Has anyone compared these lens motors side by side? If so, how do they compare in terms of speed, noise and features (eg FTM, Teleconverter compatability, etc)?

Obviously comparing USM and AF-S can never be a fair test, as they are being tested on different bodies, unless we introduce a control. We have to make the assumption that the sigma HSM works has the same capability on both Canon and Nikon bodies, and that can act as the control. Then, USM can be compared to HSM, and HSM can be compared to AF-S, allowing us to make a comparison between AF-S and USM.

I think the obvious lens choice would be to compare the Canon 70-200 F2.8L USM (or even the new IS version, not that it should make a difference) with the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX HSM and the Nikon AF-S 80-200 ED.

So, could anyone who has used two, or even all three, of these lenses comment? I'm curious to know whether AF-S and HSM are "better", due to being more recent, or whether the technology is mature, and all three are of comparable performance.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), August 12, 2001

Answers

Isaac,

I have shot photos with both the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM & the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX APO HSM (with Canon EOS mountj). Sadly, I've not had the pleasure of experiencing any of the Nikon Silent Wave motor lenses (or their Vibration Reduction lenses for that matter) -- so I can not give you an impression of Canon vs. Nikon. Please, no flame wars! I like both brands for their respective strengths. :)

Here are my observations:

1. The Sigma Hyper-Sonic Motor mechanism is almost as silent as Canon's ring-type Ultra-Sonic Motor, though there is a distinct very soft click as the HSM motor engages -- probably something to do with how the focus clutch is designed. 2. Both lenses give you Full Time Manual autofocus override & feature internal focusing so the front element doesn't turn. 3. The HSM did not focus as fast as the USM -- but still far faster than micro-motor lenses. This likely has more to do with the other design aspects of the Sigma lens (i.e. the helical gearing, lens arrangements, etc.) 4. The HSM definately experienced more focus "hunting" than the USM lens. This was experienced on several occasions, and with both a Rebel 2000 and an Elan 7E body. It was not enough to be frustrating, but was definately noticeable when comparing the lenses side by side. I'm not sure what causes this difference -- if the AF circuitry & algorithms are that different, the focus gearing, or perhaps that the Canon optics were definately more contrasty. The Sigma optics were noticeably warmer -- I definately would put a UV rather than a Skylight 1b filter on it!

As to teleconverter compatibility, the Sigma has matched 1.4x & 2x EX series TC's, as Canon has their matched TC's for the f/2.8L (same problem of being only for a dedicated set of lenses) -- and I've heard that they're pretty good. The Sigma comes with a dedicated tulip shaped hood & a nylon case (the new Canon f/2.8L IS is supposed to come with hood & pouch as well). I've heard rumors that the EX finish doesn't hold up to abuse -- but I wouldn't care as long as the lens mechanics & optics were rugged (and they certainly seem to be).

I had just settled on purchasing the Sigma (at half the cost of the Canon), when the long rumored IS version was officially announced by Canon. Reviews & optical testing had put it very close to the Canon considering its much lower price point. Now that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is announced, I'll happily hold off and scrape together some more pennies! :)

Improved weather seals throughout, closer focusing distance, 3-stop IS with panning (& auto-tripod sensing), even FASTER auto-focus with high end bodies (1v, 3 -- I wonder if the 7E will show any improvement?), faster gyro stabilizer warm up time (.5 sec vs. 1 sec.) make it the dream lens to get! Hopefully, it will live up to expectations and real world results. I can't give you a side by side comparison, because I haven't found a human being who has actually SEEN one yet -- let alone myself! Ship dates to stores are supposedly some time in September -- but none of the suppliers I've contacted were even aware of the lens yet, let alone have a ship date for it!

In conclusion: Even though Canon's ring-type USM is "old" technology - - Canon nailed it right the first time. Years later, other companies are still left trying to play catch up!

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 13, 2001.

I've tried the Nikon N80 with the 28-70 AF-S and Canon's 28-70L on the EOS-3. The EOS-3 and 28-70 combo seemed to lock on faster, but that's probably an unfair comparison. They were both silent. Nice lenses.

-- Andrew (andrew@hotmail.com), January 14, 2002.