Which Lens mounts have the best lenses

[MooMoo]

Hi,

  I am growing tired of Canon repeatidly rebranding 4 year old technology in entry level models when competitors are now out speccing Canon by far, except on Lenses perhaps and the pro/pro-sumer models.

  So, before I get too deep in a bigger collection of EF lenses (I have two primes now that I like) I am considering switching mounts for a better system.

  So, why mounts have the best selection of good lenses especially primes, ultra wides, normal and long primes.  Pentax variations of K-mounts, Nikon mounts, Minolta mounts ( aka Sony nowdays)?

  I like Canon lenses, but I dont liek their entry level bodies anymore compared to other brands and Canon have no real ultra wide primes that are not L glass.

[ronin]

Forget what the program was specifically about but about 2-3 months back camera manufacturers came under examination I think with regards with the increase of the use of tablet and smartphone cameras. They said that the 2 that were likely to survive were Canon and Nikon.

Now if they were correct it makes sense to pick one of those manufacturers.

Concerning lens look at the Sigma and Tamron offerings.

However all good lens cost money these days.

If you intend to use for AP then Canon offer the better additional items, so it would mean dumping the DSLR and swappihg to a dedicated ccd.

[MooMoo]

Forget what the program was specifically about but about 2-3 months back camera manufacturers came under examination I think with regards with the increase of the use of tablet and smartphone cameras. They said that the 2 that were likely to survive were Canon and Nikon.

Now if they were correct it makes sense to pick one of those manufacturers.

Concerning lens look at the Sigma and Tamron offerings.

However all good lens cost money these days.

If you intend to use for AP then Canon offer the better additional items, so it would mean dumping the DSLR and swappihg to a dedicated ccd.

Yes but look at the 1100D and 1200D, it is just renumbered with a boring 18mp but same 4 year old processor and competitors have better offerings on bodies now at the lower level.  Canon is losing the entry body war on specs.

I use it more for daily use now than astro, just now and then I do some solar and some widefield.  When I get more serious about astro imaging ill get a mono camera.

I am interested in a decent body and lens for long term, not idiot tablets and smartphones. 

[MooMoo]

I think EF-S is dead in the water long term, to be replaced with EF-M and leaving EF intact for the pro/prosumer users. Canon don't want to alienate them.

Nikon, not for astro but I don't know what their lenses are like really but Nikon is used more by professionals and looking at the images I think Nikon has many advantages over Canon on sensors.

Pentax K mount and variants have been around for decades and adopted by others, Minolta / now Sony mounts.

Fuji I know nothing about except heard they got an astonishingly low noise sensor.

I really want ultra wides but Canon is lacking in that area on lenses. Sigma and Samyang has some and I never use Zooms, I detest them, unless they are L or DO glass.

EF-M has nice ultra wides.

[MooMoo]

I don't mind having multiple bodies for different purposes, but I don't want a sprawling collection of different Lens mounts.

lenses should last almost a lifetime, bodies not.

[DaveS]

Although I have two Canon bodies, most of my lenses are adapted Leica R primes.

As for the "best" lens, that would be a shoot-out between my Canon 135 f/2.0L and Leitz 180mm f/3.4 Apo-Telyte-R

[russ]

I 'm happy with Pentax, they have an amazing collection of old and vintage lenses that fit even the latest bodies without any adaption. Plus due to the in-body Shake Reduction even a 40year old 50mm prime becomes an IS lens. Plus those old lenses still hold their own against modern equivalents. The old Pentax SMC coatings are still superb. Favourite lens at the moment is my Pentax-M 50 1.4, cost £22 on Ebay and is absolutely superb. 

[DaveS]

Oh yes, talking of Pentax...

I have a very sharp 35mm f/2.0, but I don't use it much for two linked reasons.

1) The glass is now distinctly yellow, requiring re-balancing of colour.

2) It's yellow because of the Thorium content which has caused radiation damage. There's not much coming out of the front or sides, but the rear of the lens emits a fair bit of Beta radiation, and some Gamma. Pretty much all the Alpha is blocked though.

[Mr Spock]

The new Nikon D3300 features the latest processor. If you want FX then the D600 is probably the entry model.

For non Nikon ultrawides, the Samyang 14mm is as good as it gets. The Nikon 14mm f2.8 is some £900 more but is one of the best lenses made

[MooMoo]

Oh yes, talking of Pentax...

I have a very sharp 35mm f/2.0, but I don't use it much for two linked reasons.

1) The glass is now distinctly yellow, requiring re-balancing of colour.

2) It's yellow because of the Thorium content which has caused radiation damage. There's not much coming out of the front or sides, but the rear of the lens emits a fair bit of Beta radiation, and some Gamma. Pretty much all the Alpha is blocked though.

Nuclear lenses, fasinating

[MooMoo]

So.. from my short understanding of lenses, a lot of old vintiage lenses with good glass is really Pentax variant or Minolta variant mounts.

This makes sense as Pentax has been around for since forever.

[MooMoo]

One thing I notice is Pentax/Minolta mounts are smaller in diameter than EF mount lenses.

How does this affect performance?

[russ]

One thing I notice is Pentax/Minolta mounts are smaller in diameter than EF mount lenses.

How does this affect performance?

They work extremely well on a new Pentax body but no idea what they are like on a Canon or Nikon with adapter.

[MooMoo]

They work extremely well on a new Pentax body but no idea what they are like on a Canon or Nikon with adapter.

I don't mind changing bodies, as Canon is lacking in entry level specs so I won't really lose anything

[DaveS]

Thing to remember about Canon EF, it has a big throat and a short (For a DSLR) flange-focal depth, so a lot of other make's lenses will fit. The main exceptions are Canon's own (old) FD / FL and Minolta Rokkors.

If you want maximum adaptability one of the CSC bodies might be the way to go.

[Guest]

Why bother feeling the need to have the latest, work at getting the best out of what you have.  I still use a 10 year old Nikon D80 (10Mp) and it still does everything I want.  Just because another manufacturer "outspecs" your chosen manufacturer does it really mean you need to change?

[DaveS]

Nuclear lenses, fasinating

Back in the early / mid sixties (When my lens dates from) there was a lot of research into low / anomalous dispersion glasses. Someone probably had the bright idea of using thorium in glass, as it's the most common (And least radioactive) Actinide element, so by analogy with lanthanum it might (And did) have interesting / useful optical properties, the performance of my 35 f/2.0 being testament to that.

Only a few types of lenses were made, and all are now collector's items, often fetching hundreds of pounds. I was lucky, in that the dealer didn't realise how rare the lens was, so I got it for a fraction of its true value.

[MooMoo]

Why bother feeling the need to have the latest, work at getting the best out of what you have.  I still use a 10 year old Nikon D80 (10Mp) and it still does everything I want.  Just because another manufacturer "outspecs" your chosen manufacturer does it really mean you need to change?

It does when I want more from my sensors, canon fails to deliver on the entry level.

[Guest]

It does when I want more from my sensors, canon fails to deliver on the entry level.

"Fails to deliver"?  Thats why manufacturers offer more expensive options.  Maybe Nikon are ahead now (in your perspective) but for many years Canon was ahead and Nikon users felt how you do.  I have no answer for you other than be happy

[DaveS]

If you don't like their entry level bodies then buy something a bit (Or a lot) better, which is why my first real DSLR was a Canon 5D, and why I stumped up for the 24-105L zoom, and later the 135 f/2.0.

I've still got my 5D, all of 12 (Very old) megapixies, and have no real thought of upgrading.

[MooMoo]

"Fails to deliver"?  Thats why manufacturers offer more expensive options.  Maybe Nikon are ahead now (in your perspective) but for many years Canon was ahead and Nikon users felt how you do.  I have no answer for you other than be happy

Well the 1200D simply tells all. In fact the specs of the 1200D is what really got me to look at Canon objectively and seen what they where doing with regard to entry level, in fact every discussion on it I have seen is a confirmed "failed to deliver" comapred to the competition.

Not to say Canon is not good at the pro/prosumer level, they have some nice cameras there.  I am looking for better performance from my body and to ugprade and the 1200D was simply, a joke. In fact they are putting DIGIV VI in their point shoots and DIGIC IV in their DSLR entry level. well.. the mind boggles.

Ultra wide angle lenses are also driving me away from canon, or rather, the lack of them at a decent price.

[Ags]

I have an 1100D, but what I really need to upgrade is the photographer... :-)

[DaveS]

If you want an ultra-wide lens then I'm afraid you're just going to have to bite the bullet and stump up. Cheap and ultra-wide just don't go together.

[jordyvz]

Hi,

  I am growing tired of Canon repeatidly rebranding 4 year old technology in entry level models when competitors are now out speccing Canon by far, except on Lenses perhaps and the pro/pro-sumer models.

  So, before I get too deep in a bigger collection of EF lenses (I have two primes now that I like) I am considering switching mounts for a better system.

  So, why mounts have the best selection of good lenses especially primes, ultra wides, normal and long primes.  Pentax variations of K-mounts, Nikon mounts, Minolta mounts ( aka Sony nowdays)?

  I like Canon lenses, but I dont liek their entry level bodies anymore compared to other brands and Canon have no real ultra wide primes that are not L glass.

I work in a camera shop, and I find that if people want to go entry level, I recommend the Nikon D3100 over the Canon 1100D - and I am a Canon shooter.

I had the D3100 and I loved it. Ok the D3300 has the Expeed 4 over the Expeed 2 in the D3100, it's got more MP, both 11 point AF phase detection with one cross type and it is a better camera really, BUT saying that, I find a lot of my customers don't want to be paying £500-£600 for an entry level camera, and the D3100 is still lovely, especially at half the cost. I wish I still had mine now!

However, if I go above entry level to intermediate, 'pro' crop, and pro full frame, then I'm Canon all the way. I much prefer the 700D, 70D, 6D and 5D Mark III over the Nikon 'equivalents'. But I say that right now, I'm anticipating a few new camera's in the next couple of months so maybe a few things will change...

And the 1200D? It's a 550D with a new name, I am not impressed at all.

If I were you, and I wanted a good snapping camera, nothing more, go with a D3100. If you want a bit better, higher resolution, better ISO performance, better AF, etc etc, then go with the Canon 700D or even the 70D, depends on how much money you have available for this.

Hope this helps

[Alien 13]

Back in the early / mid sixties (When my lens dates from) there was a lot of research into low / anomalous dispersion glasses. Someone probably had the bright idea of using thorium in glass, as it's the most common (And least radioactive) Actinide element, so by analogy with lanthanum it might (And did) have interesting / useful optical properties, the performance of my 35 f/2.0 being testament to that.

Only a few types of lenses were made, and all are now collector's items, often fetching hundreds of pounds. I was lucky, in that the dealer didn't realise how rare the lens was, so I got it for a fraction of its true value.

I have the ASAHI (pentax) 50mm super takumar lens beautiful piece of kit as good as the day it was made £70 off ebay a few years ago, nicely radiaoactive but still my favorite video lens.

Alan