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 Jan 26, 2016 14:53:44 GMT
Posted: Jan 26, 2016 14:53:44 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. Just a quick apology for the delay in organising the test of the 50mm lenses; I need to acquire a remote release for the 1Ds MkII and this is on its way. Just the pressure of the shutter button was enough to render the images less than useful and it was not worth publishing the comparisons on our Forum. One major problem occurred with the Zeiss 55mm 1.2 Planar - the rear element fouled the Canon's mirror so I will have to shoot it with my Fuji which of course means a crop but the result will in any case be interesting when checking centre definition.
I will arrange another shoot using natural light and either a Contax ST or RTSIII (for optimum film flatness) and scan the resulting film for your interest.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 11 (2 liked)
Join date: January 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jan 27, 2016 0:41:34 GMT
Posted: Jan 27, 2016 0:41:34 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. Just a quick apology for the delay in organising the test of the 50mm lenses; I need to acquire a remote release for the 1Ds MkII and this is on its way. Just the pressure of the shutter button was enough to render the images less than useful and it was not worth publishing the comparisons on our Forum. One major problem occurred with the Zeiss 55mm 1.2 Planar - the rear element fouled the Canon's mirror so I will have to shoot it with my Fuji which of course means a crop but the result will in any case be interesting when checking centre definition.
I will arrange another shoot using natural light and either a Contax ST or RTSIII (for optimum film flatness) and scan the resulting film for your interest.
I'm looking forward to watching your test! I've just bought a Yashica ML 50 1.7 and it's wonderfull. I use it with Lens Turbo on my Fujifilm X-E1 and it's better than my SMC Takumar 50 1.4. Sharper across the frame since wide open, quite a lot of 3D pop and less field curvature (field curvature is exagerated by lens turbo and it's a pain with the Takumar). I find it also better than my Mamiya 55mm f1.4 which I use with Lens turbo too. I'm thinking about buying the ML 50 1.4 version. Would it be worth? By the comparison posted here, I think it probably would but I'm not sure. I use to shoot wide open (or near wide open) with this old primes. For small apertures I prefer my tack sharp Fujinon 18-55.
|
|
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 Jan 27, 2016 9:08:36 GMT
Posted: Jan 27, 2016 9:08:36 GMT
Hello numbertwo and welcome to our Forum!
My remote release was supposed to have arrived yesterday but I'm still waiting so the photos will have to wait a little longer...
From the images already taken, even though they were slightly blurred, the differences between the Yashica lenses were not very significant but the 1.7 at full aperture was slightly sharper edge-to-edge than the 1.4. Although I do like the ML 1.4 and often use one, it is questionable as to whether the much greater cost is worth the investment. If you own a 1.7, unless you need that extra amount of light and more shallow depth of field, you probably don't need the bigger, heavier lens - but then, as quite a few members of the Forum know, it is nice simply to have them both. The ML 1.4 on a Fuji X-E1 does make a lovely portrait lens and the contrast is slightly better than the SMC Takumar thanks to the ML coating.
It's always good to know another Fuji user - I love the X-T1 - and their lenses are quite superb. I tend to keep the 18-135 on the camera as they're both weather resistant - a real necessity if you live in Wales - and your 18-55 is a gem too! Yashica lenses work nicely with the Fuji but of course, the wide-angles suffer from the dreaded crop factor but it works to your advantage on standard to long lenses.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 11 (2 liked)
Join date: January 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jan 28, 2016 0:51:38 GMT
Last Edit: Jan 28, 2016 1:00:43 GMT by numbertwo
Thank you! I found this forum during my "investigation" on the web about Yashica 50mm primes, which are said to be similar to CZ Planars at low cost. I've bought the 1.7 version for just 17 € in mint condition, and I'm liking it so much. This is my complete list of 50 primes ATM: - Yashica ML 50 1.7 - SMC Takumar 50 1.4 - Mamiya SX 55 1.4 - Canon FD 50 1.4 I've also used a Hexanon 50 1.7, but I sold it because I couldn't use it with lens turbo and Canon FD 50 1.4 (which I also can't use with lens turbo) is better. My findings at the moment are that Mamiya SX is very good but not wide open (good rendering, beautiful bokeh, good B&W but soft and lack of contrast). SMC Takumar does have a lot of contrast and it's quite sharp wide open, but just in the center. Canon FD is great but I can't use it with lens turbo, so I use it much less... I'm in love with the Yashica because it is very sharp at 1.7, it captures almost the same light as SMC Tak at 1.4 (both with LT II attached) and it has a little more dof and the field is flatter, so for a portrait of 2 people (for example) it's better. Take into account that using LT II the 50mm 1.7 works like a 38mm f1.2 (and the Tak f0.95...), so almost everyday I just carry one of these 50mm as my allrounder, couse I'm a night animal, hehe. Sometimes I actually don't need a shallower dof but just more light. I wish I could shoot at 1.4 and have the complete frame in perfect tack sharp focus, but it seems to be impossible (maybe fujinon 35mm f1.4?). Here's a simple shot of yerterday (she's a friend of mine), took with Lens Turbo II @1.7-f2 (not sure)(38mm f1-2-f1.4 equivalent). ISO 4000, 1/80s, altough noise has been added in PP. With LT II in my early tests, borders of the picture aren't sharp enough until f4 or so with the Yashica, is it normal? I ask because LT II is very good in some areas, but in others it degrades the IQ a little bit... I've not tried the Yashica lens with a normal adapter yet. But it's a great improvement, because SMC Tak is quite less sharp corner to corner at f4... As I said, the ML 1.7 has cost me 17€, and I've seen the 1.4 version for 58€ (camera and flash included). I need to think about buying it a lot because SMC Tak cost me 45€ camera included and Canon FD just 60 (And Mamiya 20€). I hope I can find the ML 1.4 cheaper sooner or later, but if it's like the 1.7, I'll love it for sure. I want to see your comparison because I've read some people saying the 1.4 version is much better and it's really a 99.99% CZ Planar. I've not tried any Planar, but I'd like to have something as similar as possible due to their reputation (I definitely can't afford a Planar 50 1.4...) I used to have a Canon, but some months ago I wanted to move to Nikon (because of DR, Noise at high ISO and LED focus assist lamp). Finally, I decided to try Fuji and I'm in love with the camera, a really big improvement over my old 550D. Mine isn't sports photography, so this camera fits perfectly my needs. But Fuji lenses are very expensive, and because of this and that you can focus manually quite easily with the EVF, I'm enjoying photography more than ever, the pictures I take are really mine and with these old but very good and bright lenses I'm taking pictures I've never tought I could with such a cheap camera (almost FF look). Here in the south of Spain the weather is not as cold and wet as in Wales, so I'm fine with the 18-55. I also have a Samyang 12mm f2.0 in Fuji mount, which has replaced and old UWA I was using (Cosina 19-35, which used with LTII had really a 19-35 FF fov). I'll keep reading about other Yashica lenses, but having also a Samyang 85 1.4, a Jupiter 135 f3.5 and a Vivitar 70-210 f3.5, I think it's enough for manuals, hehe. I'm just looking for the best 50 I can afford, because the combination of shutter speed and very wide apertures you can get for the price (and the focal lenght), make them perfect for portraits in low light (furthermore with LT), which is the photography I'm practising almost every day. Maybe a bright 35mm could be fine, but I think they're more expensive... Edit: Sorry for writing so long . And I apologise for my English too, I hope you can understand me.
|
|
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 Feb 6, 2016 0:53:29 GMT
Posted: Feb 6, 2016 0:53:29 GMT
Hello again numbertwo - your English is very good indeed. That is a delightful image - very atmospheric - and a charming young woman!
I have conducted the lens tests and am trying to find a way to combine the images while still providing enough detail for people to see the differences; if I can't solve this problem, I will just have to upload 4 different messages to display all the photos.
What I can reveal is that ML 50 1.7 produces among the best results . With the 50mm lenses set wide-open, the images of both Zeiss and Yashica are soft - this is in part due to the fact that I have chosen the worst case for this part of the test - wide-open and close to the minimum focusing distance, which will accentuate distortions, especially set against the grid pattern of the Yashica Copy Stand. I then shot them at f5.6 and all were superb - especially the ML 50 1.7.
The only lens that obliterated all others for sheer image quality wide-open was the 5th one I used, the Zeiss 55mm f1.2 Planar; it has been described as the 'best lens ever made' and although I'm not sure that's true, you can see what your 6000 Euros would have bought .
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 154 (15 liked)
Join date: June 2015
Status:
|
|
on Feb 6, 2016 12:03:12 GMT
Posted: Feb 6, 2016 12:03:12 GMT
The only lens that obliterated all others for sheer image quality wide-open was the 5th one I used, the Zeiss 55mm f1.2 Planar; it has been described as the 'best lens ever made' and although I'm not sure that's true, you can see what your 6000 Euros would have bought .
I am curious how can be a test between the CZ 55 1:1.2 and his Yashica brother, 55 1:1.2
|
|
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 Feb 8, 2016 14:07:08 GMT
Posted: Feb 8, 2016 14:07:08 GMT
Hello dragos,
Showing the results of this test is easy on this Forum as it only involves two images - interesting to see the slight difference in the scale of the Zeiss photo as the Contax 50th button appears slightly larger than in the photo taken with the Yashica ML. I assume this is due to the design of the Planar - the camera was locked in position for both images - it looks like there is about a 3mm difference in the focal lengths of the 2 lenses. As expected, distortion and sharpness is superior in the Planar - it should be remembered that taking a photo so close to minimum focusing distance will over-emphasise any aberrations though the Yashica lens is generally acknowledged to be soft across the frame wide open.
ML 55 1.2 @ f1.2
Zeiss 55 1.2 @ f1.2
I'll take a more conventional photograph (once storm Imogen subsides!) with both lenses which will show their photographic qualities in a better light but that was not the purpose of this exercise.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 154 (15 liked)
Join date: June 2015
Status:
|
|
on Feb 9, 2016 22:14:08 GMT
Posted: Feb 9, 2016 22:14:08 GMT
First of all thank you for the samples shared.
When you will have time, will be interesting to see 2-3 samples from "real life", street or portraits, how they are acting.
As they was build for low light, i think that this same test, made on low light, will show that the ML si more close to CZ.
|
|
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 Feb 10, 2016 12:27:45 GMT
Posted: Feb 10, 2016 12:27:45 GMT
Hi dragos,
I've grabbed a simple street shot while the weather has eased a little. The first shot shows the scene and the second image shows a composite crop of the central sign - the image on the left as you look at the screen being the Zeiss and, of course, the right-hand crop is the Yashica. Both of these were taken hand-held, using Focus Assist on a Fuji XT-1. Sadly, neither lens can be used on the full-frame Canon as they both foul the mirror - a scratched rear element would be a very, very costly mistake!
Street shot (Zeiss Planar at f2)
Composite crop: Zeiss (left) Yashica ML (right) both at f1.2
Although at f1.2 the Planar is the winner in terms of sharpness, contrast and chroma control, between f4 and f11, the ML is pretty close to it at the centre but never quite matches its edge definition.
|
|
Deleted
Group: Member
Post: 0 ( liked)
Join date: January 1970
Status:
|
|
on Feb 10, 2016 15:39:02 GMT
Posted: Feb 10, 2016 15:39:02 GMT
Seems a Zeiss is a Zeiss is a Zeiss... Thanks a lot for your efforts! 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 Feb 11, 2016 2:08:25 GMT
Posted: Feb 11, 2016 2:08:25 GMT
Thanks Michael, it's always good to know one's efforts are appreciated. I'll put up the photos of the Zeiss and ML 50 1.4 and 1.7 lenses shortly.
I am still interested in the discrepancy between the Zeiss 55mm and Yashica 55mm lenses in terms of focal length. Both sets of photos - the Yashica copier base and the street scene - were taken from the same position, using the same adapter on the same camera but the focal length of the Zeiss seems several mm longer than the Yashica...further investigation is needed.
I suppose all this proves is that it's tough making f1.2 lenses that are sharp edge-to-edge, or even at all when wide open. And, you get what you pay for...
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 11 (2 liked)
Join date: January 2016
Status:
|
|
on Feb 12, 2016 16:23:32 GMT
Posted: Feb 12, 2016 16:23:32 GMT
Thanks Michael, it's always good to know one's efforts are appreciated. I'll put up the photos of the Zeiss and ML 50 1.4 and 1.7 lenses shortly. I am still interested in the discrepancy between the Zeiss 55mm and Yashica 55mm lenses in terms of focal length. Both sets of photos - the Yashica copier base and the street scene - were taken from the same position, using the same adapter on the same camera but the focal length of the Zeiss seems several mm longer than the Yashica...further investigation is needed. I suppose all this proves is that it's tough making f1.2 lenses that are sharp edge-to-edge, or even at all when wide open. And, you get what you pay for... Thank you so much! I'm looking forward to seeing your 50 ML comparison! I'm about to buy a ML 50 1.4 for 60 euro shipment included, but I'm not sure yet if it's worth over my 17 euro ML 50 1.7. I want to try it, but this one is not so cheap as the other so...
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,010 (77 liked)
Join date: January 2014
Status:
|
|
on Feb 13, 2016 3:06:06 GMT
Posted: Feb 13, 2016 3:06:06 GMT
I really like following your adventures in lens comparison, Noel, even though I don't have much in the way of C/Y mount lenses at the moment. It makes for good reference material later.
PF
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 154 (15 liked)
Join date: June 2015
Status:
|
|
on Feb 13, 2016 17:05:10 GMT
Posted: Feb 13, 2016 17:05:10 GMT
Thank you for sharing this tests. Realy interesting the difference of the focal. I am look foreword for next ones.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 11 (2 liked)
Join date: January 2016
Status:
|
|
on Feb 16, 2016 19:09:16 GMT
Posted: Feb 16, 2016 19:09:16 GMT
I've ended buying a copy of the 1.4 version. When I have it, I'll make a comparison of all my fifties (smc takumar 1.4, Canon fd 1.4, Yashica 1.4 and 1.7, hexanon 1.7, mamiya 55 1.4 and helios 58 f2).
|
|