# First pic of Sigma 24-70 F/2 posted



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2013)

Just saw this at CW:
http://www.canonwatch.com/rumor-first-picture-of-sigma-24-70mm-f2-lens-leaked/

I am not speaking to the legitimacy of a low-res photo. It may be fake.

BUT, presuming it is real, I've superimposed known glass in PS, in this case, the 24-70 F/2.8L II.

My very crude PS ruler work yields that the new Sigma 24-70 F/2 comes out to:

1.56x as a long as a 24-70 II (at the 24mm end)
1.20x the filter diameter as the 24-70 II (or, roughly 98mm on the Sigma)

And we could also start guessing if we're looking at an internally focusing lens here. It may not telescope beyond the length shown in the picture, like a Canon 70-200.

Mad speculation is fun sometimes. 

- A


----------



## JR (Aug 1, 2013)

It might also come in much heavier then the Canon 24-70 2.8 mkII.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2013)

There's no *might* about that. 

This thing will be a pickle jar. I currently have a bet going with a friend. He seems to think this beast will be under two pounds. That money is as good as mine. 

- A


----------



## Jon Gilchrist (Aug 1, 2013)

ahsanford said:


> There's no *might* about that.
> 
> This thing will be a pickle jar. I currently have a bet going with a friend. He seems to think this beast will be under two pounds. That money is as good as mine.
> 
> - A



Considering the 35/1.4 weighs nearly a pound and a half, I think you're pretty safe.


----------



## Alangeli (Aug 1, 2013)

I guess that it is a fake based on this picture:


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 1, 2013)

Alangeli said:


> I guess that it is a fake based on this picture:


I wouldn't doubt it for two reasons:


The front element seems to have an oversized rubbery ring that you expect in a sports lens (like the 120-300) but wouldn't in a standard zoom. That ring is good for shock but a mess to sneak into a bag -- standard zooms need to be quickly retrievable.
Most suspiciously, look at the lens identifying text -- the 1:2 looks different than the other text, and there is what looks to be mottling/poor cloning just to the left of the 35 marking.

My needle is leaning towards fake at this point, but I'm not dead set on that. As with all of these, it's the leak of multiple images from different views that pushes the needle to authentic.

- A


----------



## bseitz234 (Aug 1, 2013)

Agreed this kind of just looks like a composited 18-35 1.8 + 120-300 2.8

Also agreed it's fun to randomly speculate and daydream about this lens...


----------



## Wildfire (Aug 2, 2013)

Definitely fake. Why would they put the gigantic zoom ring from the 120-300 S as the focus ring and have a tiny zoom ring?


----------



## infared (Aug 2, 2013)

yeah..I agree...that photo is very suspicious....I am thinking totally bogus...but it DOES make my 24-70mm II seem small now!


----------



## smithy (Aug 3, 2013)

For me the big clue is the gap between "70" and "mm" printed on the lens. Sigma don't put spaces here, it should read "70mm".


----------



## DigiAngel (Aug 3, 2013)

fake for shure, but the size seems about right. try sticking that in the face of your bride at a wedding  as nice as f2.0 would be, i think that lens will be very cumbersome and not ideal to use for many situations....


----------

