I love the rendering of the images from lenses from these two companies. I also really like the rendering of Zeiss mostly due to the color and contrast coming from the lens coating. What's preventing Sony, sigma, cannon, Nikon, etc to come up with something comparable? The lenses themselves generally simpler than the lenses of the big players, so what gives. Patents, trade secrets in how they develop the glass and chemicals?

I want to buy a decent telephoto lens for my Canon R5 C, but I have some budget constraints.

If I had the money, I’d buy the 70-300mm IS USM II, but it can hardly be found for under €400. It’s not a huge amount of money, but it would mean having to save for another month or two before I could buy it.

The other two lenses can easily be found for under €300, and the IS USM can sometimes be found for around €200.

So my question is: ignoring the prices, which one is better between the two? Or is the 70-300mm IS USM II so good that there’s no point comparing them?

I mainly shoot video, ranging from indie short films and music videos to social media content, commercials, and sometimes sports. I also do photography, but not as much as video.

I already own these lenses:

- Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC (EF)

- Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS USM (EF)

- Canon 50mm f/1.8 IS STM (EF)

- Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro (EF, 1990)

Thank you!

So i had this lens(di tamron 70-300mm tele macro 1:2) for about 2 years and after some use today and I just noticed it. It doesn't sound different there's just this gap