>>4087958>To show how it "renders the same" you would need a side-by-side>being this retardedok since you are clearly this retarded lets go with a step by step approach:
1 you claim sigma/tamron renders the same as zeiss/leica/voigt/whatever
2 you have a pool of 1,000,000+ images from Sigma lenses, 1,000,000+ images from Tamron lenses, 1,000,000+ images from Zeiss lenses and 1,000,000+ images from Leica lenses
3 out of the 1,000,000+ Leica image pool, every single one renders close to or the same as zeiss - and vice versa (same with voigtlander and hasselblad)
4 out of the 2,000,000+ collective image pool from sigma/tamron, there's not a single image that renders the same or close to zeiss or leica (or hassy or voigtlander)
now what the fuck does that tell you?
let me tell you what it tells; it tells you that you dont need a fucking side by side, if out of 2,000,000+ image pool, you cant find a single fucking image that renders the same or close to zeiss, leica, hassy or voigt, then obviously sigma/tamron lenses do not render the same as lenses from these four companies.
once again, it tells you that you dont need a fucking side by side when you have that huge of an image pool but you can't find a single example of sigma/tamron rendering the same or close to zeiss, leica, hassy or voigt
or hell, it doesn't even have to be zeiss, leica, hassy or voigtlander, lets make it easier for you, find one single sigma/tamron image that renders AT LEAST close to nikkor 58mm noct, 90mm sony 2.8 macro, 35mm f1.4 fuji, hell even the shitty 50mm RF pancake renders better than any sigma/tamron glass...
you absolute pixel peeping, gear fagging, sigma dick sucking troglodyte
