>>4084871not the guy you responded to, it's me again but how the hell do any of the images you posted, even remotely compare to the rendering in the images in
>>4084518 and
>>4084519 and
>>4084771 and even in the other dudes
>>4084779???
i mean surely you're not this blind? surely you can tell the difference between e.g
>>4084518 and absolutely dogshit flat rendering in
>>4084856 and
>>4084858 and
>>4084862 right???
surely you can tell how terrible your image examples are?
like... there's no way you think that the rendering here
>>4084518 is the same quality as this dogshit here
>>4084856 or here
>>4084866 right? there's no way you think that
i still own my old sigmas art 105mm 1.4, sigmas art 35mm 1.4 and Tamrons new 35-150mm but there's no fucking way i would ever compare the absolute flat rendering of these lenses to my 35 and 50 voigt or 135 zeiss. the upgrade image quality is so god damn obvious and so drastic that you would have to be an idiot to deny it
>pic relatedshow me a sigma, tamron or samyang lens that renders like this. protip; you can't. if you shot this same shot with a sigma lens, these branches, leaves and grass would look fucking 2 dimensional and flat and you wouldn't be able to tell which leaf is from which branch and you wouldn't be able to tell branches from one another because they would all be slapped into a flat rendered mess
>video below relatedthis guy explains this shit with side to side examples
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ArcZd9FBQA 