Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS?

How does this one compare with the other 2 2.8 IS from Canon? Both the first and second generation 70-200 2.8 from Canon? Does it rank 3rd? It is still a popular lens, and sharp for what it is right?

What about with a 2x teleconverter? making it a 140-400 5.6? How then does it compare with the 100-400 from Canon?

Thanks!

ConCon wrote in post #14880891
How does this one compare with the other 2 2.8 IS from Canon? Both the first and second generation 70-200 2.8 from Canon? Does it rank 3rd? It is still a popular lens, and sharp for what it is right?

The Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS mk2 is the daddy in this range, but it is also the most expensive! I'm not entirely sure of the differences between the Sigma OS and the Canon IS mk1 as I haven't used the latest Sigma. The Sigma does get fantastic reviews though and I believe it is well liked by its owners... take a look at the dedicated thread

ConCon wrote in post #14880891
What about with a 2x teleconverter? making it a 140-400 5.6? How then does it compare with the 100-400 from Canon?

I've asked this question previously with regards to the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS mk2 and the Canon 2x mk3 extender and the consensus was that the 100-400 would be better, however, some prefer this method over owning two expensive lenses...

DPReview, among others, puts the Σ70-200 OS HSM in the middle between the two Canon IS lenses. I just got the Sigma a few weeks ago, and it is very nice at 200mm & f/2.8, its supposed weakest spot. I can't speak to direct comparisons with the Canon; I've never used them. I was happy to get 70-200, f/2.8 and OS for $750. Can't do that with a Canon lens.

I think that the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II USM and the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS are pretty darn close. Overall- the nudge would go to the Canon- but - it's comparing a $2200 lens to a $1300 lens.
I would believe what I've read- that the Sigma falls in at #2.

2xTC's. Any native lens is likely to perform better than a 70-200 with 2x TC. The thing is- it's a matter of tolerances- that determine how off a combination of lenses and bodies are. Adding in a TC just makes it either better or worse. Both work well with a 1.4x TC- and both of mine work well with the 2x TC.. But if I was looking for reach- I'd use the Sigma 50-500 OS first- if I had it with me. Otherwise- I carry the TC's in the bag. I'd take the 100-400L over a 70-200 + TC solution - almost anyday.

Here is a shot of water bottle shot thru a Sigma 70-200 OS with a 2x TC f/5.6 - using the viewfinder. I wish I could think of something that would truly show this unit's resolution- hope this helps. This is a 100% crop of the center. Notice the unintentional panorama of the neighborhood ? LOL

And one of our furry little friends dropped by.. Didn't stay long. 100% crop- again- Sigma 70-200 OS w 2x TC (sigma). Overall, this is not a bad combination. Worse than a 100-400L - I don't know..

Note to self. I need to replace both of my monitors. They blow. Colors look better on the second- but IDK- that Sigma combo looks pretty darn good - but today is also nice and bright out- although Mr Rabbit is sitting in the shade, and I was shooting towards the light.. Note I used the t4i as it is a crop- rather than the 5D3.