Sorry guys,
>>4134345 here, I am still not home yet, have to stay for another day (maybe two, we have 4 more shoots to do) but I did call my friend and I do have 2 Sigmas waiting for pickup when I get home. (The 35 DG DN Art and the 85 DG DN Art) and since everyone is shedding tears and crying about Zeiss, Zeiss, Zeiss, this time I won't use a Zeiss, Leica or Voigt, I'll use a 35 f2 Nikkor and the either the 85 1.4G or 85 1.8 Z lenses instead, to compare them to Sigmas. - And if anyone thinks that these Nikon lenses are still too good (in a higher class, like the Otus was) I can even use the cheap, old ZhongYi 35mm f0.95 and the cheap Sony 85mm f1.8 to prove the point.
In the meantime, as requested by:
>>4134770>>4134775I will now post high res closeups of those images, at the focus point and everything around it.
>>4134824The actual light gathering difference measured in Tstops of both lenses when stopped down to f2.8, is less than 0.1 or to be more specific, 0.076. I couldn't have accounted for that small of a difference even if I was aware of it at the time of shooting and wanted to do so. If I had shot at 1/125s with Zeiss, it would be over corrected too bright and if I shot at 1/80s with Sigma, it would be over corrected too dark, so then we would have an even bigger difference in exposure than what it is right now.
