Even though I already have the Canon 1.4x TC, I've added the Sigma 1.4x TC to my equipment, to use it almost exclusively on the Sigma 180 f/3.5 Macro lens (the Canon TCs can not be used on the Sigma 180). Of course, I was curious to see how it compares with the Canon, so I tested it on my best lens, the Canon 600mm f/4 L IS USM, mounted on a stable support with my 20D
The built quality is nearly the same - both feels very well built and pretty sturdy, even though the sigma is much smaller. The main cons of the Sigma is the lack of weather sealing - but this is not a big problem, unless you plan to use it in extreme conditions (anyway, I think that weather sealing on a TC does not make an uge difference, while it is very important on larger tools as the camera or the lens).
The Specs
Sigma Apo Tele Converter 1.4x EX DG
Lens construction : 5 elements in 3 groups
Dimensions : 68 x 19 mm
Weight : 143 g
Price : $ 190 (at B&H)
Canon Extender EF 1.4x II
Lens construction : 5 elements in 4 groups
Dimensions : 72 x 27 mm
Weight : 220 g
Price : $ 280 (at B&H)
I've been a bit surprised: I expected the Canon to be better, instead they are practically identical. The Canon looks an hair sharper in the center, while the sigma looks very slighly better in the corner, where it shows less chroma aberration. Anyway, the differences are truly small, and it would be impossibile to tell if a photo had been taken with the Sigma or the Canon, in the field. Another small surprise has been the slight difference in magnification: the Sigma is a real 1.41x, while the Canon is closer to 1.39x.
The Canon is worth the higher price? In my opinion, it is worth its price only if you plan to use it in harsh environmental considitions, otherwise the Sigma offers the same image quality, and much wider compatibility, at a better price.
Damn... this makes me feel a bit stupid for getting the Canon TC for the non-sealed 400/5.6L. What about AF performance? Also, I´d guess that results may vary with different lens designs, esp. zooms.
I found that the matched lens perform best, but haven't studied it extensively - Nikon lens + Nikon TC, Canon + CanonTC, sigma + SigmaTC.
I've been exceedingly happy with my Sigma lenses.
Discussion
2 repliesThe built quality is nearly the same - both feels very well built and pretty sturdy, even though the sigma is much smaller. The main cons of the Sigma is the lack of weather sealing - but this is not a big problem, unless you plan to use it in extreme conditions (anyway, I think that weather sealing on a TC does not make an uge difference, while it is very important on larger tools as the camera or the lens).
The Specs
Sigma Apo Tele Converter 1.4x EX DG
Lens construction : 5 elements in 3 groups
Dimensions : 68 x 19 mm
Weight : 143 g
Price : $ 190 (at B&H)
Canon Extender EF 1.4x II
Lens construction : 5 elements in 4 groups
Dimensions : 72 x 27 mm
Weight : 220 g
Price : $ 280 (at B&H)
The Comparision: Image Quality
The test photos are here: Miscellaneous Lens Reviews and Other Tests
Conclusions
I've been a bit surprised: I expected the Canon to be better, instead they are practically identical. The Canon looks an hair sharper in the center, while the sigma looks very slighly better in the corner, where it shows less chroma aberration. Anyway, the differences are truly small, and it would be impossibile to tell if a photo had been taken with the Sigma or the Canon, in the field. Another small surprise has been the slight difference in magnification: the Sigma is a real 1.41x, while the Canon is closer to 1.39x.
The Canon is worth the higher price? In my opinion, it is worth its price only if you plan to use it in harsh environmental considitions, otherwise the Sigma offers the same image quality, and much wider compatibility, at a better price.
I've been exceedingly happy with my Sigma lenses.
Sandy R