These sites are of course useful at times, whether they are a guilty pleasure or screened for useful information. It's a question of balance in terms of quality content vs advertising. See this one for an example:
Ads on the right panel, easy scrolling to news stories, good simple information architecture, sub-sites with links. OTOH, the SAR guy has turned his place into an 'aggregator' site, a gaudy clearing house for YT reviewers and software applications. It all flashes at you non-stop.
Seems to be about the same size as the old 35/1.4 with adapter, which makes me wonder why Sigma decided to make this lens...
Sure AF is going to be better but otherwise the old lens was just fine.
Seems to be about the same size as the old 35/1.4 with adapter, which makes me wonder why Sigma decided to make this lens...
Sure AF is going to be better but otherwise the old lens was just fine.
Seems to be about the same size as the old 35/1.4 with adapter, which makes me wonder why Sigma decided to make this lens...
Sure AF is going to be better but otherwise the old lens was just fine.
Apr 25, 2021 at 09:59 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Seems to be about the same size as the old 35/1.4 with adapter, which makes me wonder why Sigma decided to make this lens...
Sure AF is going to be better but otherwise the old lens was just fine.
The picture is misleading in a couple of ways. First, the "new" lens has a fat cap on the top that the old lens does not. Second the new lens actually is skinnier than the old lens and that is not how it looks in the picture. I suspect this is a faked image and we are looking at the 35 f/1.2 that has been photoshopped to make it look like it is an f/1.4 lens. This lens looks exactly the size of the 35 f/1.2. My speculation is that someone who likes there 35 f/1.2 is posting this hoping people will defend the size and then say, "see the f/1.2 isn't that big after all." Where would someone get this lens to leak this photo? I am not buying that is really the new lens in the photo.
Steve Spencer wrote:
The picture is misleading in a couple of ways. First, the "new" lens has a fat cap on the top that the old lens does not. Second the new lens actually is skinnier than the old lens and that is not how it looks in the picture. I suspect this is a faked image and we are looking at the 35 f/1.2 that has been photoshopped to make it look like it is an f/1.4 lens. This lens looks exactly the size of the 35 f/1.2. My speculation is that someone who likes there 35 f/1.2 is posting this hoping people will defend the size and then say, "see the f/1.2 isn't that big after all." Where would someone get this lens to leak this photo? I am not buying that is really the new lens in the photo....Show more →
I don't think anyone has photoshopped this hoping to make people defend the size of another lens. This really is the new lens. The new lens is 1.5mm narrower and 15.5mm longer than the old EF version, which is what this picture shows. To photoshop the f/1.2 version to make it look smaller would take a lot work for no benefit to anyone. One would have to take out the 1.2 on the aperture ring and replace with 1.4 (removing one click stop), change the lens name and filter size on the barrel, shrink the entire lens (except the mount), and remove the fatter outer ring (above the focusing ring) of the 1.2 version.
Apr 25, 2021 at 11:01 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
NJPhotographer wrote:
I don't think anyone has photoshopped this hoping to make people defend the size of another lens. This really is the new lens. The new lens is 1.5mm narrower and 15.5mm longer than the old EF version, which is what this picture shows. To photoshop the f/1.2 version to make it look smaller would take a lot work for no benefit to anyone. One would have to take out the 1.2 on the aperture ring and replace with 1.4 (removing one click stop), change the lens name and filter size on the barrel, shrink the entire lens (except the mount), and remove the fatter outer ring (above the focusing ring) of the 1.2 version....Show more →
Sorry, in the picture the "new" lens looks a lot fatter than the old lens at least to me and the new lens is actually skinnier. I don't think this is the new lens. I think they just changed the labels on the barrel, which would be easy and didn't shrink the lens at all.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Sorry, in the picture the "new" lens looks a lot fatter than the old lens at least to me and the new lens is actually skinnier. I don't think this is the new lens. I think they just changed the labels on the barrel, which would be easy and didn't shrink the lens at all.
I don't think that it's the 35 1.2 photoshopped. The shiny part between the AF-MF switch and the focusing ring is not straight on the 35 1.2.
The person who takes the pictures could have his phone (or camera) not in a very good alignment with the table, which would make the right lens bigger and the left lens smaller. And if it was a straight picture of the 35 1.2 vs vs the old 35 1.4, I think that the 82mm filter size vs 67mm would be more obvious
Has to be said so the rumor of the rumor from this rumor site is now a fake rumor with a fake photo.
Can someone please explain to me how the blank this is good data. Bad info leads to bad data and mistakes but it's okay I guess that we let this stuff go on.
When I test a lens here on FM I give the most accurate data points so people make good buying decisions. So is this a good thing a full page of debating the real truth
It's a real photo without doubt. The focusing ring is slightly narrower on the new 35 1.4 lens (vs. the old EF version), as suggested by the rumored specs, and as shown in the rumor photo. The big Sigma 35 1.2 version is much bigger. There'd be absolutely no point in "defending" its size by somehow pretending that the new Sigma 35 1.4 is somehow bigger than it is ... by switching its photo with that of the much larger 35 1.2. Sorry, but that doesn't even make sense. There is virtually zero chance that someone photoshopped out the fat upper "lip" (just below the filter threads) of the 35 1.2, completely removing it from the rumor photo, and also removed a click stop from the aperture ring, and also shrank the whole lens, but not the mount. What would be the point?
Lens construction is also supposed to be different:
15 elements in 11 groups.
Ok, I wasn't aware that the 35/1.4 DG HSM has that much astigmatism.
Still, it is a very good optic for the money, so the two 35/1.4's could end up being very similar. We will see soon.
Apr 25, 2021 at 01:07 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
NJPhotographer wrote:
It's a real photo without doubt. The focusing ring is slightly narrower on the new 35 1.4 lens (vs. the old EF version), as suggested by the rumored specs, and as shown in the rumor photo. The big Sigma 35 1.2 version is much bigger. There'd be absolutely no point in "defending" its size by somehow pretending that the new Sigma 35 1.4 is somehow bigger than it is ... by switching its photo with that of the much larger 35 1.2. Sorry, but that doesn't even make sense. There is virtually zero chance that someone photoshopped out the fat upper "lip" (just below the filter threads) of the 35 1.2, completely removing it from the rumor photo, and also removed a click stop from the aperture ring, and also shrank the whole lens, but not the mount. What would be the point?...Show more →
Ok, we disagree. I don't see what you see in the picture. I don't see anything different in this lens other than the printing on the barrel. Let's agree to disagree as we will know soon enough.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Ok, we disagree. I don't see what you see in the picture. I don't see anything different in this lens other than the printing on the barrel. Let's agree to disagree as we will know soon enough.
The easiest tell is the top of the front element, it has different structure and the white marking is in a different place.
Really, there is nothing to disagree here on .
Steve Spencer wrote:
Ok, we disagree. I don't see what you see in the picture. I don't see anything different in this lens other than the printing on the barrel. Let's agree to disagree as we will know soon enough.
Yes, we'll agree to disagree. If it helps anyone, these differences are easy to spot:
- wide ring on top of the 35 1.2 ... wider than the focusing ring (but nonexistent on the new 35 1.4)
- slightly angled shiny part in the middle of 35 1.2 (as noted by Ayoul)
- extra click stop for 1.2 on the 35 1.2
- taller aperture ring on the 35 1.2
- aperture ring is about 25% wider than the mount on new 35 1.4; aperture ring is nearly 40% wider than mount on 35 1.2 lens
NJPhotographer wrote:
Yes, we'll agree to disagree. If it helps anyone, these differences are easy to spot:
- wide ring on top of the 35 1.2 ... wider than the focusing ring (but nonexistent on the new 35 1.4)
- slightly angled shiny part in the middle of 35 1.2 (as noted by Ayoul)
- extra click stop for 1.2 on the 35 1.2
- taller aperture ring on the 35 1.2
- aperture ring is about 25% wider than the mount on new 35 1.4; aperture ring is nearly 40% wider than mount on 35 1.2 lens
Yep, other than the extra click stop and the slightly angled shiny part, both of which would be easy to photoshop I don't see any of that and your points represent subjective judgments on size about different parts about which we will have to agree to disagree. That ok with you? Or do you want to continue the back and forth?
The supposed photo of the 35/1.4 DG DN looks quite different to me than the 35/1.2 DG DN. Not that it really matters....it will be what it will be. Nobody is buying this lens on looks (as it will generally look like a Sigma DG DN Art lens.)
.