Superior quality non-canon lenses

[shawn_may]

<p>In an effort to expand my collection of equipment, I've been looking at all the lenses that I could possibly buy from Canon that are L-series, and (mostly) prime. </p>

<p>Anyhow, I feel like the L-series lens line is a little lacking as far as the amount of significantly different lenses (ex the 17-40L and the 15-35L, besides the stops, are very similar). Anyhow, I'm familiar with the new line of Zeiss ZE lenses, and plan to purchase the 21mm when it's released.. but are these the only two options to me, the L-series and the new Zeiss lenses, for someone who wants lenses that involve some degree of profession? </p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>There are a number of manufacturers whose manual-focus lenses will fit an EOS body with an appropriate adapter (although, oddly enough, Canon's own MF lenses tend to be poor choices); see <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-manual-lenses/" target="_blank">this document</a> for more details. There are also some third-party EF-mount lenses which are of high quality; just as Canon makes everything from cheap kit lenses to top-notch pro gear, so do other manufacturers like Sigma and Tamron.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>Some of the non-L canon lenses are easily up to L standard in image quality. For example the 85mm 1.8 and the 100mm 2.8 Macro. The thing that puts me off the Zeiss lenses is tha they are manual focus. Now that I am in my fifties the eyesight really isn't up to that.</p>

[savagesax]

<p>You can use Contax lenses with a converter.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Lord (and the assembled masses here) know well enough that it's hard to shut me up about the virtues of all the old manual glass I use on my Canon EOS cameras. However, let's be honest. Modern science and modern computers have made things possible in lenses that were only dreamed of in the day of "let's try this and grind one out and see what it does." I seriously doubt that any (bar none) zoom lenses of the past equal the run of the mill, much less the L lenses of today. Now to compare the 17 or 16mm L zooms to primes, well, that's just not fair. Try comparing the Canon L primes (and non-L , for that matter) and I really doubt if the new Zeiss lenses will be much, if any, better than the equivalent focal length in EF lenses.<br>

As a Canon user, you can also use the superb Nikkor manual lenses of the past, not to mention my belovéd Zeiss Jena lenses. Biotar and Sonnar, thy names are perfection and sharpness. ;)</p>

[starvy]

<p>quality control in zeiss jena lenses is an issue to be aware of. good examples are very good though.</p>

[shawn_may]

<p>I've always heard mixed things about the current manufacturing of zeiss lenses.. Anybody have any input on this? </p>

<p>I know that the 'original' zeiss 21mm was a wide angle to rule them all, but I don't know much about that the 'original' is, what bodies it was produced for, etc etc.. </p>

<p>I'm really after getting a technical equivalent of the mamiya 43mm for the mamiya 7 or a zeiss biogon.. </p>

[tommyinca]

<p>Current Zeiss are make by Cosina. Cosina make the very best (ie: Voigtlander 125mm APO macro and Zeiss) to the very worst (ie: name you brand chessy zoom). </p>

[shawn_may]

<p>Guess I'll wait until the distagon comes out to see if I'll buy the new one or the old one for contax.. </p>

[ilkka]

<p>You can fit Leica R lenses on EOS body as well. They have some pretty good wide angles.</p>

[brian_seay]

<p>Good used Leica-R lenses can be found for cheaper than new Zeisses -- the Summicron-R 35mm draws very nicely.<br>

The new Voightlander 2/40 and 1.4/58 are under $400US each and worth looking at, although you'll need an adapter for those as well.<br>

I too am looking forward to the 2.8/21 distagon's arrival. However, I'm concerned that today's constraints on lens design (such as the lack of leaded glass) may make it inferior to the 2.8/21 of the past.</p>