Deleted
Group: Member
Post: 0 ( liked)
Join date: January 1970
Status:
|
|
on Nov 12, 2015 22:14:58 GMT
Last Edit: Nov 12, 2015 22:18:04 GMT by Deleted
Folks,
according to some German sources, the 1.7 version of this lens is sharper and less prone to flare than the 1.4/50. The latter seems logical, but can anyone corroborate the sharpness issue? I must confess that, owning the respective Zeiss versions, I was never really interested in 50mm ML lenses. However, I begin to suspect that was a mistake...
Edit: I do know and appreciate the ML 2.0/50, however, which Greyscale/Mike Novak turned my attention to. It is a great, and grossly underrated, lens in its own right.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 23 (4 liked)
Join date: April 2015
Status: Yashica ML Collector
|
|
on Nov 13, 2015 5:56:40 GMT
Posted: Nov 13, 2015 5:56:40 GMT
Sounds like we should do a test ... I have a ML 1.4/50, two ML 1.7/50 and a CZ Planar 1.4/50. I'll see if I have time for a comparison this weekend. Btw, my two ML 1.7/50 seem to have different coatings. One has purple reflections (A2018.... serial number), the other green (A2004....)
|
|
Deleted
Group: Member
Post: 0 ( liked)
Join date: January 1970
Status:
|
|
on Nov 13, 2015 16:48:28 GMT
Posted: Nov 13, 2015 16:48:28 GMT
Sounds like we should do a test ... I have a ML 1.4/50, two ML 1.7/50 and a CZ Planar 1.4/50. I'll see if I have time for a comparison this weekend. Wow, that would be great, of course!
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 23 (4 liked)
Join date: April 2015
Status: Yashica ML Collector
|
|
on Nov 14, 2015 15:23:50 GMT
Last Edit: Nov 14, 2015 15:24:36 GMT by paguru
Ok, here we go ... I compared the Zeiss Planar 1.4/50, Yashica ML 1.4/50 and Yashica ML 1.7/50 (two different copies) at infinity. The test subject was the view out of the kitchen window, shot with the Sony A7 (24 Mpix, full frame) on a tripod, ISO 100, 2 sec shutter delay. All images are developed from RAW with the same setings. Center
Left edge
Right edge
Conclusions
- The ML 1.4/50 and the Planar 1.4/50 are very close. Overall, the Planar is a little sharper and has a little more contrast than the ML.
- Among the Yashicas, the ML 1.4/50 is better than the ML 1.7/50s. Not so much in the center, but clearly in the corners.
- Both ML 1.7/50 are decentered, their sharpness varies a lot from edge to edge. Could that be because of less rigid quality control? I fear that any such test with old lenses is influenced heavily by copy variations and might reveal less about the lens design than we hope.
|
|
Deleted
Group: Member
Post: 0 ( liked)
Join date: January 1970
Status:
|
|
on Nov 14, 2015 16:12:32 GMT
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2015 11:02:34 GMT by Deleted
Thank you very much indeed, Paguru, for this fine piece of research! Quite so, I'm afraid. The considerable if inconsistent differences in image quality between your two versions of the ML 1.7/50 can by no means be accounted for by things like different coating formulas. This is clearly a matter of build quality. Anyhow ... thanks again! After those somewhat sobering insights it is good to know at least that I should not feel the immediate urge to invest in 1.7/50mm ML primes. The ML 1.4/50 seems to be more than just a backup for the Planar though. Michael
|
|
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 Nov 14, 2015 19:22:47 GMT
Last Edit: Nov 14, 2015 19:31:02 GMT by biggles3
Outstanding work paguru; thank you very much.
I had not spotted such disparities between the ML 1.7 lenses; I have 7 of these lenses ranging from an early, silver nosed one A20000*** to a much later one A2031**** I can see that I need to check them all against each other - I would expect the earlier numbered versions to have the better build quality as they come from the Tomioka-Yashica production era.
I'll try using the Yashica Copy Stand II and simply photograph the grid pattern on its base, though focusing accurately may be difficult.
While I'm doing this, I might as well check out the CZ 50 1.7 against the ML 50 1.7 (earlier number), CZ 50 1.4 and the ML 50 1.4 and finally for fun, the CZ 55 1.2 and ML 55 1.2 at f1.4. The grid pattern should highlight distortion problems, especially as the images will be taken fairly close to the minimum focus distance of these lenses at a maximum height of around 2ft 2inches (0.66m). I get criticised regularly for buying the 1.2 Planar, so I could be deeply embarrassed if it does not outshine the others by a considerable margin!
I'll report back next week.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 23 (4 liked)
Join date: April 2015
Status: Yashica ML Collector
|
|
on Nov 14, 2015 22:23:51 GMT
Posted: Nov 14, 2015 22:23:51 GMT
Thank you for your feedback, gentlegiant and biggles3! I'm looking forward to seeing your results. Btw, when comparing the images, you might find my little program dpqBench helpful. I just found a third 1.7/50 in my drawer and I might do some more tests as well. The performance at closer distances might be different. After all, the above samples are just tiny crops from a 24 Mpix image, and I have not yet tested flares or bokeh at all.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 23 (4 liked)
Join date: April 2015
Status: Yashica ML Collector
|
|
on Nov 15, 2015 16:45:50 GMT
Posted: Nov 15, 2015 16:45:50 GMT
Guess what, I found two more ML 1.7/50, one with A2002 serial number (still the old version with the silver nose), the other A2005. So I did some more tests and also threw in an ML 2/50. Test view: Center: right edge: Conclusions: - The ML 1.4/50 is still the winner for me
- The older ML 1.7/50 (A2002) is clearly better than the newer one and comes very close to the ML 1.4/50 in terms of sharpness. I had no big expectations for the A2005, that one came from my "spares" box (battered, some fungus, missing name ring)
- The ML 2/50 (new plastic design) does a very good job
|
|
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 Nov 15, 2015 21:20:47 GMT
Posted: Nov 15, 2015 21:20:47 GMT
Very interesting...
I agree with your assessment although to me, the lens that is most surprising is the 50mm f2 - it remains the least favourite with non-Yashica users but is without doubt one of the best overall performers and outshines all the others at f8.
Now that you have done this excellent work, I'm going to run a comparison between the C/Y DX 50 f2 and the more common ML version as shown above; I expect them to be identical...but we'll see.
|
|
Deleted
Group: Member
Post: 0 ( liked)
Join date: January 1970
Status:
|
|
on Nov 15, 2015 23:35:33 GMT
Posted: Nov 15, 2015 23:35:33 GMT
Thanks again, Paguru, for still more helpful insights! The ML 2/50 (new plastic design) does a very good job. Well, I told you so. (And I bet, it'll do a good job too once you test those lenses for bokeh.) Michael
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 39 (0 liked)
Join date: October 2014
Status:
|
|
on Nov 16, 2015 11:34:15 GMT
Posted: Nov 16, 2015 11:34:15 GMT
Thanks paguru, very interesting test. ML 2/50 and ML 1.9/50 are comparable?
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 23 (4 liked)
Join date: April 2015
Status: Yashica ML Collector
|
|
on Nov 16, 2015 20:09:27 GMT
Posted: Nov 16, 2015 20:09:27 GMT
Thanks paguru, very interesting test. ML 2/50 and ML 1.9/50 are comparable? To my knowledge, they should be very similar. But that's what I thought about the different versions of the ML 1.7/50, too ...
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 272 (39 liked)
Join date: July 2014
Status:
|
|
on Nov 17, 2015 14:24:13 GMT
Posted: Nov 17, 2015 14:24:13 GMT
It's clear that the 1.7's lose out in this test. On the other side, maybe the magazine article which prompted this just tested a really great copy of the 50/1.7ML as sample variation can be a big deal.
I have a particular Canon prime which is regarded as a little bit of a dog by many reviews however mine just makes great images, close to the standards of much better regarded canon lenses I also own.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 285 (39 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status:
|
|
on Nov 17, 2015 19:38:18 GMT
Posted: Nov 17, 2015 19:38:18 GMT
Lucky me! Guess what I kept after my clear-out to put on my FX-3 Super 2000 ....... 50mm 1.4ML Mechanical camera and a good lens .... Magic! Thanks for your efforts paguru ... much appreciated. Bob
|
|
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 Dec 1, 2015 3:33:58 GMT
Posted: Dec 1, 2015 3:33:58 GMT
I know I promised to do a comparison between a number of standard lenses using the grid pattern on the base of the Yashica Copy Stand II as a reference and I have done this.
However paguru has made me rethink my work. As many users of Yashica/Zeiss lenses these days are using them on DSLRs and CSCs, I have used APS-C cropped sensors quite happily as they provide results that are meaningful to the many members and guests on this Forum. However, I have decided to use a full-frame DSLR instead of film or the cropped sensor to speed matters up and produce a complete rendering of the lens' image-making qualities. To that end, I sacrificed a couple of lenses and bought an old Canon EOS 1Ds MkII exclusively for lens testing; it's so unlike my Fuji XT-1 that it will take me a while to work my way through the manual and gazillions of function options.
I'll retake the shots with the ML 50 1.4 & 1.7, Planar 50 1.4 & 1.7, and ML and Planar 55 1.2 lenses - please give me a little time to set it up.
|
|