Group: Member
Post: 1 (0 liked)
Join date: March 2018
Status:
|
|
on Mar 27, 2018 2:35:22 GMT
Posted: Mar 27, 2018 2:35:22 GMT
Hello, my first post here. I had an Yashica ML 50mm f 2 a few years ago that I used with my Panasonic GX7 and it was one of the most amazing lens I ever had. It has so much contrast that Focus Peaking felt unreal accurate and easy to see. I also had the Yashica DSB 28mm f 2.8 but it didn't felt as surreal as the ML 50mm f 2. I sold both lenses a few years ago but soon I wish to get a Sony A7 II or A7r II with main focus on legacy glass. M39 for the size and Russian unique character to them (Helios, Jupiter, Mir, Industar) and Yashica.
I was so impressed of the ML 50mm f 2 that I want to start a comprehensive collection of Yashica brand lenses. I did my research before and I am I terested in Yashica for the excellent micro contrast of the lenses, very well metal build and the cheap prices of unknown and unspoken gems that Yashica lenses are. I do know that ML lenses are the multi coated and higher up IQ, DSB is the lower quality with plastic involved but can someone tell me how big the diferences are? Like the character of different models even in the same focal length. There are so many 50mm that Yashica has and not just aperture differences but also model designations and mounts, ML, DSB, DS-M, YUS, DS-X. Another example is that some people say Yashica DSB 135mm f 2.8 is sharper then ML but is it worth it in terms of build quality? The only thing that sadness me greatly in the Yashica line-up is complete lack of lenses between 55mm and 135mm at f 2.8 or faster aside from Yashica ML 100mm f 4 Macro.
The lenses I am interested in collecting are the focal lengths of 21mm, 24mm/28mm, 50/52/55/57mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm, 300mm and 500mm Mirror if one exists from Yashica. Don't know how much worth the zooms are because it makes the IBIS impracticable to keep changing and you zoom in or out, unless a zoom is worth sticking at just one focal length.
Any information is greatly appreciated.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,010 (77 liked)
Join date: January 2014
Status:
|
|
on Mar 28, 2018 1:39:40 GMT
Last Edit: Mar 28, 2018 1:42:02 GMT by ridgeblue99
Welcome to the Forum, Wolfy. I wish all the manufacturers had put zoom locks on their push-pull offerings. Would have made life much easier using them.
As for Yashica lenses, most of them are of good design, with many of the ML's just being multi-coated versions of the DSB's. I think you can forget about the YUS models, as they were a cheap, US market only kit lens (yeah, you could get a kit with three lenses!). Any gaps in the Yashica line-up can likely be filled with the Contax Zeiss models. Some ML's give the Contax lenses a run for their money. Just look through the various threads here, and you should be able to come up with a list of the lenses you'll want to get. A good starting point are any of the ML 50's (f2, 1.9, 1.7, 1.4). Folks have their preferences as to which of the four is the best, but you won't go wrong with any of them.
Happy hunting!
PF
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 435 (15 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Mar 31, 2018 15:09:51 GMT
Last Edit: Mar 31, 2018 15:53:38 GMT by lenslover
Welcome wolfy, I wouldn't recommand *especially* the ML 50/1.9, as it's being based onto the ML 50/2 with different lens coatings, but this lens is known (and proved by samples, which are floating onto the web) for being less contrasty & sharp, as the ML 50/F2 mentioned here. Into short - i am using the ML 50 F2 as my go-to lens atm, it's basically being "glued" onto my Contax, and i never took it off. Love the colors this lens gives me onto my digital bodies & manual focus shooting experience, and Contax SLR since the late 80's, but i am shooting only b&w film analogue.  OTOH, i do think w0lfy is a bit late, because since the A7 into Fall 2013 arrived, too much people are hunting down Yashica ML lenses, and therefore the prices have been skyrocketing, sad, but true...as an negative example, the Yashica ML 35-70/3.5 or F4 version...there are people into ebay, which do really try to sell you this lens >500 EUR, which is way ridiculous - both lenses have character, of course...but the Zeiss 35-70/3.4 is better, hands down. I own these, and more.  |
|
Group: Member
Post: 28 (3 liked)
Join date: January 2018
Status:
|
|
on Apr 3, 2018 4:30:10 GMT
Posted: Apr 3, 2018 4:30:10 GMT
Why does the Yashica ML 35-70 sell for that much? Is it that good of a lens?
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 272 (39 liked)
Join date: July 2014
Status:
|
|
on Apr 3, 2018 13:14:07 GMT
Last Edit: Apr 4, 2018 7:21:48 GMT by bp_reid
Looking at the lenses you are interested in and weighing in with my thoughts on those I have owned;
The 21mm is a fine lens but suffers a little from veiling flare wide open and therefore is lower contrast than more modern lenses.
The 24mm is better on the forums than in real life, a good lens but not for its current price - the Olympus OM 24/2.8 is much better on Sony A7x bodies, from wide open onwards, as well as being smaller and cheaper. However the OM has a cyan-ish tint which is noticeable when you open RAW files.
The 28mm Is very decent.
The 50mm f/2 impressed me more than the 1.7 or 1.4 and is just great, but it is prone to fungus so be careful on the auction sites. The 50/1.2 is a lovely lump of glass too, but very hard to find at a sensible price.
The 100mm Macro is also a fine lens but not quite as good as the Zeiss 100/3.5 for general shooting.
Among the zooms; if you can accept the limited range I would very strongly recommend the ML 28-50/3.5. It's really sharp and punchy. I also quite like the ML 35-105 which can have some nice 3d pop at the longer end.
|
|
Group: Moderator
Post: 2,039 (562 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status: Long, long time Contax and Yashica user; glad to be here and hope to contribute.
|
|
on Apr 23, 2018 11:39:42 GMT
Posted: Apr 23, 2018 11:39:42 GMT
Why does the Yashica ML 35-70 sell for that much? Is it that good of a lens? The 500 Euro asking price is very optimistic and I'd be surprised if any sold at that price as you can pick up the Zeiss 35-70 for that money and it is a better lens.
That being said, Yashica's early short zooms - 28-50, 35-70 f3.5 and 35-70 f4 - were among the best being made at the time and their build quality is on a par with Zeiss. All three lenses are worth having if you can find them - and find them for a sensible price. I continue to use them on film cameras and digital SLRs and CSCs and they still give outstanding results.
Thinking only of the 35-70s, where the Zeiss is superior is in edge-to-edge definition and contrast (thanks to the T* coating which is slightly superior to the ML) but central definitions and distortion levels are near identical for all three lenses. The f3.5 ML is a push-pull type and the f4 ML is a two stage zoom and is smaller and lighter than it's big brother. However, the big problem with the three Yashica ML short zooms is their rarity and given that their quality is known, it has caused prices to rise greatly in the last couple of years. Although 500 Euros is a silly price, a mint, boxed version of any of them at a little under half that price would be fair value BUT if you are diligent and keep any eye out for composite listings, you can sometimes spot one of these lenses within a camera kit - I picked up my last 35-70 f3.5 (simply described as a Yashica 35-70) for 97 Euros along with a FX-103, 50 f2 and a Tamron SP 17 f3.5 (described wrongly as a 'vintage Tamroc (!) wide lens').
An optically and mechanically clean, working 35-70 ML lens, in not the best cosmetic condition, can be found for 90-150 Euros - definitely worth it at those sorts of prices. The 35-70 f4, being lighter and smaller, pairs better with many of today's lighter weight digital cameras.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 435 (15 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Apr 30, 2018 9:08:42 GMT
Last Edit: Apr 30, 2018 9:11:16 GMT by lenslover
Why does the Yashica ML 35-70 sell for that much? Is it that good of a lens? Yes, but by no means "better" than the Contax Zeiss 35-70/3.4, from which it is based on. Before you might ask - i do own both. Just for the record, the Minolta MD III 35-70/3.5 is 95% the IQ of the mentioned Zeiss here, Dpreview Forum Member Matt Parvin made a sample pictures series, with 1:1 Comparsions. All three 35-70's are being great lenses, the only difference is only, the Zeiss usually goes for a premium, and the Yashica is rare to find these days. |
|
Group: Member
Post: 435 (15 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Apr 30, 2018 9:14:39 GMT
Last Edit: Apr 30, 2018 9:16:00 GMT by lenslover
Why does the Yashica ML 35-70 sell for that much? Is it that good of a lens? The 500 Euro asking price is very optimistic and I'd be surprised if any sold at that price as you can pick up the Zeiss 35-70 for that money and it is a better lens.
That being said, Yashica's early short zooms - 28-50, 35-70 f3.5 and 35-70 f4 - were among the best being made at the time and their build quality is on a par with Zeiss. All three lenses are worth having if you can find them - and find them for a sensible price. I continue to use them on film cameras and digital SLRs and CSCs and they still give outstanding results.
Thinking only of the 35-70s, where the Zeiss is superior is in edge-to-edge definition and contrast (thanks to the T* coating which is slightly superior to the ML) but central definitions and distortion levels are near identical for all three lenses. The f3.5 ML is a push-pull type and the f4 ML is a two stage zoom and is smaller and lighter than it's big brother. However, the big problem with the three Yashica ML short zooms is their rarity and given that their quality is known, it has caused prices to rise greatly in the last couple of years. Although 500 Euros is a silly price, a mint, boxed version of any of them at a little under half that price would be fair value BUT if you are diligent and keep any eye out for composite listings, you can sometimes spot one of these lenses within a camera kit - I picked up my last 35-70 f3.5 (simply described as a Yashica 35-70) for 97 Euros along with a FX-103, 50 f2 and a Tamron SP 17 f3.5 (described wrongly as a 'vintage Tamroc (!) wide lens').
An optically and mechanically clean, working 35-70 ML lens, in not the best cosmetic condition, can be found for 90-150 Euros - definitely worth it at those sorts of prices. The 35-70 f4, being lighter and smaller, pairs better with many of today's lighter weight digital cameras.
I do know all of this, but thanks for reminding again. :-) I have the 50 F2, 28-50/3.5, 35-70/3.5 & 35-70 F4, all ML, since a very long time. Might worth to mention also that the ML 35-70 F4 is prone for having oily aperture blades, this happens with 80-90% of all, i went through 4 (!) interations, before i have had a good one. My ML collection is quite bigger, but i don't own all of them. The only thing that is really nervous, since so many guys are nowadays using Sony A7 series mirrorless cameras, one rarely find a decent ML onto the 'bay, since the past 5 years. 
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 435 (15 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jun 25, 2018 23:43:30 GMT
Posted: Jun 25, 2018 23:43:30 GMT
Why does the Yashica ML 35-70 sell for that much? Is it that good of a lens? Some kind of Freak thinks, he can get >500 EUR für this ML 35-70/3.5...it is the best Version, but the Contax Zeiss 35-70/3.4 is even something better...and way cheaper. Therefore, it's really ridiculous, for this asking price.
|
|
