>>4086667>as expert as you are, you should easily be able to pick out the Zeiss / Leica from the Sigma / Tamro. Seems you aren't able to though, which means I have provided images of a Sigma lens that render similarly enough to Zeiss / Leica.No, you haven't. You have provided shit examples to choose from. I wanted to do it but after I downloaded and opened the image I just deleted it immediately.
4 of the images are overexposed and compressed to hell, could literally be shot with any lens on the planet.
The guy singing, what the fuck is even that? A night club shot?! You serious?
The landscape shot is an obvious Sigma shot, so is the portrait.
Literally only one image I thought was a Zeiss or Leica lens was the leaf brush one with buildings in the background but the image was too fucking small to even tell.
>Keep on posting random images if you want, whatever makes you feel better.I'm still waiting for you to post LITERALLY ANY and I mean ANY images that you shot or can find on the internet, shot with a Sigma lens, that render close to, not even the same, just close to
>>4086650 again, ANY images, don't have to be similar subjects or lighting, just provide A SINGLE IMAGE shot with a Sigma lens, that displays embossed rendering. JUST ONE SINGLE IMAGE is all I'm asking you to post. It doesn't even have to be as good as
>>4086650 you can even post something like pic related, which was shot with a Hasselblad 100mm f3.5 lens, literally post A SINGLE IMAGE that has embossed rendering, taken with a Sigma lens. JUST ONE.
