Zeiss optics got diluted a bunch when Sony started slapping that name on everything. This is new, though. Zeiss is the shit, and in real camera terms (not shit point'n'shoot iPhone cameras) they still are. Zeiss Master Primes are the absolute gold standard.

There are lots of optics that will go on lots of cameras through easy mount adapters. The question is "screw mount" or "bayonet mount." It's not as easy as all that but, for example, a Nikon F-mount lens from 1959 will screw right onto the Nikon you buy from Amazon today. Canon pissed off a lot of people by switching their mount system in the late '80s, if that tells you how far back you can go. Hasselblad glass? No problem. Field cameras? Well most of them just have a plate on the front that you can literally build something out of plywood.

As far as "character" (IE Instagram bullshit), a scratched lens will mostly give you halo. A fungal lens will be cloudy. Actual optics problems never reveal themselves as anything but negative stuff; I mean, yeah, a really fungal lens pointed at the sun will give you pretty wicked flare but most people would rather avoid flare when you're serious about it. All the Instagrammy bullshit we've come to know and love emulates what happens when the negative is abused, not the optics.

The thing to keep in mind about Edwin Land is that this shit was super secret squirrel until super recently. I mean, the NRO wasn't declassified until 1992. Like I said, the MOL was totally classified until less than a year ago. As far as books, we can narrow that one down. What really interests you? Because I grew up with this shit and I have opinions.