The Sigma 70-200 lens: what great progress!
Thursday, January 12, 2012 Lens Review
Today we are publishing the test results of the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM II (mounted on Canon and Nikon bodies), as well as comparing its performance relative to equivalent lenses on the market.
Right off the bat, we note that this Japanese brand has made great strides in the high-end telephoto lens market segment. This said:
The Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM II is not very expensive, but… When first released in December 2007, this lens was presented as a compromise in terms of price, especially when pitted against such competitors as the Canon 70-200 mm f2.8 L USM (1995) and the Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED (2002). The Sigma’s large aperture (f/2.8) and its macro mode (minimum focus distance one meter) lend this tele-zoom lens great versatility. It is solidly designed, offering fast autofocus as well as Full-Time manual focus to allow greater precision in macro mode. Note, however, that Sigma’s 2010 stabilized version of the same lens lacks the macro mode.
But all that is old news. Let’s talk about the recent Sigma test results and how they stack up against more recent lenses, for example:
Canon 70-200 mm f2.8 L IS II USM vs Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM II
Despite its elevated price (twice as much as the Sigma), we prefer the Canon (which appeared in 2010). Why? Because even though the overall DxOMark scores for both lenses are very close, the Canon’s resolution is much more homogenous across entire focal range and over the entire field.
Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED vs Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM II
We draw the same conclusions in this comparison as for the Canon v. Sigma above: the Nikon is a far superior lens (and its price reflects this).
But still, Sigma makes real progress!
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM II vs Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG APO OS HSM
Even though the competition still beats the Sigma 70-200mm across the board (as noted above), when we compare the newer version versus the older version of the same Sigma lens, we see big improvements in resolution and chromatic aberration in the 2010 stabilized version: the resolution improves by more than 10 points (going from 42 lp/mm to 54 lp/mm), and chromatic aberrations drop from a very high 21µm to a very respectable 8µm.
Conclusion
In conclusion, although the 2007 Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG APO Macro HSM II lens can allow you to capture a greater range of distances than the stabilized version, if you’re trying to decide which Sigma model to choose, we recommend the 2010 version because it delivers much better image quality.
Comments
|
Added by 24x36 |
January 15, 2012
More like a partial recovery than progress
Sigma was going backwards for a while with its 70-200 f 2.8 lenses. The ORIGINAL "DG" version (BEFORE they started to add "Macro" "features") was actually better than the "DG Macro" and "DG Macro II" lenses, and apart from the CA numbers, was actually comparable with the Nikon VR lens (no VRII results to compare yet). It equaled the Nikon's resolution (58 lpmm), distortion (0.3%), and was close on transmission (3.3 Tstop vs. 3.4 for the Nikon), while being BETTER on vignetting (-1.3 ev vs. -1.8 ev for the Nikon), falling short ONLY on CA (15um vs. 8 for the Nikon).
The original DG 70-200 BEATS the "OS" version on resolution (58 lpmm vs. 54 for the OS), transmission (3.3 T Stop vs. 3 for the OS), distortion (0.3% vs. 0.4% for the OS), vignetting (-1.3 ev vs. -1.4 for the OS) and falls short ONLY on CA (15 um vs. 8 um for the OS). SO in reality, the OS has "progressed" on ONE performance measure (CA) while REGRESSING on every other, compared with Sigma's original DG version, while simultaneously suffering a massive price hike and a massive downgrade of ergonomics compared with (all of) the older versions. As far as I'm concerned, Sigma would be better off shedding the gimmicks (like "macro" focusing and OS) and concentrating on improvement of the ORIGINAL DG lens design (the best of the lot) to improve on the CA. Then they could sell a lens with comparable performance to Nikon at a lower price than Nikon, which has always been Sigma's strength. As their pricing climbs into the stratosphere with OS gimmicks, they are losing their appeal as a less costly but viable alternative to C & N. At the very least, they should offer non-OS versions of their lenses in addition to the OS versions (with their crappy ergonomics) for those who won't find the (much smaller) price differential a compelling enough reason to choose their lenses over N & C. Reply |
|
|
Added by frettled |
January 13, 2012
Test results switched around
Apparently, all results for the MkII are really for the MkI, and vice versa. This makes the text and conclusions look really weird.
Reply |
Further readings for the The Sigma 70-200 lens: what great progress!
To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.