17-40 L or 10-22? Help!

[Ploddy]

OK, so I'm turning myself in circles on this one.

As you can see from my signature, I am blessed with some pretty sweet kit, which includes 2 L series lenses to cover 24mm to 200mm. I am currently sitting on a Sigma 17-70 (older, non OS version) for my wide stuff. Whilst I dont shoot wide very often (mainly portrait work) I DO shoot indoors often, and I am finding that I need to go to the Sigma too much to get those cramped room shots.

I love my 7D, but I know one day I am going to take the plunge and get a FF (probably keeping the 7D as a backup). I am completely fastidious about care of my lenses, so I have invested in L glass that I expect will see me into the FF era when the day comes.

So what to do? The two options that spring to mind are the 17-40L and 10-22, each have their strengths and weaknesses (and I will never be able to afford the 16-35 so dont go there ).

Pro's for the 17-40 are its build and lens quality (generally speaking, I know it is a bit disappointing at 17mm), plus it gives me a bit of reach when I need it, without swapping (I like a bit of overlap on my lens reach). Plus it is EF so it will suit the FF one day. But he 10-22 is so well regarded, but not as solid in build, and probably too wide for what I need really. Yes, I could sell it when the time comes too.

But it worries me that the 17-40 is so old a model and I may be buying for the future rather than now.

I dont do landscapes, it's pretty much for people / architecture stuff, often indoors, with a speedlight. As an example, I am shooting a wedding at a registry in November and want something by then. Small area, not much room to move.

Any ideas? Anyone owned both on a crop body and can share their thoughts?

Any help would be appreciated.