>>4164573nigga its not even about zeiss. youre the fuckign schitzo here. i think youre the same guy that argued with that other dude who said he tested 400-500 lenses in the other thread weeks ago and i literally told you back then i dont shoot only with hasselblad, my full frame set up for fashion beauty and portraiture consists of sony a1, a $200 tokina lens, a $300 mitakon lens, a $500 vintage zeiss lens and a fucking $900 voigtlander lens. why? because they fucking make better looking images (the thing you idiotically call ''3d pop'') than any glass i can buy from sony, sigma, tamron, canon, nikon and whatever the fuck else! that's it. that's all there is to it. and if you cant fucking see that youre either fucking blind or youre coping really fucking hard.
my team is based in 3 different countries (italy, france and england) and nobody in my line of work, neither in low end nor in high end uses fucking sigma lenses. i have NEVER in my entire career, no, actually, make that my entire life, NEVER IN MY ENTIRE LIFE have I met someone who shoots with a sigma/tamron/samyang/laowa/sirui or whatever the fuck other shitty lens BY CHOICE. thats just unheard of here, because youd have to be A FUCKING IDIOT to purposefully choose a shit lens and make your images look worse overall, all just because your logic is: ''LENS CHEAP = BETTER!!! MUH IMAGE SHAAARP!!!! 3D POP MAGIC BAD!!!!'' guess what?! my lens is even cheaper and makes better images. also, the higher up in the industry you go, the less and less consumer grade cameras you start to see and as you get closer to the top 10% of the market, youll notice that it only consists of hassie and PO everywhere - BECAUSE THEY MAKE BETTER LOOKING IMAGES! which is the entire fucking point of a lens/sensor! to have BETTER LOOKING IMAGES! its not sharpness, not aperture, not CA control, not focus, its fucking BETTER LOOKING IMAGES and again, if you cant see that youre either fucking blind or youre coping really fucking hard.
