Group: Member
Post: 75 (3 liked)
Join date: April 2016
Status:
|
|
on Apr 21, 2016 4:18:44 GMT
Posted: Apr 21, 2016 4:18:44 GMT
You mean chromatic aberrations? I think that applies to my sample. I'll propably find some other lenses in the mean time. Hopefully time as well.
Maybe it's a good idea to change the first post. The title is very modest, but the knowledge one can earn here is significant. I'd change it to something like: "The great 50mm yashicas comparison thread" and then add links to posts with test shots. We do that on other forum and it gathers more atention.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 11 (2 liked)
Join date: January 2016
Status:
|
|
on Apr 26, 2016 13:36:46 GMT
Last Edit: Apr 26, 2016 13:38:29 GMT by numbertwo
Here you are my first 50mm comparison Notes: - Fuji X-E1, tripod, ISO 200, JPG, ProNeg H Stile, NR -2, SH +2, WB: daylight. Focus with magnification in the center (peaking off). - The distance to the test chart is quite close, so corners are not fully reliable, most of all at wide apertures. - I'm not happy with the focus in Canon lens. Olympus lens is MIJ version, but it's not fully reliable because I had to hold the dof button while taking the pic in order to keep the diaphragm closed, so blur may be visible... - I'll make soon another comparison outdoors, and also incorporating my other copy of yashica 1.4 (right now I lent it to a friend). I'd like to do a "bokeh test" as well. - Thanks to Paguru for the program I used for the crops. LENS USED - SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 (M42) - Canon FDn 50mm f1.4 (CANON FD) - Yashica ML 50mm f1.4 (C/Y) - Yashica ML 50mm f1.7 (C/Y) - Mamiya Sekor SX 55mm f1.4 (M42) - Hexanon 50mm f1.7 (K/AR) - Zuiko 50mm f1.8 MIJ version (OM) - Helios 44M-6 58mm f2 (M42) (copy the links and open in a new tap to see the full res pictures) f1.4 f1.7/1.8 f2 f2.8 f4 f5.6 f8
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 23 (4 liked)
Join date: April 2015
Status: Yashica ML Collector
|
|
on Apr 26, 2016 19:38:40 GMT
Posted: Apr 26, 2016 19:38:40 GMT
Wow, great work. I'm not done looking at all the samples, but my first impression is that the Canon and Zuiko perform really well. Also it seems to me that the Yashica 1.4 is decentered, while the other lenses show quite consistent quality across the frame.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 11 (2 liked)
Join date: January 2016
Status:
|
|
on Apr 27, 2016 18:58:58 GMT
Last Edit: Apr 27, 2016 19:04:27 GMT by numbertwo
Second round. I tried to make it outdoors, bot some children came to ask questions, so I tought it was better to take the pictures through the window xD. Similar settings as before. Take into account that the pics are vertical to avoid the window bars (even so they produced that glowy blur at the right of some pictures ). Also the program didn't didn't turn the pics, but I consider it's not too important... Firstly, a general view of the pic and the crops: f1.4 f1.7/1.8 f2 f2.8 f4 f5.6 f8 My overall thoughts are that Canon is the overall best, altough takumar is the best in the center. In relation to Yashica lenses I find the 1.4 better between f1.7-2, but the 1.7 version is more resolutive and better corner to corner from 2.8 onwards. Pd: My adapter makes no difference in Canon between f1.4 and f1.7, I've inspected the blades and see no difference Also same speed in exif for 1.4 and 1.7 pictures (1/750s in this case), while Takumar's are 1/680s and 1/600s respectively.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 75 (3 liked)
Join date: April 2016
Status:
|
|
on Apr 27, 2016 22:43:38 GMT
Last Edit: May 13, 2016 1:30:26 GMT by rhalf: merged posts
That canon is pretty remarkable. Great effort. Highly appreciated!
Ok, I have most of my lenses in one place. some adapters are on the way. Time is short, so let's simplify things and compare them in pairs.
Yashicas:
ML f2 (A90100716) ML 1.9 (A40833202) ML 1.7 (A20235967)
Other:
Oly OM Zuiko MC Auto-S 50mm 1.8 Japan (2328848) Minolta MD 50mm 1.4 (8118636) Rollei HFT Planar 50mm 1.8 (new version 1293046 and old 1004445 SL)
On the way are Canon FD 1.4 and XR Rikkenon (P or S, forgot that one)
The first pair will be, as requested by Biggles, f2 vs f1.9. Then we'll see.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 75 (3 liked)
Join date: April 2016
Status:
|
|
on May 15, 2016 18:31:07 GMT
Last Edit: May 15, 2016 22:20:20 GMT by rhalf
The first very unscientific test: some ugly wall at F/2 and f/1.9 - 5 footstep distance
- not sure if on axis
- not sure if I focused both well
- RAW, zeroed noise reduction and sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw. Roghly composed in photoshop.
- tripod
- Sony ILCE-6000 24 Mpix APS-C, roughly 50 Mpix full frame equivalent
- 1/200 s
- ISO 100
- fingers crossed I picked the right files
- Yashica ML 50mm f2 on the left
- Yashica 50mm F1.9 on the right
square 1 (center) square 2 (top right corner) Results are consistent across the frame. It's rainy and windy so I'll do infinity test some other day.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 75 (3 liked)
Join date: April 2016
Status:
|
|
on May 15, 2016 19:50:14 GMT
Last Edit: May 15, 2016 21:14:27 GMT by rhalf
Test 2: Money shot! Also known as "how I learned about euroin" - <1m distance
- color balance is inadequate, but constant. (I think it's still set to cloudy from the previous test)
- some JPEG compression added to meet the file size treshold
square 1 (centerish)
square 2 (top-left corner)
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 75 (3 liked)
Join date: April 2016
Status:
|
|
on May 15, 2016 21:51:11 GMT
Last Edit: May 18, 2016 5:15:55 GMT by rhalf
square 3 square 4 bonus I have to say, after a week with the 1.9 it really grew on me. The f2 is in worse state so that may explain slightly weak performance wide open. I'll see if I can do any servicing on it later Meanwhile I'll be enjoying photos taken with 1.9 some more. I can't get enough of it. It's rendering is just juicy. The next battle is going to be between either of these two and an Olympus.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 75 (3 liked)
Join date: April 2016
Status:
|
|
on May 18, 2016 9:04:57 GMT
Posted: May 18, 2016 9:04:57 GMT
This was 1.9's forst day at work. I made a colour profile for her and it appears to have more colour shift than Minolta. At least under studio lights. One thing suprised me though. I was editing this photo: I Don't remember the aperture, but here's 100% crop: Pretty, don't you think?
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 28 (3 liked)
Join date: January 2018
Status:
|
|
on Jan 18, 2018 4:24:20 GMT
Posted: Jan 18, 2018 4:24:20 GMT
paguru, When you did your comparison, which Yashica 50mm ML 1.4 were you using? Was it an older silver nose model or a newer one?
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 23 (4 liked)
Join date: April 2015
Status: Yashica ML Collector
|
|
on Jan 18, 2018 6:14:43 GMT
Posted: Jan 18, 2018 6:14:43 GMT
My ML 1.4/50 is a newer model, serial number A1096...
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 28 (3 liked)
Join date: January 2018
Status:
|
|
on Jan 19, 2018 1:42:25 GMT
Last Edit: Jan 19, 2018 1:45:28 GMT by cbass
Thank you. I just picked up a 1.4. It is not a silver nose but a more recent looking version, however, my serial number look to be older than yours: A1019
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 28 (3 liked)
Join date: January 2018
Status:
|
|
on Jan 19, 2018 20:34:47 GMT
Posted: Jan 19, 2018 20:34:47 GMT
Hopefully someone here knows Yashica history. It looks like the c/y mount was introduced in 1975 and Kyocera bought Yashica in 1983. During which time were the silver nose versions of the lenses produced? Did Kyocera still make the silver nose or were they the ones that moved to the new design? Or did the new non-silver nose design happen before Kyocera bought Yashica?
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 435 (15 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Feb 25, 2018 13:52:17 GMT
Last Edit: Feb 25, 2018 13:53:09 GMT by lenslover
Paguru, your 50/1.7 ML really does seem being decentered, as you already mentioned. My 50/1.7 ML is for sure better than the 50/1.4 ML. Into fredmiranda forum, there was a 1:1 comparsion, years ago, with the much respected Contax Zeiss 50/1.7 MM (which i do also own) vs. the ML 50/1.7, and guess what?! the ML is *very* close to the Contax Zeiss, only a bit cooler from the rendering, and a tad less sharp, after all. But i don't shoot Siemens Stars, and Test Charts, for sure, and neither brick walls, anyway.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 2 (0 liked)
Join date: April 2020
Status:
|
|
on Apr 28, 2020 14:47:34 GMT
Posted: Apr 28, 2020 14:47:34 GMT
Hi. I have Yashica ML50/1.7 A2024, ML50/1.6, Yashica DSB50/1.9 A4070 and at infinity on f8 both MLs are almost identical sharp. 1.9 is maybe a nuance sharper. A crow pictured from 15 meters and cropped to almost none, is still undistorted. Not much of other lens can achieve that. I also have Rollei planar 50/1,8, all metal, later models have rubber rings, mine is one from the first series assembled partly in Germany and finished in Singapore. Very similar sharpness factor, but Rollie renders colours really superb and it renders in depth perspectives similar as an human eye. Both MLs are just sharp in depth and colours are less natural. But that doesnt mean, that MLs arent capable to render colours lots of times to a certain wow factor in lots of different light situations. Obviously colours rendering is not just a matter of sensor and body of the camera. That proves Minolta MD Rokkor 50/1.4, MK2-55mm filter. Last of the all metal Rokkors. A rare bird made only in 1979, after that Minolta launched lighter and smaller MD Rokkor 50/1.4 with 49mm filter and plastic rings. Minolta MD Rokkor 50/1.4, MK2-55mm renders colours superbly vivid and naturaly. Like Rollie its conrast doesnt lack almost anything. Focusing is also buttery soft and it can perform focusing almost from meter to meter, with that one can adjust depth of the picture literally in slices.
All of the mentioned lenses are different, even both MLs are different a bit in comparision and all are very enjoyable top performers. About DSB50. Also very sharp, a bubbly bokeh monster above all others mentioned- in macro. But flair is its big problem and lack of colours rendering. Last thing i would mention is that Rollie with its 1.8 is capable to produce clear photos in same evening darkness with the same ISO and aperture as Minolta 1.4 and my other 1.4 lens i have. Planars are capable of that. Theirs authors used different tech approach and math.
|
|