I would like to replace a Sigma lens with a cannon equivalent.

[cscott524]

The lens is a Sigma 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 DG with macro.  Which Cannon lens would come close? The body is a EOS Rebal T3i.

Thanks

[John]

Probably the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_75_300mm_f_4_5_6_iii_usm

Another possibility is the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_is_usm

The main difference is the lack of Image Stabilization and probably some optical elements.  Your Sigma doesn't have IS so I'm thinking the top link is the direct replacement.  The price seems to agree with this.

I should note that the 55-250 (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_s_55_250mm_f_4_5_6_is_ii) has IS at a reasonable price.  I have fond memories of my 55-250 🙂

[cscott524]

Thanks for the info.  What is the difference between the standard Zoom and the Telephoto Zoom?  I will mainly will be using this lens to take close-ups of nature.  Looking for a lens to get closer to the subject without scaring them away, IS would be nice.

[cicopo]

Doesn't matter which they call it (telephoto zoom vs whatever) 70-300 is 70-300. Question is whether you intend to use it as a macro lens too. That could dictate which lens meets your needs. Is it your intention to shoot "nature" from a distance (deer, racoons, birds etc) or up close (bee on a flower, spider making a web etc).

[cscott524]

I would like to shoot from a distance, also will be doing some macro shots, flowers etc.  I am willing to purchase separate lens's, if it is required.  The lens does not have to be an equal replacement, I am willing to upgrade to a nicer lens. I just noticed the sigma lens that I have the colors are not so great.

Thanks

[cicopo · Accepted solution]

If you're serious about the wildlife side of it think about the Canon 100-400 L IS lens, or even the Sigma 50-500 OS (a bit big & heavy for hand holding much) and read the existing threads about the 100-400 & the 400 f5.6. It's a much better range for wildlife than just 300 mm. You should also consider a proper Macro lens for the up close work which isn't something I do so I'll let other make recommendations there.

[ScottyP]

Hi, Cscott.

A few questions might help with the answer.

1.)  What other lenses do you own? 

2.)  What is your budget?

Also, weak color is not normally something you fix by going from one broad zoom lens to another broad zoom lens.  You might consider picking up an inexpensive prime lens, if you don't already have one.  They have less glass, thus less flare, thus deeper colors.  They also take in something like 4 times more light, meaning you can use 4 stops lower ISO, which will also preserve your colors and not let them get washed out by high-ISO distortion.

I would personally not try to cram so much use out of one lens.  The broader the focal length, the more compromises the designers had to make to get the lens to do that many different things.  If you do a lot of macro, maybe you get yourself an EF-S 60mm macro, or a 100mm non-IS macro.

If you shoot low light get maybe a cheap 50mm f/1.8 prime for $100 bucks.

Before I tossed that Sigma lens out, (and especially before replacing it with another lens that is nearly identical ! ), I would think about keeping it for what it is good at, like shooting outdoors in bright sunlight.  Then fill in the gaps with lenses that work better in low light (lower f/numbers/wider apertures) or macro.  If you can give up the zoom and go with a prime or two, you get much more image quality bang for less buck.