Originally posted by Mehlsack i do own a perfectly fine copy of the Sigma 70-200 HSM II (NON-OS) Version and i can assure you from an Event i attended as a photographer ( Four Hills Tournament) that (coupled with a pentax K5) is not able to compete to a Canon 70-200 F2,8.
The 18-135 is (in my opinion) faster.
The Sigma 70-200 is still one of the fastest or even fastest telephoto we can buy. Notheless it is not on par with some other 70-200f2,8
Given the fact that the Sigma DOES use the SAME technique like Canon, why should it be able to produce "more" torque?
do you have any construction insights/blueprints or "torque" tests to prove your "fact"?
There is a variety of Diesel-Engines on the car market, do they all offer the same torque and power just because its the same technique?
You've lost me what 'fact'.?
"delivering
as much or more torque than any Canon/Nikon unit "
The statement merely acknowledges that torque is directly related to size , step, and frequency and therefore will vary depending on model. But in the case of the 70-200 is probably greater (moving glass element heavier but matches the 70-200 for speed.)
As to speed that adds the variable of glass weight required to be moved .
Strange you say the sigma is not on par with other 70-200's when AF wise it found to be more than a match for 'other' 70-200's
(if you can stand the childishness)
Amongst others.
Maybe in return you would like to post hard evidence that SDM/DC and HSM is slower technology than USM or Silent Wave.? or is it anecdotal.?