Which one? 17-70? 24-70?

Im getting one of these two, so dont say 17-40L or 17-85 IS, i cant afford those

So, the question is, go for the extra range? Or the 2.8 throughout?

Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 (rated 8.8 on fredmiranda)
Sigma 24-70 2.8 (rated 8.3 on fredmiranda)

It will be my main lens, walk around/weddings/sports​/randomness

Is the ability to use the lens on your T2 body an issue? The 17-70 won't give you full frame coverage, but I think the 24-70 will.

wow, great observation

Ive though about that, but I dont plan on using the film body much, its just for school, Ill use the 28-90 for that..

So no, its not an issue, but lets say i were to use it, would i just get a circular image on the film?

Hmmmmm - not sure. I suspect you'd get full coverage (sort-of), but very bad light drop-off at the edges, and maybe unacceptable aberrations of various sorts.

I'm sure somebody will post the true answer before long - it must have been tried.

Anybody else have a suggestion as to which one is the better choice? Im having a very hard time deciding on my own

Fureinku wrote in post #3968306
Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5 (rated 8.8 on fredmiranda)
Sigma 24-70 2.8 (rated 8.3 on fredmiranda)

It should be noted that FM's setup for their lens reviews can be "rough around the edges". By that I mean, in the case of the 2470EX, they mixed together the older non-DG model with the newer DG model (which is better), and so it's hard to really gauge how accurate the numbers are. IMO if it were solely the new DG Macro model, the rating would be somewhere in the higher 8's. If you look at its "recommended" rating, it's around 86% or 87%. This number would be higher too if based solely on the newer model.

I had a copy of the sigma 24-70 for 2 days. I had a really bad copy (only about 2% of the shots I took were in correct focus). I also didn't like the double clutch af/mf switch.

I am thinking about the 17-70. Looks like it has done very well for people.

I have the 24-70 and I'm very, very pleased with it. It's my most used lens. I've never had the 17-70 but I've never heard a bad word about it. I went with the 24-70 because I didn't want a varable aperture and in case I ever went to full frame. Plus I have the Sigma 10-20 so I didn't need the wide end.

I just ordered the 17-70, itll be here in about a week i cant wait!

I also thought about the 18-50 ex, but something about reaching 70mm was screaming at me, so now im covered from 17mm to 300mm

No comparison man, IMHO, the Canon 24-70mm f2.8L is the best walk around lens. You can live without the 17-40mm f4L, stick with a sigma or canon 10-22mm EF-S (although I personally stay away from EF-S lenses due to possible future upgrades to FF).

As for telephoto, go Canon EF 30-700mm f/4-5.6 IS

I love my 17-70...

Fureinku wrote in post #3968306
walk around/weddings/sports​/randomness

How serious are you about the Wedding and Sports?

The 17-70 is a great lens, but I have shot a wedding with one in a dark church, I have to say i would have been more comfortable with a constant 2.8.
Like wise, Iv shot motorsport succesfully with it, but it was useless at basketball unless used at 17mm (which is just a little to close to under the basket to be safe).

That said its a fantastic range for a walk around lens, its nice and light, and the semi macro funtion makes it great for randomness.

Fureinku wrote in post #3999555
I just ordered the 17-70, itll be here in about a week i cant wait!

I love mine -- nice and sharp, good wide-angle range and focuses very close. Great walk-around lens. I think you'll really enjoy using it.

I would suggest the 24-70

This is such a mixed bag that it makes recommendations hard. Are you currently shooting weddings commerically? What are you using for that?

It's really hard to stick "weddings" in the same bag as "randomness" since one has a significant obligation to a paying customer.