EOS Rebel T3 RF lens compatibility

[smckinney]

I have recently started to reuse my EOS Rebel T3 camera again.  It has been a few years, but I am having fun again taking pictures.  I want a new lense to get closer pictures, I am looking at this lense. 

RF24-105mm F4-7.1 IS

Is this compatible with the Rebel T3? 

[rs-eos]

No.  RF lenses can only be used with R-series cameras.  Your Rebel requires EF or EF-S lenses.

See Will Lens X Work With Camera Y for details.

[Tronhard]

Since we have no idea of what lenses you have currently or the budget, it's hard for us to know what extra reach you need or can afford, thus I can only suggest what I would recommend in the blind.

For general purpose photography:
Such as family, portraits, a bit of architecture, travel etc.  I would recommend the EF-S 18-135 IS STM or USM lenses.  They are not expensive, have excellent optics and there are lots of them around - just find a good one.  While this lens may cover the range of an 18-55 kit lens you may have, it is a much better optic and much more flexible because of its longer focal range.  Its image stabilization is also superior.
Alternatively, look at the EF 24-105 f:4 lens - I would recommend either the Canon or Sigma versions of this lens.  They are both high-end professional grade units and you will pay accordingly both in cost and weight.

For Longer Reach:
If you want to continue to use an 18-55mm kit lens, then something like the EF-S 55-250 IS STM, will add a greater focal range for subjects further away.  Finally, the EF 70-300 MkII f:4-5.6 IS USM lens is an excellent optic for some scenery, portraits and especially wildlife and is the better built of these two options.

[ebiggs1]

" I want a new lense to get closer pictures, ..."

You can certainly go through all that looking and checking but if you want the ultimate long range zoom buy one of the super zooms from Tamron or Sigma. Both are 150-600mm FL and most likely all you will ever need in getting closer because there really isn't anything else. The Sigma C is probably the most popular but the Tamron is the better lens. None of the lenses mentioned come close to either of these two in ability to go from mild tele to super tele.

[ebiggs1]

Almost everyone that buys a 250mm or 300mm lens will sooner or later wish they had more FL.  In reality 600mm is about the limit of cost and user ability to master there is. There are lenses with even more FL like some 800mm and even 1000mm but the cost and extended problems with that FL in use makes them impractical for the amateur photographer.

[Tronhard]

The xhallenge is we have no idea what the op wants to photograph. The 150- 600 is bang on for wildlife or sports but if they want shots of the kids playing because all they have is the 18-55 then maybe not so much.

We lack a lot of basic data...

[ebiggs1]

The logic? A person that has a T3 almost 100% of the time will have the 18-55mm zoom.  It isn't a huge leap to 150mm of one of the 150-600mm super zooms. " I want a new lense to get closer pictures,..." a 150-600mm super zoom will accomplish that goal. And consider folks that waste money and buy something lesser eventually end up wanting more.

[Tronhard]

The question is closer pictures to what?   I don't know, you don't know, because the OP has not specified what they have or what they want to photograph.  While it may not seem like a big leap to you, there is a whole selection of imagery for close-ups of people and social events, and we have no idea about their budget or what they are prepared to carry around.   A 150-600 is rather cumbersome and overkill if all they want is get to the kid running around the garden, shoot close-ups of insects, or take some social event shots.  Logic absolutely is all very well, but one needs decent data to base that on.  The chances are we may never know if they don't actually respond, in which case it's a moot point.

[ebiggs1]

"If you want to continue to use an 18-55mm kit lens, then something like the EF-S 55-250 IS STM, will add a greater focal range for subjects further away.  Finally, the EF 70-300 MkII f:4-5.6 IS USM lens is an excellent optic for some scenery, portraits and especially wildlife and is the better built of these two options."

Sounds like you failed to take your own advice! You must have obliviously thought the OP wanted to be able to shoot at some greater distance. Besides the EF 70-300 MkII f:4-5.6 IS USM is not a particularly cheap lens around $600 bucks if I remember correctly. The OP could have the Sigma C for just a couple hundred more and again most likely they will soon find, like a lot of people, 300mm just isn't getting the job done. Sigma has made a killing for that fact.

"... we have no idea about their budget ..." So let's spend his money once instead of twice assuming he is like most of us and doesn't waste money unnecessarily. 

"A 150-600 is rather cumbersome ..." I think not. We all started at the beginning and somehow survived just as I suspect the OP will also.

[Tronhard]

As I clearly stated: "Since we have no idea of what lenses you have currently or the budget, it's hard for us to know what extra reach you need or can afford, thus I can only suggest what I would recommend in the blind"    I stated up front my limitations and the context within which I gave a possible set of solutions, apparently you missed that, but whatever...