Group: Member
Post: 5 (0 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jul 21, 2016 7:32:11 GMT
Posted: Jul 21, 2016 7:32:11 GMT
I have already two copies of the excellent Yashica ML 28mm f2.8. It has very good color rendering and Microcontrast, but edge sharpness is not very good mounted in my APSC mirrorless camera (Sony A6000). However, I have read that the Y ML 35mm f2.8 has similar or better color rendering as compared to the 28mm (it is called by some people 'the poor man's Distagon') and at f8 corner and edge sharpness is very good. Is it worth to get the ML 35mm versus the ML 28mm? Which version (there are two versions, but I do not know the serial numbers corresponding to each version). Anybody has tested the Yashica ML 35mm f2.8? Thanks
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 272 (39 liked)
Join date: July 2014
Status:
|
|
on Jul 22, 2016 7:02:47 GMT
Posted: Jul 22, 2016 7:02:47 GMT
I had a copy which never quite managed to be sharp across the frame, but I'm sure it must have been damaged because it was way off the other yashicas I've owned.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 435 (15 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jul 28, 2016 21:28:04 GMT
Posted: Jul 28, 2016 21:28:04 GMT
So was my copy, decentered...and unsharp also at F8...then another copy was okay.
|
|
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 29, 2016 19:39:15 GMT
Posted: Jul 29, 2016 19:39:15 GMT
It sounds like you both have been unlucky.
I have 8 of the lenses numbered between A1201*** and A1337***. The earliest ones are the softest but still only marginally softer than the Zeiss 35 2.8 Distagon - the only lens I have an issue with is the one with the most recent serial number as it is noticeably soft at the edges of the frame. The ones numbered 130**** are consistently sharper than my Zeiss Distagons. None of the lenses has suffered from focal decentering.
The ML 35mm is usually regarded very highly and has become recognised as more than a match for the Distagon. Lenses numbered A120**** are essentially recoated DSB types; those numbered 1334*** onwards seem to be the ones that are most subject to production inconsistencies.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 435 (15 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Aug 1, 2016 20:22:52 GMT
Posted: Aug 1, 2016 20:22:52 GMT
I know that it is very good, 95% Distagon 35/2.8 AE Quality, not quite MM.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 435 (15 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Aug 14, 2016 8:17:46 GMT
Posted: Aug 14, 2016 8:17:46 GMT
It sounds like you both have been unlucky. I have 8 of the lenses numbered between A1201*** and A1337***. The earliest ones are the softest but still only marginally softer than the Zeiss 35 2.8 Distagon - the only lens I have an issue with is the one with the most recent serial number as it is noticeably soft at the edges of the frame. The ones numbered 130**** are consistently sharper than my Zeiss Distagons. None of the lenses has suffered from focal decentering. The ML 35mm is usually regarded very highly and has become recognised as more than a match for the Distagon. Lenses numbered A120**** are essentially recoated DSB types; those numbered 1334*** onwards seem to be the ones that are most subject to production inconsistencies. You must be clearly right, Biggles. Thanks for that insight. I've just checked, figured it out yesterday...my copy of the 35/2.8 ML is serial A132**** so exactly as you said. perhaps that line also have had already these kind of production inconsistencies.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 214 (23 liked)
Join date: October 2016
Status:
|
|
on Oct 15, 2016 19:18:34 GMT
Last Edit: Oct 15, 2016 19:18:57 GMT by tts
Now I'm axious to know how well made my 18 euro Yashica ML 2.8/35mm will be....
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 1 (0 liked)
Join date: August 2017
Status:
|
|
on Aug 20, 2017 23:00:56 GMT
Posted: Aug 20, 2017 23:00:56 GMT
Just wanted to jump in here since I just purchased a 35mm 2.8 (transitioning to a Contax system) and ask if one of you had an opinion of the versions that are a A131XXXX serial number. Thanks!
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 214 (23 liked)
Join date: October 2016
Status:
|
|
on Sept 9, 2017 11:51:48 GMT
Posted: Sept 9, 2017 11:51:48 GMT
Just wanted to jump in here since I just purchased a 35mm 2.8 (transitioning to a Contax system) and ask if one of you had an opinion of the versions that are a A131XXXX serial number. Thanks! I have.... My 35ML is very good. Yours? Just put it on any camera and shoot with it. Judge the results and report back over here...
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 435 (15 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Oct 1, 2017 9:18:02 GMT
Posted: Oct 1, 2017 9:18:02 GMT
Now I'm axious to know how well made my 18 euro Yashica ML 2.8/35mm will be.... Well, anyway. Enjoy your nice ML, for this price, one can't complain. Enjoy your Lens. :-)
|
|