John Power wrote:
Walshy64, you say all those shots are at 1.8? If so, I might have to take a look at one of these...
I had similar results indoors wide open yesterday. Today I did a few flower shots in the garden, focusing on individual leaves and flowers very close to one other. Focus was excellent, and bokeh was very nice .
I found the 30/1.4 has a very slight yellow tint to it - especially noticeable wide open. I saw it on all the versions of the lens that I had. I got mine for maybe 325 bucks new, so I certainly had no problem at all with this. I think they run about a hundred bucks more new now, but still a great value. If you are considering this lens don't let that stop you at all - in no manner did it render any of the pictures unuseable. And in post processing its a complete non-issue if you even see it.
tinke wrote:
I found the 30/1.4 has a very slight yellow tint to it - especially noticeable wide open. I saw it on all the versions of the lens that I had. I got mine for maybe 325 bucks new, so I certainly had no problem at all with this. I think they run about a hundred bucks more new now, but still a great value. If you are considering this lens don't let that stop you at all - in no manner did it render any of the pictures unuseable. And in post processing its a complete non-issue if you even see it. ...Show more →
Used to be an issue with film and some older Sigma lenses had a very yellow cast, but coatings and glass have improved. I can't say I noticed much of a yellow tint on the 24, but it does render a slightly warmer image which as tinke says is trivially corrected in RAw or PP
My comments about a slight yellow tint were for the 30/1.4 exclusively. To my eye the 24/1.8 has about as neutral color as any lens I have tried. I have not taken any people shots with it yet, so I cannot attest to the warmness, but definitely take your word .
Taylor Barrett wrote:
Tinke, did we ever decide if I had the right lens? I don't want to make a dumb purchase. I guess I can return it if it sucks.
The title of the lens and the corresponding photo on the site don't match, thus it appears ambiguous. And I doubt that calling and speaking to a rep there is going to get you a definitive answer. The fact that they state on the Amazon site that the company that is selling them has only have one of them in stock would make me hesitate to order from them. B&H shows they have the new macro model in stock (check the link); haven't checked any of the other heavyweights to see if they are carrying them. Good luck
Well, amazon messed up hardcore (charged me twice, putting an $830 hold on my DEBIT card; so those are live funds) but told me my card was rejected (lied, the charges weren't just authorizations, one was a full blown non pending charge). That means no lens for and no more shopping at Amazon until they make it up to me.
Wells Fargo is straightening out the $$ aspect and I need to find another lens!
As I stated I would I did a little research and came up with a link for this lens version to NOT use. Below is a link to an example of what you DO NOT want to buy for digital use. This is the lens I first tested on a film camera which introduced me originally to this lens, which has no chip to operate on a digital with, and no upgrade availalbe. Though it is currently being marketed and produced it will not work on a digital camera body to my best knowledge:
P.S. By all appearances this link shows the lens pictured in the Amazon link, so it might be wise to stick with a known seller unless you get confirmation as to what you are getting, and a guaranteed round trip if they are wrong.
.