Question:
I make the best lenses and you’re not getting them! Kevin
Response:
I think that my lenses are the best ones. I have put alot of time and effort into acquiring them so they better be. All other companies are inferior. They must be because I don’t use them. What’s more, I was very keen on Photodo, the service that rates lenses, until they rated my 100-300 Canon USM 4.5-5.6 low at 2.2 Since then, I think much less of them. 
I just checked Photodo and the 100-300 Canon USM 4.5-5.6 is rated at 3.3
No, you made a mistake. It’s the Canon EF 100-300 5.6 which is rated 3.3
Response:
I do thinkk someone got my point
Response:
We will all defend our purchases, but in answer to "Who makes the best 35mm lenses?" I first have to know if you mean lenses for 35mm cameras, or 35mm focal length lenses. I assume you mean the former. IF so, I’d say Zeiss do, closely followed by Leitz, then Nikon. However, as the two German offerings cost a LOT more than the Nikkors, I’d say the Nikkors do when the value for money is added. Nikkors are only slightly behind in sharpness, but offer higher acutance. I’ve used Zeiss lenses, and yes, they are very good, but I wasn’t impressed with how much better then the Nikkors they were, so I chose to stay with Nikon. Plus, Nikon have some bitching cameras to go with their lenses – Contax and Leica do not. They’re well built, and certainly quality merchandise, but they’re outclassed by the performance of the Nikon bodies. I trust in technology and progress, and so do Nikon. David.
Response:
[] Please keep in mind that from time to time, "BEST" creates wars. WRONG PAL! I think that "greatest" will create more wars than "best" hands down!
WRONG. I think that "WRONG" creates more wars than "best" or "greatest". Randy Given http://members.aol.com/GivenRandy public key at http://members.aol.com/GivenRandy/pgpkey.asc
Response:
I make the best lenses and you’re not getting them!
I use only gravitational lenses — and they are expensive! Randy Given http://members.aol.com/GivenRandy public key at http://members.aol.com/GivenRandy/pgpkey.asc
Response:
I make the best lenses and you’re not getting them! I use only gravitational lenses — and they are expensive!
But the resolution! Ah, the resolution!
Response:
|No. Leica is the best. There are mystical differences between Zeiss |and Leica. You may not be able to see these differences in a mere |photograph, but they are there on a higher, spiritual level. | |Richard S. | I own some Nikkor glass, some Ziess glass and some Leica glass ( and a cheap pair of reading glasses from Costco!) For my money (and believe me I have put plenty into glass), Ziess glass is equal to Leica glass. Both are supurb lens makers. And as for Leica being above Ziess when comparing BEYOND mere photographs, right, believe that and I have a bridge I am offering in NYC! Joe McCary
Response:
I think that my lenses are the best ones. I have put alot of time and effort into acquiring them so they better be. All other companies are inferior. They must be because I don’t use them.
Response:
I think that my lenses are the best ones. I have put alot of time and effort into acquiring them so they better be. All other companies are inferior. They must be because I don’t use them. What’s more, I was very keen on Photodo, the service that rates lenses, until they rated my 100-300 Canon USM 4.5-5.6 low at 2.2 Since then, I think much less of them.
I just checked Photodo and the 100-300 Canon USM 4.5-5.6 is rated at 3.3
Response:
Good, objective, non-inflamatory, and (almost accurate! Olympus: They have retreated to a more limited presence outside of Japan for 35mm slr’s. They are especially good for macro photography and some special lenses (200/2.0 for example).
It’s a 250/2. They also have a 350/2.8, and a world-class 180/2 that was chosen by NASA as the best lens to take abord the shuttle. Also world-class is the Zuiko 24mm shift and their 21/2. I believe the latter is the fastest super-wide available in any mount. In the slower speed, their 21/3.5 is considered by one tester to be the best performing Zuiko, equal to the best German glass. For depth of macro offerings, Olympus is unmatched, with a total of eleven available lenses, eight of which are currently in production, not to mention tons of support do-dads, such as telecsoping tubes, bellows, copiers, stages, illuminators, and four TTL macro flash systems, all with built-in modelling lighting. The three discontinued macro lenses (all bellows mount) can be had very reasonably. Finally, they make a 500/8 reflex lens that can be had for $650 or so, that tested second only to the $2,000 Questar. The people who have them love them, not not that many new people are getting into this system…
And those who love them will discourage new people from getting into Olympus — they don’t want the competition! I got into Olympus over 20 years ago for their (lack of) size/weight, and the breadth of their macro offerings, and I’m still expanding my system. Olympus is not dead! Taking out a second mortgage for a Zuiko 350/2.8, I’m… — : Jan Steinman — Jan AT Bytesmiths DOT com : Spammers: please add: : to your list — he threatened me for forwarding him your : spam with a protest against his pro-spam bill, so I’m sure : he’d love to hear from you all!
Response:
I think that my lenses are the best ones. I have put alot of time and effort into acquiring them so they better be. All other companies are inferior. They must be because I don’t use them.
What’s more, I was very keen on Photodo, the service that rates lenses, until they rated my 100-300 Canon USM 4.5-5.6 low at 2.2 Since then, I think much less of them.
Response:
Marc, You are right, of course. My point was that one person’s idea of a good lens is not the same as an other person’s, and therefore that testing and looking at actual results is required in order to get a valid idea. In this case, the 2.8 aperture may or may not be considered useful by different photographers depending on what their priorities are. You are right that the Contax lens is an f:4.0 (I thought that was clear). It is also significantly less expensive than the Canon lens (which I did not mention). My point in mentioning the shape of MTF curves was (and still is) to show how different lenses (and lens lines) have different characteristics which often require going into more detail than just one number can provide. As we (probably) both know, photographers, equipment junkies and retail store clerks will almost always describe the more expensive lenses as "razor sharp." To me those two words are not descriptive enough to justify spending hundreds and possibly thousands of dollars on a lens (especially when it applies equally to several lenses). I need to know how that "sharpness" will look in the final product, meaning in pictures that may end up on my walls. I also need to know about contrast, distortion, flare control, build quality, manufacturer support, size and weight, colour casts, quality control, and a host of other important parameters. I was trying to explain to the original poster to trust his actual judgement instead of gossip, and to look at his own needs instead of what others will tell him that he needs. If the poster is really interested in getting into the system with "the best 35mm lenses", he/she should first try to find out what "the best" means in this particular case, and then look at what the different systems have to offer based on those criteria. I think that I made it clear that all of the major brands have persuasive arguments that make them "the best" if your needs match up well with the design parameters of the system. Bernard
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Bernard, I went to Photodo to look at those tests. What I saw was that the Canon fell off, the waterfall effect, at f/2.8. At f/8 it looked pretty good. The Contax was unable to reach an aperture of f/2.8. Maybe it was defective. Or maybe it was only supposed to reach f/4 at maximum. So I looked at the rated MTF figures for these lenses at f/4. 80mm The Canon was given an overall rating of 4.1. The Contax was given a 3.8. Marc Notes: Everybody has a bias, and here is mine: I have been a Contax user for about 10 years now, and I have always found the Zeiss lenses to be more than adequate for me. As for the comment about corner sharpness re: Zeiss and Canon, go to photodo and look at the MTF curves for the Canon 70-200/2.8L and Zeiss/Contax 80-200/4.0. One looks like a waterfall (dropping off tremendously at the edges), while the other looks like a slow-flowing brook. Good luck and don’t believe the lies (including mine, of course), Bernard
Response:
Bernard, I went to Photodo to look at those tests. What I saw was that the Canon fell off, the waterfall effect, at f/2.8. At f/8 it looked pretty good. The Contax was unable to reach an aperture of f/2.8. Maybe it was defective. Or maybe it was only supposed to reach f/4 at maximum. So I looked at the rated MTF figures for these lenses at f/4. 80mm The Canon was given an overall rating of 4.1. The Contax was given a 3.8. Marc – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Notes: Everybody has a bias, and here is mine: I have been a Contax user for about 10 years now, and I have always found the Zeiss lenses to be more than adequate for me. As for the comment about corner sharpness re: Zeiss and Canon, go to photodo and look at the MTF curves for the Canon 70-200/2.8L and Zeiss/Contax 80-200/4.0. One looks like a waterfall (dropping off tremendously at the edges), while the other looks like a slow-flowing brook. Good luck and don’t believe the lies (including mine, of course), Bernard
Response:
What if there are ten companies that make "best" lenses, are you gonna buy from them all?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – i’m looking for a new 35mm system. i’ve mainly been shooting 4×5 and would like the best quality lenses & care less about the body. who makes the best? contax has been suggested to me. is this a good choice?
Response:
i’m looking for a new 35mm system. i’ve mainly been shooting 4×5 and would like the best quality lenses & care less about the body. who makes the best? contax has been suggested to me. is this a good choice?
You have asked the type of question that starts long pointless threads where people will simply tell you that whatever they have spent their money on is "the best". I will try to help you out a little without offending too many people. First of all, all of the major camera makers (Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Contax, Leica, Olympus) try to have a least a few "world-class" lenses in their systems. The problem is often finding out which ones those lenses are. You can often go by price (the most expensive lenses in any system are bound to be very good), but that doesn’t help you out much if you are not looking for premium-type lenses. For instance, if you want a 28/2.8 (which every system should offer), it doesn’t help you to know that Canon offers a very expensive 17-35mm "L" zoom. It may help you too have a look at a sight such as http://www.photodo.com , where many lenses are tested, to get an idea for how the various brands stack up. Here is a brief overview: Canon: Very good for photojournalist-type stuff. They have some of the best fast zooms and some very fast primes, usually identified with an "L". Their consumer stuff is nothing special (good but not great). Have a reputation for being much sharper in the centre than the corners. Autofocus only. Nikon: Similar lineup to Canon’s. They have a manual focus line as well as autofocus. The manual focus are generally the professional-oriented lenses (workhorses), which means that any lens that is available in manual focus should also be good in autofocus. They do sell some unexceptional low-end zooms, but most of their lenses are good. Auto and manual focus. Minolta/Pentax: both of these brands are less popular in North America and Europe at this time, as far as the high-end stuff is concerned. Again, avoid the low-end zooms and you can do alright. Minolta: autofocus. Pentax: auto and manual. Contax: Zeiss-made lenses. They don’t have any low-end lenses in their lineup, so you can’t go too far wrong. Have a reputation with being very expensive, but if you stick with the more common lenses, they are comparable with the other brands (the 28, 35, 50, 85, and 135 are all reasonable). The zooms are exceptional, but you do pay the price. The possible exception to this would be the new 28-70 which is cheaper (not cheap), but may not be outstanding. Are known for good sharpness/contrast corner to corner. Limited availability of "exotic" lenses ( 300mm, wide zoom, etc). Manual focus only (except for one AF body which offers limited AF with all lenses). Leica: They try to make each of their lenses the best that can be made, and they may very well be "the best". Buying into Leica is more expensive that the other brands. Other than that, their lineup is similar to Contax. Manual focus only. Olympus: They have retreated to a more limited presence outside of Japan for 35mm slr’s. They are especially good for macro photography and some special lenses (200/2.0 for example). The people who have them love them, not not that many new people are getting into this system. Manual focus only. In order to make a decision as to which is the "best" system to get into, you will have to do at least two things: First of all look at your own needs. Do you think that you will be getting extreme lenses (very long or wide) or are you more interested in the more common range? Are you going to get zooms or primes or both? Do you want the fastest lenses, or are you going to be stopping down anyways? Do you want or need autofocus? Are you looking for optical quality or mechanical quality, or both? You may be able to rule out some of the systems that way. Second, go to stores and have a look at the lenses. Go to the used section and see how they hold up. Some things you can only know by having the product in your hands. For example, I have heard some people compare using the latest Nikon 50/1.4 AF to "going to the dentist," while other people have no problem there. Nobody can know that but you. You should also talk to other photographers and see what they think. Everybody will defend their own system, so don’t let them fool you. Look at their pictures if they tell you that they are "razor sharp". Coming from 4×5, you should have a much different idea of what is sharp than the average 35mm person. Let yor own eyes be the judge, rather than someone else’s opinion. If you can, try to rent or borrow some cameras and lenses once you have a short list. You should, at the very least, be able to take a quick roll in the store, although that may not have much relevance as to how you will be using the lenses. Notes: Everybody has a bias, and here is mine: I have been a Contax user for about 10 years now, and I have always found the Zeiss lenses to be more than adequate for me. As for the comment about corner sharpness re: Zeiss and Canon, go to photodo and look at the MTF curves for the Canon 70-200/2.8L and Zeiss/Contax 80-200/4.0. One looks like a waterfall (dropping off tremendously at the edges), while the other looks like a slow-flowing brook. Good luck and don’t believe the lies (including mine, of course), Bernard
Response:
Who makes best 35mm lenses??
sakar Makepeace Lake/Weymouth Furnace Black and White Photography
Response:
i’m looking for a new 35mm system. i’ve mainly been shooting 4×5 and would like the best quality lenses & care less about the body. who makes the best? contax has been suggested to me. is this a good choice?
No. Leica is the best. There are mystical differences between Zeiss and Leica. You may not be able to see these differences in a mere photograph, but they are there on a higher, spiritual level. Richard S.
Response:
For me its Nikkor. George……
Response:
Any package consisting of Zeiss optics is a good choice. George……
Response:
For me, nothing but glass. The plastic ones just never yield the right results.
Response:
Go to http://www.photodo.com/ and find out. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For me, nothing but glass. The plastic ones just never yield the right results.
Response:
[] Please keep in mind that from time to time, "BEST" creates wars. WRONG PAL! I think that "greatest" will create more wars than "best" hands down! Chris :-p —- "In the midst of winter, I finally learned there was within me an invincible summer." - Albert Camus [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
Response:
i’m looking for a new 35mm system. i’ve mainly been shooting 4×5 and would like the best quality lenses & care less about the body. who makes the best? contax has been suggested to me. is this a good choice?
Response:
Please keep in mind that from time to time, "BEST" creates wars. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – i’m looking for a new 35mm system. i’ve mainly been shooting 4×5 and would like the best quality lenses & care less about the body. who makes the best? contax has been suggested to me. is this a good choice?
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.