>>4092376>>4092378>>4092387>>4092389>>4092390>>4092395>>4092397>itt; a bunch of nigger faggots who dont know how basic physics of lens optics work are jerking off with their $20 lenses and derailing a thread>trying to blame different physical properties of different lenses and glass elements on gear fagging and KEK
>>4092376>my man really said that the sigma image looks better MEGAKEK yeah youre blind 100%this
>>4092358 guy literally said he edited the hell out of the image to look as close to his nikon lens as he could and the foliage and berries even after him editing, all look flatter than on the left nikon image, especially the leaves of that, whateverthefuck that plant is. even out of focus leaves have dimension to them, while sigma image is just flat as pancake and the leaves look like they went through 10 different light diffusion and softening filters
>pic relatedtake another look of the leaves and berries without the distracting letters and words,
saying the sigma image is better than nikon is like saying that a shitty chinese grade 50mm hsm art lens is better than a 50mm Noct nikon.
>imagine being this retardedgo and learn how basic physics of lens optics work before saying all lenses render the same.
while youre at it, go back to your zeiss vs sigma thread and post there instead of samefagging and derailing other threads
