>>4212448>>4212451>probably 90% of /p/ shitting on sigma since before /p/ board was even created>''one sperg''yeah keep coping and shilling for this terrible, greedy, trash of a company
maybe one day they will make a lens that is actually good and you can finally justify all that money you spent on buying their other dogshit products, as paying off in some way.
the only people that say sigma lenses are good are the pixel peeping ''review'' channels on youtube and forums and the occasional social media and/or youtube famous ''professional'' photographers who think sharpness and eye autofocus are the only things that matter in a lens.
reality is that nobody whose name matters, literally nobody, uses sigma lenses, whether its a photographer or a director of photography, you can look at the top 10% of wedding photographers, top 10% of fashion photographers, top 10% of fine art photographers, motorsports, directors, automotive, beauty, portraiture, landscape, architecture, events, even god damn pet photography... You name it! you name the field! ANY TOP TIER PHOTOGRAPHER in quite literally ANY of the fields or ANY of the top tier photography directors... look at them and you wont see or find a single one, not a single one, who uses sigma lenses. not one! you know why? because they pick their lenses in sets based on characteristics and the look that the lenses give them! they dont care about pixel peeping sharpness, they dont care about eye autofocus, they dont care about CA, they dont care about any of that consumer brainwash bullshit, they QUITE LITERALLY pick and choose lenses based on the look that the lens gives them. and THAT is the truth. and guess what? sigma lenses DONT HAVE A LOOK! they are sterile and flat and none of them want a lens like that! and its not just sigma. plenty of other manufacturers like sigma and none of them are being used by any top tier photogerpher or director! NONE!
