Group: Moderator
Post: 2,040 (563 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Mar 12, 2015 2:29:27 GMT
Posted: Mar 12, 2015 2:29:27 GMT
Thanks, Graham, for your good work--and your readiness to consider a rating system. I guess it would really be helpful to have some clues as to which lenses are worth being on the lookout for (oh, god, now that sounds really awkward, doesn't it... ). Michael Hello Michael,
Your kind comment is much appreciated. I have started checking out existing sites which offer user ratings for different lenses as they could provide a good, independent starting point. The ML lenses only have 1 turkey by common consent and that is the 28-210 (not made at the Tomioka facility). I think the difficulty may come in the form of different experiences from people with their lenses as even within a production batch, there can be slight variations. I have read negative comments from users about some of the stars in the Yashica firmament such as the DS-M Tomioka 55 1.2, ML 24mm, ML 500 f8 and ML 100-300 among others - as you know, these are all superb lenses so sifting through negative comments to try and get to the truth will be a long task. But I think it will be worth trying and we have some very helpful contributors on this Forum who will, I'm confident, give us their honest opinions.
It would be great to be able to offer a rating system that is dynamic, that is to say, capable of changing according to the number of inputs (as with photodo.com) but that would be a very complex task and beyond my computing/programming skills. Probably, our best option is initially to offer a 0-5 star rating which is an overall assessment; we can invite those who wish to rate the lenses to send us their rating along with brief comments on build quality, optical quality and handling characteristics. Those data can then form the basis of a more comprehensive rating system that we might consider in the future if sufficient interest is shown. I'm happy to help with all this and perhaps we can even offer a price guide - this would certainly make our Forum the 'go to' place for those thinking about buying a Yashica lens.
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,040 (563 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Aug 8, 2015 19:36:13 GMT
Last Edit: Aug 8, 2015 19:37:53 GMT by biggles3
Hello Folks, I have just amended the main list as I had made an error concerning the ML 28mm f2.8 in which I originally stated that there are 2 versions but with identical optical formulae. This was wrong as the first version with the early A120**** serial numbers had a 8/7 configuration and the later one had a 7/6 formula; strangely, the overall size and weight is shown in catalogues as being identical. Please accept my apologies for my previous inaccuracy.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 154 (15 liked)
Join date: June 2015
Status:
|
|
on Aug 8, 2015 20:01:46 GMT
Posted: Aug 8, 2015 20:01:46 GMT
I think there is also missing one word, Macro mention on the 70-210 4,5 not the 4,5-5,6
Yashica ML 70-210mm f4 Yashica ML 70-210mm f4.5 Yashica ML 70-210mm f4.5-5.6 Macro
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 35 (3 liked)
Join date: April 2015
Status:
|
|
on Aug 8, 2015 20:04:39 GMT
Posted: Aug 8, 2015 20:04:39 GMT
Thank you for this interesting update on this lens wich i think we all treasure.
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,040 (563 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Aug 8, 2015 20:09:28 GMT
Posted: Aug 8, 2015 20:09:28 GMT
Hello Folks, I have just amended the main list as I had made an error concerning the ML 28mm f2.8 in which I originally stated that there are 2 versions but with identical optical formulae. This was wrong as the first version with the early A120**** serial numbers had a 8/7 configuration and the later one had a 7/6 formula; strangely, the overall size and weight is shown in catalogues as being identical. Please accept my apologies for my previous inaccuracy. By way of illustration, the following image shows the two types - it is noteworthy that the early version (right) has the distinctive look of the DSB range but the ML coating is very apparent.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 154 (15 liked)
Join date: June 2015
Status:
|
|
on Aug 8, 2015 20:36:54 GMT
Posted: Aug 8, 2015 20:36:54 GMT
At 28 mm, curiously there is a 3th version, starting with A120, is not looking like the A120 (dsb like) but has 8 numebrs on the SN. Sorry, the numismatic was a small passion in the past and i pay attention to numbers. Just spotted one with A+ 8 numbers on it A12039726 Photo source Ebay
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,040 (563 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Aug 8, 2015 21:06:03 GMT
Posted: Aug 8, 2015 21:06:03 GMT
Hi dragos,
You're quite right about the haywire numbering conventions employed by Yashica/Kyocera. For example, in C/Y mount, I have several 50 f2 DX (ML coated) that have 8 digits starting A90... along with a number of 50 f2 ML lenses, but there are also 50 f2 MLs that have 7 digits starting A91... It seems consistency was not a Yashica priority...
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 154 (15 liked)
Join date: June 2015
Status:
|
|
on Oct 30, 2015 9:33:18 GMT
Posted: Oct 30, 2015 9:33:18 GMT
I have a question:
in the list apear 2 70-210 4.5 Yashica ML 70-210mm f4.5 Yashica ML 70-210mm f4.5-5.6 Macro
There is a non macro version also?
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,040 (563 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Oct 30, 2015 11:25:36 GMT
Posted: Oct 30, 2015 11:25:36 GMT
Hi there,
Yes - this is the little beauty; not a patch on the f4 version but a pretty good performer in its own right....
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 154 (15 liked)
Join date: June 2015
Status:
|
|
on Oct 30, 2015 14:44:10 GMT
Posted: Oct 30, 2015 14:44:10 GMT
now i must look or it Wil be more difficuld to get than the f4 one
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,040 (563 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Oct 31, 2015 12:43:38 GMT
Posted: Oct 31, 2015 12:43:38 GMT
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 154 (15 liked)
Join date: June 2015
Status:
|
|
on Oct 31, 2015 13:23:21 GMT
Last Edit: Oct 31, 2015 13:32:28 GMT by dragos
Unfortunate is the macro version that one, look at the 4th and 7th pic, there the MACRO word is visible.
So, i have the same lens, mine is A85, the one in sale is A65, but is the same.
As in the draft list are mentioned 2 lens:
**Yashica ML 70-210mm f4.5** **Yashica ML 70-210mm f4.5-5.6 Macro**
my question is, there is a version without Macro or one of them just has the macro word on the front?
Can you please clarify what are exactly the differences of those 2 lens? (visually)
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,040 (563 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Oct 31, 2015 20:00:04 GMT
Posted: Oct 31, 2015 20:00:04 GMT
Unfortunate is the macro version that one, look at the 4th and 7th pic, there the MACRO word is visible. So, i have the same lens, mine is A85, the one in sale is A65, but is the same. As in the draft list are mentioned 2 lens: **Yashica ML 70-210mm f4.5** **Yashica ML 70-210mm f4.5-5.6 Macro** my question is, there is a version without Macro or one of them just has the macro word on the front? Can you please clarify what are exactly the differences of those 2 lens? (visually) Hi - you've seen the image of the 70-210 f4.5 and I've attached a low res image I've found on the internet of the 70-210 f4.5-5.6 Macro (I have no attribution for it); as you can see, they are very different beasts. Only the 70-210 f4 offers no macro; it would seem that the macro function of the variable aperture lens is a significant part of its design (and marketing) while the f4.5 version offers a 'limited macro capability' but it is not at the core of the lens' design.
Their optical geometry is radically different too by the look of their respective distance scales. I hope that helps to clarify the situation.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 154 (15 liked)
Join date: June 2015
Status:
|
|
on Oct 31, 2015 20:10:18 GMT
Posted: Oct 31, 2015 20:10:18 GMT
Thanks for clarifications. So now i must add this one on my search list
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 44 (1 liked)
Join date: April 2015
Status:
|
|
on Oct 31, 2015 23:04:22 GMT
Posted: Oct 31, 2015 23:04:22 GMT
What general criteria should be considered to assign ratings to lenses?
|
|