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.
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.
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 lens bigger on the right side and smaller on the left side. 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
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.
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.
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 lens bigger on the right side and smaller on the left side.
Apr 25, 2021 at 11:33 AM
Previous versions of Ayoul's message #15577652 « Pre-order: Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN Art ($899) »
