Please advise if it is correct to say that Carl Zeiss lens are better quality and sharper than Canon's with the same features (mm. and f.).

Thank you in advance. Andrei

-- Andrei Borisov (andrei_borisov@usa.net), February 10, 1999

Answers

No, it is not correct to say that.

-- Mike Dunsmore (mkdunsmore@earthlink.net), February 10, 1999.

It depends upon which lenses you are comparing. Both Zeiss and Canon make superb lenses, you won't be dissapointed with either! Of course, Canon has a consumer grade series of lenses, some of which aren't that great, but if you're comparing similar lenses then it would be tough to decide which is actually "better"...

-- Bill Meyer (william_meyer@STORTEK.COM), February 10, 1999.

Andrei, Carl Zeiss, Canon, and Nikon lenses (and some others as well, such as Mamiya, for one) are of such high quality that you really have to take them on a one-lens-at-a-time basis to make any meaningful comparisons. Blanket statements of the sort you ask about are silly and are usually uttered by those who don't know much about the subject. Remember too that there is a lot more than just sharpness to consider in judging lenses; there is also construction quality, CONTRAST (extremely important, and too often lost sight of by lovers of zoom lenses; it is virtually impossible to get contrast from a fifteen-element zoom lens comparable to what can be achieved with a much simpler six-to-eight-element prime lens), distortion, flare performance, etc. Sharpness itself is not such a simple thing to measure, varying considerably with aperture and with how near or how far from the center of the image you are measuring.

-- Dave Kemp (Kempda@worldnet.att.net), February 10, 1999.

mike D got the answer right.

-- Sean Hester (seanh@ncfweb.net), February 11, 1999.

Those Canon lenses are indeed inferior to Carl Zeiss lenses. Please send those crummy Canon EOS lenses to me and I will properly dispose of that junk! This will also make it much easier for me to decide which 35mm SLR system I will eventually buy into. :)

-- Stan McMan (Stanshooter@yahoo.com), February 11, 1999.

Who cares?

You can use all the Zeiss glass you want, but if you don't use proper technique, guess what? You wasted alot of money!

Stan and all you "Stans" out there: If you are really all that concerned with absolute perfection, why aren't you using a 8x10? 35mm is for convience of use not for absolute perfect quality.

-- colin mcvey (cmcvey@thegrid.net), February 12, 1999.

Colin, I believe Stan was just being sarcastic and humorous.

Andrei, Zeiss lenses are legendary and many people swear by them, but Canon lenses are probably just as good. Unless you are destined to photograph brick walls then it does not matter. The brand you are using is the least important factor in photography. Brands contribute to the "feel good" factor and not much else.

-- ray tai (razerx@netvigator.com), February 12, 1999.

My humour was intended to show that I believe the Canon lenses are of such high optical quality, that it really doesn't show at a practical level if the Zeiss are better. Had somebody actually taken me up on my offer my decision on which system to buy into would have been so much easier since I would already have many fine EOS lenses that getting the Canon gear would be very cheap. Unfortunately, my trick was exposed.

-- Stanley McManus (Stanshooter@yahoo.com), February 12, 1999.

Stan,

The problem is that many people actually believe equipment will make them a better photographer. My comment was aimed at them, and apparently not to you. I apolgize.

Colin

-- colin mcvey (cmcvey@thegrid.net), February 12, 1999.

I agree that such blanket comparisons cannot be made. However, if you have the resources, it might be nice to have the Contax Aria body to be able to take advantage of the Zeiss 50 f1.4 and 90; to have a Nikon body to enjoy such insanely great glass as their 105 Micro and 180; and a Canon body to be able to use the many wonderful (and unique) lenses they offer, such as the 85 f1.2, the 200 f1.8, and their well-rated and useful zooms, among others. A professional would be leery of this, because he or she needs to have immediate and intuitive grasp of their equipment at all times, but a serious amateur has the leisure to learn each system and take the best that each has to offer. Although not as popular in America, in Britain and elsewhere, certain Minolta lenses are considered the finest in the world, as Minolta (among other things) takes bokeh into account in their lens designs. And a true afficionado not only gathers the current best offerings, but also will look for historically great glass to use as well (the Rolleiflex f2.8 Zeiss Planar and the Color-Skopar and Heliar lenses on the medium-format Voigtlander Bessa cameras come immediately to mind). So, your question suggests you seek the best, and the best is to be found in many, many places. Let us know what YOU'VE found that is particularly outstanding. I'm always hungry to learn from others.

-- Mark Hubbard (hubbard@humboldt1.com), February 16, 1999.

Do you have money to buy Zeiss? Buy Canon L series and rest money send to me!

-- Vytis (vincenso@takas.lt), August 29, 2000.

Ok, for future reference:

• Mothra beats Godzilla;
• Scissors beats paper;
• Rock beats scissors;
• Michigan State shoulda beat Duke;
• Survivor beats ...Millionaire (Big Brother's too stupid to consider);
• Old Metallica beats New Metallica; and
• Nugent beats everyone.

Beyond that, the answers are all rhetorical, and don't really mean anything. Including any discussion of Leica vs Canon. Period.

-- Scott (bliorg@yahoo.com), August 29, 2000.