>>4162969>zeiss schizoi open a sony thread and there it is. i guess the anon in the other thread was right, youre everywhere and you really are annoying. you must be seriously butthurt lol
anyway lets try this challenge of yours
also, could you have picked shittier image examples by any chance?
anyway here goes for
>>41629691. brand does not matter nor does it have any relation to how a lens was made
2. you cant tell the lenses brand just by looking at an image taken with that lens unless the image has some type of a unique characteristic specific to xyz brand, e.g. lensbaby lenses.
3. this first image is overexposed to hell and back so its a bit harder to tell but i think this lens does control light that passes through it nicely
>>41629711. also overexposed
2. image too close to subject and subjects in the image are too close to confidently make a call. so just going off the bottom right corner + bottom left corner my answer would be no.
>>41629741. yet another overexposed image
2. also looks like its been run through 295 different lightroom presets so the answer is another no.
>>41629831. image looks underexposed by about 2 stops based on the highlights/shadows difference but thats better than being overexposed i guess
2. once again, image too close to subject and subjects in the image are too close to confidently make a call so ill just say no based on the tree and the overlapping leaves in the blurred background...
but seriously tho, where the fuck did you find these terrible images to have as test benchmark??? like were talking 3 overexposed and 1 underexposed image with 2 of the images almost being at macro distance... wtf?! its almost as if youre trying to set up a biased answer... naaah you would never, right? kek
anyway youre the actual schizo, now heres an image for you, 50mm summilux shot on SL2, look at it and admire the dark magic that is fourth dimension pop
