New Sigma 35mm f/1.4 HSM DG

The Sigma at 94mm length. is also longer than the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.4G which is 83mm diameter x 89.5 mm length (the Nikon also has a 67mm filter thread)

Yeah I feel like this lens is a bit large as far as 35mm lenses go. Might have something to do with all that aspherical, FLD, and SLD glass

I'm going to have enough money to buy the 35L in about 2 weeks time. I really hope some firm info regarding release date and price for this lens is available by then, otherwise I'm not sure I'll be able to resist the urge to purchase the Canon..

shep207 wrote in post #15188308
I'm going to have enough money to buy the 35L in about 2 weeks time. I really hope some firm info regarding release date and price for this lens is available by then, otherwise I'm not sure I'll be able to resist the urge to purchase the Canon..

I know what you mean. I don't understand the need for secrecy here. When a new product would reduce sales of an existing product, it makes sense, but Sigma doesn't really have anything comparable, except the 30mm for crops, but even then I'm sure they would rather folks wait and buy the 35, which is bound to be about twice as much.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=QOTrVvYzam0
Doesn't sound like it will be very much less than the Canon, if at all
On the bright side, the lower CA looks awesome

why then the review said that this is a smaller lens than Canon, Nikon and Zeiss? Not good..........

light_pilgrim wrote in post #15188528
why then the review said that this is a smaller lens than Canon, Nikon and Zeiss? Not good..........

Do you mean this review? http://www.thephoblogr​apher.com …hsm-and-35mm-f1-4-dg-hsm/

Yes....

at what price point would you pick this up over the 35L? I think the 35L's are going for roughly $1100 or so used, i think my point was be $7xx ish. if it's $800, i'd just pony up for the real deal...unless the sigma version is in fact better.

btmlinedan wrote in post #15190248
at what price point would you pick this up over the 35L? I think the 35L's are going for roughly $1100 or so used, i think my point was be $7xx ish. if it's $800, i'd just pony up for the real deal...unless the sigma version is in fact better.

$700-$750 if the lens is on par with 35L in IQ and AF performance.

The Sigma 85mm 1.4 goes for 8-900 bucks. The 35 is a tougher optic, and has this new look, and new features (the thing you can buy for home calibration). I don't expect it to be cheaper than the 85. However, I'm not a fan of the idea that only Canon is "the real deal". Remember that the Sigma 85 is described by pretty much all the top tier reviewers as being optically on par with the Canon 85L II, which is about $1900 new (although it does have the advantage of going to 1.2, of course). I'm guessing it will be 1K-to 1100 new. The 35L is a great lens, but has serious weaknesses, too. It is incredibly sharp in the center, but needs to be stopped down pretty far to bring up the borders and corners. It is a design that can be improved upon (see the Samyang/Rokinon 35, for example).

Mookalafalas wrote in post #15190780
The Sigma 85mm 1.4 goes for 8-900 bucks. The 35 is a tougher optic, and has this new look, and new features (the thing you can buy for home calibration). I don't expect it to be cheaper than the 85. However, I'm not a fan of the idea that only Canon is "the real deal". Remember that the Sigma 85 is described by pretty much all the top tier reviewers as being optically on par with the Canon 85L II, which is about $1900 new (although it does have the advantage of going to 1.2, of course). I'm guessing it will be 1K-to 1100 new. The 35L is a great lens, but has serious weaknesses, too. It is incredibly sharp in the center, but needs to be stopped down pretty far to bring up the borders and corners. It is a design that can be improved upon (see the Samyang/Rokinon 35, for example).

Plus, I'm guessing that when Canon get around to releasing the mkII of the 35mm, it sure won't be the same price it is now. The Sigma will become a much more competitive option at that point. I would imagine that has gone into Sigma's calculations.

+1 to the last two posts....But, AL, the 85LmkII isn't $1900 anymore....lol..... it's like $2200 now.
This is certainly a curious addition to an already bad ass lens lineup coming from a company that has significantly up'd their quality.....Neil is right, when the 35LmkII comes out, the $1000 (or whatever) list price for the Sigma will be in line.

thatkatmat wrote in post #15191366
+1 to the last two posts....But, AL, the 85LmkII isn't $1900 anymore....lol..... it's like $2200 now.
This is certainly a curious addition to an already bad ass lens lineup coming from a company that has significantly up'd their quality.....Neil is right, when the 35LmkII comes out, the $1000 (or whatever) list price for the Sigma will be in line.

That may be the case, but while the 35L mark I is available brand new for £1100, I wouldn't pay more than £800 for the Sigma. Unless of course the Sigma is noticeably better.

shep207 wrote in post #15192031
That may be the case, but while the 35L mark I is available brand new for £1100, I wouldn't pay more than £800 for the Sigma. Unless of course the Sigma is noticeably better.

I'm not sure I follow this. Let's say reviewers agree the Sigma is "easily as good as the Canon", and it's "only" 25% cheaper, you still wouldn't buy it? For me, if it was 1% cheaper, I'd probably spring for it. Obviously I have a lot of confidence in Sigma