Group: Member
Post: 5 (0 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jul 11, 2016 10:04:10 GMT
Last Edit: Jul 11, 2016 10:07:48 GMT by hgp
I have the excellent Yashica ML 50mm f1.7 (new version, similar to Zeiss design) and have now bought a Yashica ML 28mm f2.8 based on forum opinions. I have read that there are several versions of the Y28 (at least four!), and the newest are the best quality lenses (different optical design: old versions have eight elements in seven groups, and new versions 7 elements in 6 groups). It seems that the serial number has something to be checked in order to know which version is. The serial number of my Y28mm is A1255303, but I do not know if this is the best new versions. $_3$_3 (2)$_3 (1)I have tested this lens attached to a Sony mirrorless APS-C A6000 camera with 'dumb adapter' and also with a focal reducer (Zhongy Lens Turbo II). I has excellent sharpness, microcontrast and color rendering in the center, but it loses quickly sharpness in image borders (with both focal adapter) even at f8 or f11. Is this the typical optical rendering of the Yashica 28mm f2.8? It is not very usable for landscape photography. 2 examples: f4 / f5.6 close focusLandscape (f8) landscapeLeft border (detail) LANDSCAPE LEFT BORDER DETAILCenter (detail) LANDSCAPE CENTER DETAILJPGRight border (detail) RIGHT BORDER DETAIL
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,010 (77 liked)
Join date: January 2014
Status:
|
|
on Jul 12, 2016 0:01:46 GMT
Last Edit: Jul 12, 2016 0:09:10 GMT by ridgeblue99
Welcome to the forum, hgp. I happened to have recently gotten one of those lenses myself, a bit older in the production run than yours is (A1205930), though it is an exact duplicate of the exterior design. Did you look at biggle's database (a sticky in this section) to see if the number runs are listed? Hard to tell if your edge problems are related to sensor design, or lens design unless one can see examples on film. Not all legacy lenses will work well on digital, mainly due to the way the cameras sense the light. This is even a problem with certain Leica lenses and digital cameras. But is it ever good in the center. Just keep that in mind when you are framing your shots. And by the description on your Flickr page, are you saying you paid three dollars? Not much to complain about there. PF ps: Just had a peek at the Draft Lens List, and your lens is of the 7/6 variety, whereas mine is of the 8/7 type.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 5 (0 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jul 12, 2016 22:27:36 GMT
Posted: Jul 12, 2016 22:27:36 GMT
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,033 (561 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Jul 13, 2016 18:58:56 GMT
Posted: Jul 13, 2016 18:58:56 GMT
The ML 28mm is more prone to softness at the edge than the ML 35mm but it is justifiably highly-regarded for its centre definition, especially by users of cropped sensor digital cameras.
The earliest 8/7 version (A1200... to about A1201990) was based on the DSB but with the ML coating and, perhaps surprisingly, a good one is the sharpest of them all. Those numbered A125**** onwards used the 7/6 formula which should have been an improvement, especially for handling chroma problems. Unfortunately, it can be a bit of a lottery as part of the production was handed to Cosina and I can't advise you as to which numbers to look for as they were not outsourced in sequence.
I have a A129*** which is the sharpest edge-to-edge of all my 28s, followed by the very early A1201*** but the quality of my lenses between A1202*** and A1275*** is all over the place.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 5 (0 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jul 14, 2016 6:07:51 GMT
Posted: Jul 14, 2016 6:07:51 GMT
Thanks for your detailed information. Do think that the newest version (serial A129XXX) is the best regarding border sharpness or is it better to get the old one to be sure (serial A120XXX) that it was not made by Cosina?
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 5 (0 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jul 14, 2016 9:13:42 GMT
Posted: Jul 14, 2016 9:13:42 GMT
Just followed your advice and purchased a second Yashica 28mm. The serial number is A1291242 Y28mmAnd the rear element is slightly different than my A125... version, with the KJO letters stamped in the rear ring (Kyocera??): Y28mmI cross my fingers and hope that this version has sharp edges as yours, and not manufactured by Cosina!!!
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,033 (561 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Jul 14, 2016 21:12:57 GMT
Posted: Jul 14, 2016 21:12:57 GMT
Hi hgp,
Please let us know how you get on with your latest purchase.
One problem with trying to give a prognosis on lens performance in Yashica's later production years is that there were obvious issues with maintaining production quality; lenses from the same production batches could show tiny variations in the seating of elements - a problem that became worse when they moved from metal to ETPs to save costs and weight - and this bedevilled several ML lenses as well as the MC lenses except, strangely, the 28-80mm. I can't comment on the MC 28mm f2.8 Macro lens as I've only seen the prototype online but it looks like a Cosina clone. Probably the only lens that definitely got better towards its final production run was the rather rare ML 500 f8 Reflex.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 11 (2 liked)
Join date: January 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jan 14, 2017 10:36:56 GMT
Posted: Jan 14, 2017 10:36:56 GMT
I have received today a copy of this lens, an A126xxxx. It´s incredibly sharp at f2.8 in the center, and sharper at f2.8 in the whole frame in my A7 than my Fuji 18-55 at f2.8. But from f4 onwards, the Fuji is sharper (just from out the center, in the center is still better the Yashica, I guess due to the mpx count of the A7) to the corners, while the Yashica is getting sharper just bit by bit up to f16, but even at f16 isn't as sharp as the fuji zoom at f8 (which is it's best aperture at 18mm). Here's a test with my copy of the Yashica at f11 Yashica ML 28mm f2.8 @f11 by Juanma Herrera, en Flickr Do I have a bad copy? According to the serial number it's supposed to be the latter and better formula, right? Is it the normal behavior of the lens? Getting sharper just bit by bit until the end? Is it because of the issue of A7 with wide angle lenses? Thank you! Edit: Woah! Still testing the lens, I realize when not at infinity, the lens behave much much better along the whole frame even at 2.8!
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,033 (561 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Jan 14, 2017 23:01:17 GMT
Posted: Jan 14, 2017 23:01:17 GMT
Hi - towards the end of Yashica's time under Kyocera, lens production was mostly outsourced and this led to some inconsistencies in quality but I don't think your lens has a problem. From your last comment, it seems very likely that the problem of the slight defocus at infinity lies with your adapter.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 435 (15 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jan 15, 2017 16:37:34 GMT
Posted: Jan 15, 2017 16:37:34 GMT
I'd recommand K&F Concept Adapters only - they're cheap, well being made (all metal!) and as good as the german brand Novoflex and others, whileas not costing an Arm & a Leg like Novoflex.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 11 (2 liked)
Join date: January 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jan 16, 2017 8:58:52 GMT
Posted: Jan 16, 2017 8:58:52 GMT
Actually I'm using a Canon eos to nex adapter and a yashica to Canon eos, so 2 adapters in a row for the lens, but I don't have any problem with my planar 50 1.4 which I'm using a lot in the a7. Maybe the thing is that the lens doesn't reach infinity properly. In my fuji every adapted lens focus past infinity and with this adapter I find it too tight.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 2 (0 liked)
Join date: September 2018
Status:
|
|
on Sept 16, 2018 23:56:18 GMT
Posted: Sept 16, 2018 23:56:18 GMT
The ML 28mm is more prone to softness at the edge than the ML 35mm but it is justifiably highly-regarded for its centre definition, especially by users of cropped sensor digital cameras. The earliest 8/7 version (A1200... to about A1201990) was based on the DSB but with the ML coating and, perhaps surprisingly, a good one is the sharpest of them all. Those numbered A125**** onwards used the 7/6 formula which should have been an improvement, especially for handling chroma problems. Unfortunately, it can be a bit of a lottery as part of the production was handed to Cosina and I can't advise you as to which numbers to look for as they were not outsourced in sequence. I have a A129*** which is the sharpest edge-to-edge of all my 28s, followed by the very early A1201*** but the quality of my lenses between A1202*** and A1275*** is all over the place. Hi there! I'm trying to revive this old post 'cause I started to look into Yashica lenses (I have the 24/2.8, the 28/2.8 and the 50/1.7) and I'm looking for information about the ML 28. My copy's SN is 12051951... is this a first or a second version? I don't really get it, since this SN has one more digit that those you talked about. I'm very impressed with the quality of this lens and so, if that's a first version, I'd really like to find and test a later one. I'm also curious to find out why some of Yashica's ML lenses have three screws in the bayonet and some others have four (like mine) and what's the meaning of the three letters on the bayonet of the four screws versions of the 28 (I saw KJO, PDO, NJU and a couple more).
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,369 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Sept 21, 2018 17:30:10 GMT
Last Edit: Sept 21, 2018 17:31:54 GMT by lumiworx
lucio ... On the different version qualities... You'll probably find that biggles3's comment about them being "all over the place" to be the most telling, for real world quality of mass-produced lenses in the most common focal lengths for most Japanese makers at the end of the 80's. Yashica - like every other brand using an assembly line approach - ended up with a fair amount of IQ variations within each design they produced. They didn't machine, fit, and hand-assemble each lens like Leitz or Alpa does/did, so there wasn't any real consistency in the results because a technician tweaked each lens to be within spec. Some designs seem to be more consistent overall, just because of the engineering that went into them... but the ML 28 wasn't one of them from what I've seen. I have 4 different versions of the 28mm. An early ML in DSB trim, 2 early ML trimmed versions, and a later ML after the serials were changed. They are 'all over the place' in terms of IQ. None of them are what I'd call a 'superior' lens, but then I'm extremely critical when it comes to optics and these are just my personal experiences talking. You're likely to only be satisfied when you've found a good performer when it's the one that landed in your hand. Otherwise it's probably going to be a crap shoot if you try to target which version is going to be a winner from all the available versions. If what you're really after is a wow factor, you might be better off with one of the ML 24mm's, or better yet, a Zeiss C/Y Distagon 28mm (the f/2.8, or the real stunner, the f/2 Hollywood) assuming that a 28mm focal length is your preferred target. Not cheap for either the Zeiss, or the ML 24 even, but they're all are definitely superior. As for mount screws and lettered stamps... The 3 letters are the inked QC stamps applied by the final line inspectors - and using, I'd presume, their westernized initials. I doubt there's anything useful in knowing who's who. The screws are dependent on the lens design. Heavier lenses may require more attachment points, or when there are more offset internal parts or baffles that need securing they might get more and/or larger screws. There are some lenses that have a secondary assembly inside or need some secondary/longer screws, and there might be 2 concentric rings of screws needed. My 28-50mm 2-ring zoom is like that, with 4 small ones in one set, and 4 larger in the other set that are offset in distance by about 7mm. The images I've seen for the rarer 35-70mm fixed aperture versions have another ring too, as I recall.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 2 (0 liked)
Join date: September 2018
Status:
|
|
on Sept 21, 2018 22:57:09 GMT
Posted: Sept 21, 2018 22:57:09 GMT
Thank you very much, lumiworx!
I'm not looking for the "wow" factor, I'm just curious to test side by side two good copies of the 28 with two different optical scheme, to see how they differ from each other... but, from what I've read so far, it seems like finding two "good copies" may be an Odissey and I'm not even sure if mine is a I or II version. Therefore, I think I'll just enjoy the copy I have! During the last week I had the chance to carefully test it and it's definetely a good lens. I actually like it much more than the 24, which has a better flare resistance, but also a bluish color rendition and lower sharpness. My copy, at least...
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 435 (15 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Nov 4, 2018 13:47:40 GMT
Last Edit: Nov 4, 2018 13:49:05 GMT by lenslover
Differences between the various 28/2.8 ML's is negligible. It is mostly only dependent, how good the Lens condition is. That means, if it was being "pampered" or being abused. And for second, Sample Variation here comes into play. No Lens back then was 100% like the next one, or the others, so it is even nowadays, whileas factory specs are usually higher, than some 40 years ago - because of tighter material tolerances, computer-based tests, etc.
|
|