Group: Member
Post: 66 (12 liked)
Join date: February 2014
Status:
|
|
on Nov 11, 2014 17:59:02 GMT
Posted: Nov 11, 2014 17:59:02 GMT
I'm lusting after a 135mm for my Contax 139 and Yashica FX-D.
But which one?
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,036 (561 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Nov 11, 2014 20:47:34 GMT
Posted: Nov 11, 2014 20:47:34 GMT
Tricky to answer...
With Yashica lenses, I prefer the original ML to the later compact version. I find the bokeh softer and the contrast very pleasing edge to edge when working with film BUT if you were to use it on a digital sensor, the ML C will give you fewer issues with colour fringing. The DSB version is a good, sharp lens but under extremes of lighting, you may encounter both contrast and flare problems. However, for me the preferred choice will always be the Zeiss 135 2.8 Sonnar - it wins hands down and in a classic test about 25 years ago, it aced all other manufacturers' 135mm 2.8 lenses including Leica's. The Zeiss 135mm f2 is an impressive, heavy and very expensive piece of glass but at f2 it is a little soft across the frame although the bokeh is dreamy. To get the best out of it you need to shoot at around f4 and that being so, you may as well save the money and stress on the lens mount and go for the f2.8.
Truth be told, the ML Yashicas won't disappoint but the Sonnar always delivers; for what it's worth, I prefer the earlier AE version as the colour rendering is more neutral than the MM's. It also has the advantage of being a little cheaper.
|
|
|
Deleted
Group: Member
Post: 0 ( liked)
Join date: January 1970
Status:
|
|
on Nov 11, 2014 22:42:33 GMT
Posted: Nov 11, 2014 22:42:33 GMT
I'll second that, except that I would be a tad more critical regarding the 135mm Yashis, preferring the RMC Tokina to them (sold in mint condition at less than 50 euros these days). But the 2.8 Sonnar is a great lens indeed and fortunately belongs to the more affordable examples of the Zeiss range...
Michael
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 16 (0 liked)
Join date: November 2014
Status:
|
|
on Nov 12, 2014 17:27:59 GMT
Posted: Nov 12, 2014 17:27:59 GMT
I've bought a 135 ML "c" version just a week ago. I knew that it is considered not the best 135mm ever in C/Y Mount, but I paid only 20 euros (less than 25 dollars) for it and as it was in really mint condition I decided that it was worth. I've already shot some photos with it, using colour and B&W films with my FX-3 super 2000 and my 109 Multiprogram, and I hope I will be able to give my impressions in the coming days.
I'm quite sure that any Sonnar is better, but performances can vary a lot form piece to piece, and if I got the lucky one of the 135 ML "c" series?
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,036 (561 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Nov 12, 2014 23:58:04 GMT
Posted: Nov 12, 2014 23:58:04 GMT
I've bought a 135 ML "c" version just a week ago. I knew that it is considered not the best 135mm ever in C/Y Mount, but I paid only 20 euros (less than 25 dollars) for it and as it was in really mint condition I decided that it was worth. I've already shot some photos with it, using colour and B&W films with my FX-3 super 2000 and my 109 Multiprogram, and I hope I will be able to give my impressions in the coming days. I'm quite sure that any Sonnar is better, but performances can vary a lot form piece to piece, and if I got the lucky one of the 135 ML "c" series? Welcome to the Forum and I'm delighted you are contributing to the 135mm debate. I hope you can find the time to give us your impressions of your new lens - even better if you can find the time to upload a few piccies. |
|
Group: Member
Post: 16 (0 liked)
Join date: November 2014
Status:
|
|
on Nov 13, 2014 15:08:45 GMT
Posted: Nov 13, 2014 15:08:45 GMT
Welcome to the Forum and I'm delighted you are contributing to the 135mm debate. I hope you can find the time to give us your impressions of your new lens - even better if you can find the time to upload a few piccies. Sure I will! And thanks for welcoming me. |
|
Group: Member
Post: 89 (1 liked)
Join date: January 2014
Status: https://pluspora.com/u/mburns9
|
|
on Nov 13, 2014 19:42:38 GMT
Posted: Nov 13, 2014 19:42:38 GMT
Oldrado, would you tag your Flicker photographs as part of the Yashica Forum Group? That group is one that I routinely study.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 16 (0 liked)
Join date: November 2014
Status:
|
|
on Nov 14, 2014 14:49:53 GMT
Posted: Nov 14, 2014 14:49:53 GMT
Ok. I already posted some photos to that Group. No problem.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 66 (12 liked)
Join date: February 2014
Status:
|
|
on Nov 18, 2014 8:07:24 GMT
Posted: Nov 18, 2014 8:07:24 GMT
Yashica Forum Group? I'll have a shufftie  |
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 389 (85 liked)
Join date: January 2014
Status:
|
|
on Nov 18, 2014 18:40:01 GMT
Posted: Nov 18, 2014 18:40:01 GMT
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 16 (0 liked)
Join date: November 2014
Status:
|
|
on Nov 20, 2014 15:58:36 GMT
Last Edit: Nov 20, 2014 16:07:15 GMT by oldrado
After only few shots, I must confess that the 135mm is slightly disappointing me. Frankly speaking, I think that it is absolutely not at the same level of other Yashica ML lenses in terms of performance and image quality. I'm not saying that it's a bad lens, I'm just saying that it is below the Yashica ML average quality.
At full aperture it lacks of sharpness, microcontrast and resolving power. It does far better when stopped down, particularly from f5.6, but already from f4 the improvement is noticeable. But this does not solve the problem: this kind of lens is really useful for me only if it can perform well at f2.8.... Also because I already have the 80-200mm that is an outstanding performer at f4! Ok, one could say that the 135mm is more compact and lighter to carry, but the advantage in terms of size and weight is not worth the disadvantage in terms of quality, IMHO. And with the 80-200mm you have at your disposal a wider range of focal lenghts!
A good example of what I mean is the photo here below (with a 100% crop):
 
As you can see, the image is quite "flat", without microcontrast and a poor sharpness. Moreover,a strong CA is evident along the edges (see the crop).
Nevertheless, I succeded in getting some better photos, as the example below:
(Note: shots made with a Yashica 109 MP on a Fujifilm Superia 200 color negative film)
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 16 (0 liked)
Join date: November 2014
Status:
|
|
on Nov 22, 2014 17:21:40 GMT
Posted: Nov 22, 2014 17:21:40 GMT
Ok, I'm a little bit confused, now. I developed some B&W photos taken with the ML c 135mm f2.8 and... they are amazing! In B&W this lens is capable to get wonderful results.
Probably the poor results of the first shots were due also to the film (Fuji Superia 200), that is a very good negative film, but has a tendence to enfasize purple fringing. But this is just a hypothesis
I do not know what the matter was... but I do know that with the kodak Ektar and with the Kodak T-max 100 I got some beautiful pictures in terms of sharpness, contrast, tridimensionality and bokeh. I will show some of them in the next post: judge by yourself.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 16 (0 liked)
Join date: November 2014
Status:
|
|
on Nov 22, 2014 17:23:08 GMT
Posted: Nov 22, 2014 17:23:08 GMT
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,010 (77 liked)
Join date: January 2014
Status:
|
|
on Nov 27, 2014 2:27:42 GMT
Posted: Nov 27, 2014 2:27:42 GMT
Yes, those B&W shots are really nice, Oldrado. I'm not a big fan of Fuji color film. Too saturated in the greens, sometimes looks washed out, doesn't seem to have much latitude, etc., etc., etc. I've not used their B&W stuff, but like what I see of it. I know in former times, lenses were reformulated to work better with color film when it became more popular, and I have some old folders that definitely do B&W better than color. But that shouldn't be the case here, as your lens is of a modern design. I think it's just the Fuji film.
PF
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 16 (0 liked)
Join date: November 2014
Status:
|
|
on Nov 27, 2014 6:08:35 GMT
Posted: Nov 27, 2014 6:08:35 GMT
Yes Ridge, it could be a matter of film indeed. The shots I did with the Kodak Ektar show much less CA, though they remain quite soft at full aperture.
Just yesterday I've found a RMC Tokina 135mm f2.8 on sale for peanuts... I think I'm going to enlarge my collection...
|
|
