>>4086433depends which lens and how the lens renders...
you can get the same rendering aka. almost the same look with lenses that render similarly as good as the Fuji 35mm 1.4 or Leica Summicron 50mm APO ASPH for example and some of those are; Nikkor 58mm Noct, Voigtlander Nokton 58mm, Nikkor E 135mm the f2.8 one, all of the Zeiss loxia lenses and so on and so forth.
you CANT get the same rendering with a sigma or tamron lens because not a single sigma or tamron lens renders like that. it's not a matter of brand, its a matter of lens design and neither sigma nor tamron make glass like that. and while nikon, fuji, canon, sony, panasonic or whoever else have a dozen or so lenses that render like that, nobody in the entire market is as consistent as leica, zeiss, voigtlander and hasselblad. thats just how it is and thats why people at the top of the industry prefer using glass from these 4 manufacturers. nothing to do with being loyal to the brand, i dont give a shit about brands, i change systems based on quality of glass, i dont care about cameras, specs or whatever else bullshit, i go with whatever glass shits out most pleasing and relaxing to look at images.
i dont like to look at an image and then have to strain my eyes out, for example to be able to tell apart leaves like i do on
>>4086420 i much prefer the natural and three dimensional rendering like
>>4083860 for example, where you can easily tell every god damn leaf and branch and grass apart without straining your eyes and you can easily tell the depth of each and every god damn thing in the image in relation to everything else in the image...
its not that complicated, its very simple... smooth and natural rendering thats easy to look at vs. terrible flat 2d mess that strains your eyes when you look at the image
not that hard to understand.
look at pic related. look how easy on the eyes it is when a lens renders depth and micro contrast nicely
you can tell every fucking thing in the image apart
