Test: Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II v Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM II (and teleconverters!)

Hi Folks

Last night I wanted to test how the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II took a 2x Kenko DGX Pro 300 TC so I printed out a chart (This was just printed from my regular printer so the quality isn't very good, I'll try to obtain a higher quality chart in the future) and set up a tripod and did some tests. Then I was like "Since I have all this set up, why not test my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM II as well?" Well, I was a little surprised with the tests.

The tests I ended up doing were

200mm at f2.8, f4.0, f5.6, f8.0
400mm at f5.6, f8.0

All tests were done at ISO 100 and Shutter Speed of 1/250sec , IS was turned off on the Canon lens. To keep the same exposure in all photos, 580EXII was used.

f2.8 1/64 power
f4.0 1/32 power
f5.6 1/16 power
f8.0 1/8 power

All tests were done in Live View, manually focused via computer tether, silent shoot mode 2 (all these to ensure AF accuracy and minimize vibrations).

The tripod setup was Manfrotto 190CX3 with a Manfrotto 488RC2 head.

Camera was the Canon 7D.

All these tests were manually focused at 10x magnification.

All of the following are 100% crops.

200mm Tests

200mm CENTER

400mm Tests

400mm CENTER

To me the Sigma perform VERY well and I was very surprised. I have always liked the lens and I was at time perplex when it would give super sharp results some times and only so so sharp results over times. I have come to determine the Sigma HSM in the 70-200 f2.8 HSM II is not as good as the Canon USM in the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

^ From the test photos the Canon has the edge but the Sigma is not far behind.

Thanks for doing this!

The real difference is at the edges and you would prob see greater delta on a FF camera.
The Canon L lenses are very good at Chromatic.
But you get what you pay for.
Is it significant and worth the cost - you be the judge.
Still -
I bet a Sigma 400 mm will beat a Canon 200 with a 2 x convertor - any convertor - any format ! !

Wow! That's nice! Thanks for sharing!
It's good to see the Sigma improving, as well it's good to see the Canon improving something that was already really good.
As El_Pic said, you get what you pay for. If you can spend more money, the Canon is totally worthy IMHO as it gets better detail wide open, where I think people need this lens for (otherwise, why not to get the F4?)

Those "dreamy" haziness thing of the Sigma wide open is something always made me think about them, tough...

Maybe I'll do a FF test later... this was kind of a "constructive" escape from studying for exams, lol. My problem with FF is my 5D doesn't have live view and I also cannot focus it on a computer... and it lacks microadjust.... maybe I need a 5D2

I don't know why you are surprised. I can see a clear difference between the Canon and the Sigma in all of the wide open shots, especially in the middle and at the edge. The 2X TC shot at the edge is strikingly different with the Sigma contrast just wiped out.

Thanks for sharing this Will. A nice and useful reference.

Sigma glass is usually quite good. It fails on AI servo where typically Canon will trounce it. This was my experience when I had Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 and Canon 300mm f2.8 IS to compare with for a while.

themadman wrote in post #11400220
Maybe I'll do a FF test later... this was kind of a "constructive" escape from studying for exams, lol. My problem with FF is my 5D doesn't have live view and I also cannot focus it on a computer... and it lacks microadjust.... maybe I need a 5D2

FF Test would be interesting ...
Use Auto Focus - its a plane.
MA can give you 10 different results with ten tests {differ f stop, focal length, etc}.
MA was a Canon marketing scheme when they had all those mkIII problems.
MA is a laff.

But remember - you are shooting res charts and cropping like hell.
Would you see any difference between the two lenes with real world ducks
or bathing beauties at normal print sizes ??
I doubt it

Very interesting.
Thanks for sharing !