weekend, as I have been wanting to go full frame for a while, and it came with the staple 24-105 f4.

This now means that the 7D can sit with the 300 f4 attached full time, with access to my 1.4 EX and 70-200 f2.8. I feel good about this, and other than wanting a 400 f4, I'm comfortable with that set up for the time being. So, I have a couple of EF-S type lenses I won't be needing (I think). A Sigma 10-20 and the wonderful Canon 17-55 f2.8. Now I know that the 24-105 is only f4, but the 6D will operate at much higher ISO to negate that, and I do have both the 50mm & 85mm f1.8 lenses if I really did need a bit of speed. So, I was wondering if I should let the 17-55 go, but the thing is, it's such a great lens. I do have a tendency to hoard my photography gear (I haven't used the 10-20 in 2 years at least) so I'm trying to be good.

I did wonder about putting the money towards a 17-40 for the 6D, or maybe a fixed 35mm to go with my other primes.

The move to the 6D was to spend more time on creative & landscape stuff as I've really been hooked on shooting wildlife in recent years. The one thing holding me back is that I want my wife to enjoy the hobby with me (she does show an interest) so keeping the 17-55 would allow that to happen, but then I could always put the 17-40 or whatever on the 7D anyway.

Anybody offer some suggestions ???

Steve

 

[Laudrup]

If you aren't using it sell it. I'd get rid of it and get the 17-40 that you can use on full frame or crop. The 10-20 I'd sell if you haven't used it for 2 years. That's money you could use for something else.

 

[maninsuitcase]

I did when I went full frame and replaced it with a 25-105. Seeing as you may still have use for it see how it goes then if in 3-4 months time it's just gathering dust move it on.

 

[strumstrum]

If you aren't using it sell it. I'd get rid of it and get the 17-40 that you can use on full frame or crop. The 10-20 I'd sell if you haven't used it for 2 years. That's money you could use for something else.

although that sounds the smart thing to do I found the IQ on the 17-55 to be far better than the the 17-40.

Seeing as you may still have use for it see how it goes then if in 3-4 months time it's just gathering dust move it on.

this is where I am at..

the 10-20 can defo go IMO, use that to fund the 17-40 if you must then you can compare that against the still owned 17-55 and make a real world decision on the best thing to do.

 

[dinners]

Depends if you need the money for the 17-55 to fund something else.

17-40 is a fine lens. How wide do you work ? If you find the 24-105 wide enough for 95% of your full frame shots then it may be worth keeping the 17-55 as a damn fine option for the 7D whether it be for your wife or as a back up.

If you only find the 24-105 wide enough for 20% of your shots then the 17-40 would be of more use to you than keeping the 17-55

If it helps - I took my 17-40, 24-105 and 100-400 with me to the Western Isles recently. I nearly didn't bother with the 17-40 as space was limited but I'm really glad I did. I'd planned to just walk about with the 24-105 but I found myself constantly changing to the 17-40. In the end I just left the 17-40 on and stuck the 24-105 on my cropped body.

 

[Jelster]

I have to admit, it's as if the 17-55 was built for the 7D as they do work very well together. I have been toying with the idea of a very fast prime, maybe an f1.4 at 35 or 50mm to use on the FF body. I was thinking of selling both the 10-20 and the 17-55 to fund something new. I can't really afford another outright purchase, it's that time of year and season tickets at the Emirates don't come cheap (and we have 2 of them...)