>>4159820Sony, zeiss, leica, etc lenses are just as sharp. Sometimes, sigma is sharper towards the edge wide fucking open, where 99.9% of photos taken will not be focused at infinity and therefore won't have shit in focus.
Non-sigma lenses also don't wash out subtle shadow detail with internal reflectance issues caused by shit materials and shit coatings. With sigma sharpness is worthless because the entire image loses some of the most important details there are to actually appreciating it as a whole picture instead of one tiny crop at a time. Even using soft fuji lenses on APS-C, which results in inherently softer images since you're blowing up a crop, the images have more subjective sharpness because the human brain relies on subtle shadow gradients to define objects and lightening those beyond the point that they are immediately obvious makes an image only sharp upon closer inspection.
Remember, these are lenses for an aesthetic pursuit, not scientific imaging or surveillance equipment, so shit like that matters.
>minimal distortionIronically one of the things sigma rarely corrects because software does it without introducing other optical aberrations. Like most lens manufacturers. Every camera corrects it in software now. It's not film and digital cameras now have over 20 bits of color depth and so much DR in the shadows that it's never used, thus manufacturers give zero fucks about vignetting and distortion these days.
