Which lenses are better quality, Nikon, Canon, Leica, ect?
I just bought a Canon EOS 5D Mark II and now I need a few lenses, but I really, really, really need a macro lens. I posted a Question a few days ago asking if there are any off brand lenses that are not really expensive, but are still great. The answers to that question have made me realize that when you pay for superior quality lenses, you get superior quality photos
Now, I want to know if there's really a superior lens maker, or if it is just plain best to use the same brand lenses as your camera.
Added (1). Kerrok, i just wanna say that i'm not skimping on the quality, in fact, the point of asking this question was to see if i could get better quality lenses from another lens maker like nikon, or leica
Added (2). Kerrok, i just wanna say that i'm not skimping on the quality, in fact, the point of asking this question was to see if i could get better quality lenses from another lens maker like nikon, or leica
All three of these brands have some excellent lenses. Nikon and canon also make some cheaper lenses.
Since you already have a Canon DSLR body, you should be looking at Canon series of lenses. You probably can get some Leica lenses but you will need an adaptor and looses out on the AF and TTL metering.
The Canon EF 100mm IS f/2.8 L Macro is quite well reviewed. The hybrid IS works well for Macro because it compensates for both angular and shift movement - something that affects macro photography.
If you are into serious macro photography, then a dedicated lens is the way to go. A lower cost alternative will be extension tubes and add on lenses. These lowers the maximum aperture and introduce some distortion. At the end of the day it is a balance between cost and quality.
You had to mention Leica. No brand will get close to that.
Since you already have a Canon, the best lens for you, really, truly, madly, deeply, is one from Canon. Thrid-party lenses are lower in quality compared to the brand of your camera. Just stick to your brand and you'll get the highest quality you are looking for.
If you were able to afford such a camera, you shouldn't be skimping with the lens. The lens is more important than the body. Get the highest quality lens you can put to that exceptional body of yours (the camera, not you).
All, none.
I use Leitz lenses on my Leica
I use Nikkor lenses on my Nikon's
I use Canon lenses on my Canon's
They are what they are and which camera I use has more to do with the assignment and which lenses I have I can use for them
I also use Schneider lenses on my 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras
One of my colleagues bought a 50 mm f/1.4 Carl Zeiss lens for his Nikon D3X. I have not seen any comparison shots between it and his 50 mm f/1.4 Nikkor
Canon has best quality. You can visit the following sites and read the technical details of them.
Since you own a Canon camera use Canon lenses. The Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS USM will give you a better working distance from your subject and when used properly will give you razor-sharp images.
Well, since you bought a Canon DSLR, only Canon EF lenses will work on it without an adapter. You can probably use leica and Nikon lenses with an adapter, but you lose autofocus (in case with the nikon; leica is always manual) and possibly metering as well. In my opinion, Canon makes perfectly decent optics to begin with. No real advantage in dealing with the hassle of putting another brands lens on your camera.
The best macro lens for your camera right now is the Canon 100mm f/2.8L.
The answer to your question is this: some lenses are better than others regardless of brand. Read the reviews on the lenses online and you will find out. Some Canon lenses are better than some Nikon lenses and vice-versa. There are great lenses made by different manufacturers. Your best bet is to read up on the reviews of these lenses because some are junk and some are great. Read the reviews - its your best guide as to what to get and what to avoid.