Lens Upgrade for T3i

[Kashifr]

Hi,I was researching to upgrade my lens collection and after confirmation from Canon's live agent I decided to go with RF 24-70 f2.8. I got so in love with this lens so much that I have started looking abroad to find a good deal.

But thanks to this community who advised me that this lens will not fit with my camera. There is another version of the same lens available in EF but it does not have image stabilizer.

Now I am debating between Canon's EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and Sigma 24-70MM F2.8
Just wondering which one is the best option and which one provides the best sharpness.

Thank you.

[Waddizzle]

If you still have the RF lens, then I suggest that you upgrade to an R series camera like the R50 or R10

[Kashifr]

I have a Rebel T3i, two kit lenses and a 50mm prime lens. 
Thank you 

[ebiggs1]

"Now I am debating between Canon's EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 and Sigma 24-70MM F2.8"

I have or had (I no longer own a Rebel) both of these lenses. I love the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens but the Siggy is very good too, so I consider this a toss up. I always tend to lean towards keeping all your gear all Canon if possible so I guess, I give the slight edge to the Canon.

"...  I suggest that you upgrade to an R series camera like the R50 or R10"

This ain't a bad idea either.

[Kashifr]

Thanks for the detail reply.

I am a kind of brand addict, so I agree with you. I wish Canon's EF 24-70 has image stabilizer.

I am also considering on both lens's diameter. Canon 17-55 is 77mm and Sig 24-70 is 82. I am not technical or professional photographer. This is just came in my mind and I am not sure how significant difference it can make. 

One more question. The T3i is a crop sensor, right? So I am wondering sig will give me all the benefits if I use it with T3i

Thank you

[ebiggs1]

" I wish Canon's EF 24-70 has image stabilizer."

I have had three versions of the 24 (28) -70mm f2.8L and never missed them not having IS. Image stabilizers are less important or useful as FL goes down like 24mm on a FF body. It is also less useful as shutter speed goes up say 1/100 and higher. The fact manufacturers offer it on more and more lenses with shorter FL is because they can more than a necessity. Don't get me wrong here I am sure there are  photographers that find situations where IS is very helpful but at what cost. Adding IS to an already expensive lens will only increase the expensive lenses price.

[shadowsports]

Greetings,

All good questions. Yes, your T3i is APS-C.  If you are using a T3i, the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 is one of the finest crop sensor lenses made.  

I owned the Sigma EF 24-70 f2.8 for over 5 yrs.  I used it on a full frame DSLR and absolutely loved it.  I bought it specifically for it's IS capability.  Its notably heavier than the Canon EF 24-70.  I tested both lenses before purchase and ultimately chose it over the Canon.  It never let me down. 

The diameter of the EF-S 17-55 is smaller.  This is not due to quality.  Its because this lens is designed for a camera with a smaller sensor.  You should note that the Sigma lens will give you an equivalent FOV of 38-112mm on your T3i. 

I never owned the EF-S 17-55, but have seen plenty of photos taken with it.  Very sharp, excellent IQ.

I purchased the RF 24-70 f2.8 two years ago.  Its a favorite of mine.  Its has IS and pairs nicely with any of Canon's FF mirrorless body's.  While it will work on any R series camera, my preference for it is FF.

If you have the RF version, I would do as my colleagues recommended and buy a mirrorless body if this is within your budget.  This lens will grow with you, regardless of the mirrorless body's you own in the future.

If not, I'd go with the EF-S 17-55 on your T3i.   At some point you will likely be considering a new body.  This is when you can decide what format you want to go with, APS-C or full frame.        

[Kashifr]

Hello Rick,

Good evening.

Thank you, thank you and thank you for a detailed reply and helping me. You have cleared all my doubts, questions or confusions.

Now it makes perfect sense to me why I cannot have all the benefits of 24-70 with my t3i as t3i has its limit.

I have thought about the RF and I loved RF 24-70, but I am just a hobbyist and mostly shoot while traveling. Spending that much money for an occasional hobby will be too much plus I have to hide it from Wife :). Maybe when I retire and have nothing to do, then I will consider it again.

So finally all my choices came down to Canon 17-55 f2.8. However, I have one more and most likely last question. A week ago I was also considering Canon 17-55 f2.8 and Sigma 17-50 2.8 with os. I would Appreciate it if you could please guide me a little more.

Thank you.

[Tronhard]

To Rick's point about Field of View.  Because the issue is the sensor size, ALL lenses will be subject to what is called the 'crop multiplier' effect.  Field of view is a combination of the image a focal length projects towards a sensor, and that does not change as it's a physical characteristic of the lens, but Field of View is also constrained by how much of that projected image is captured. 

So, if we are going to discuss Field of View to get what is called an Equivalent Focal Length (translating into the FL a FF sensor would need to get that FoV) then you multiply all lens' FLs by a factor of 1.6 which is the crop factor of your camera.
Thus, the actual Field of View for you camera for each lens would be:
Canon EF-S 17-55 equates to a Equivalent FoV of 27-88mm lens on a FF sensor
Sigma 24-70 will equate to an Equivalent FoV of 38-112mm lens on a FF sensor

For a general-purpose lens, to me, it makes sense to go with the Canon, and it is arguably the best lens specifically designed for APS-C sensor cameras 

[ebiggs1]

" Its because this lens is designed for a camera with a smaller sensor."

Doesn't have anything to do with the lens design. Focal length is focal length. A lens has no clue as to what camera it is use on. If it were possible to mount the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens on a FF body it would still be a 17-55mm f/2.8 lens.