Yashica ML 300mm C f/5.6

I don't know if I'd classify them as terribly rare. At least not at the same rarity as the fixed aperture 35-70mm's or the 70-210 f/4, or even the 28-50. Of the 300mm I've seen listed in the last year or so, they seem pretty high priced ($130-180+ USD).

I don't recall if those I've seen listed were the 'c' versions or the early ones, but I haven't been overly impressed with my other 'c' version lenses in smaller focal lengths. The 135mm is capable enough, but no more than the standard 135. The 50mm 1.9c is more plastic than I'd prefer, and I'd just as soon grab the 1.7 or 1.4 first. Optically it's okay, but I'd put it at the bottom of the list of 50's. If the 'c' models were actually made by Cosina, as it has been suggested by numerous users... I'm not urgently interested in using one of any focal length.

As for samples, There doesn't seem to be a lot online, with the bulk of what I've found being a test batch posted to Flickr... www.flickr.com/photos/45142882@N08/albums/72157688630445454

The photos aren't terrible and consistent with the expected color and contrast rendering for most Yashica ML lenses, but all have a fair amount of CA to tend with and don't seem to be as sharp as the better ML's. I opted for a 300mm C/Y Contax AEG that I found for less $$ than the Yashica offerings.

Thank you for the sample images from both the 300 and 100-300. It does look to me like the zoom performs better and the closer focusing distance is a advantage. It's surprising that the zoom does better. I have a yashica 80-200 which is an amazing lens as well. It looks like the Yashica zooms were spectacular. I will be on the lookout for a 100-300, although I have never seen one for sale

Also, thank you for the tip on the Tokina. F/4 would be preferred to f/5.6.

If I get my lens, then I will be sure to post samples. Unfortunately, it looks like I may not be receiving the 300mm. The ebay seller has not responded to any messages nor have they shipped the lens and it was supposed to arrive last week. We shall see what happens, but it's not looking good at this point.

Do you happen to have a 80-200mm? I have always wondered how it stacked up against the 200mm C and 200mm. I am very happy with my copy but it does have some CA wide open. There is one thread that compares the 80-200 and 200, but the 200mm looked to perform poorly as if it was a bad copy.

I was curious because of an interesting claim I heard recently. It was about Zeiss glass, but some Yashica glass comes very close in performance. The claim is that a little known secret is that the Zeiss zooms are actually better than the primes in optical performance. Sure the primes can be faster, lighter, smaller, etc. I found that claim intriguing because my 80-200 ML is stupid good. Like better than most of my primes good which is the opposite of common consensus of zoom performance.

Sent to Texas and not Arizona...? Sounds like a familiar tune - just played by a different seller. I bought a Tair 33 300mm from a seller in the Ukraine a couple of years ago. After a month of back and forth, I finally got a tracking ID, and saw the trail online of a package (containing who knows what) travelling right past me, in Michigan, to end up in California. No more Ukrainian deals for me after that. Sad to hear you've shared the same fate with your 300 ML.

I did do a very brief test with any Yashica ML's I had that shot at the 200mm focal length. That gave me 5 lenses in all, with 3 zooms and both versions of the 200 prime. In order to equalize the results a bit, I tried something different to lock down some of the variables - but - my results weren't quite what I expected them to be. I rushed things a little, and chose to shoot everything with the built-in daylight preset for white balance. It didn't quite match the scene as-shot, and influenced the CA and coma too much. I'm planning on redoing the test and doing a proper custom white balance to fit the current light conditions accurately. Here's at least the overall group photo with all of the participants... and my model/assistant/helper.




As for the quality question between Zeiss and Yashica ML glass - and how the zooms compare to primes; I can't say that I've seen those kinds of results from the samples I've owned and used. Never say never - but - that just hasn't been my experience overall.

I have a 35-70mm Zeiss that works very close to the Zeiss primes that it (almost) covers in it's zoom range. I have Zeiss glass in a 28 2.8, a 50 in both 1.7 and 1.4, and the 85 2.8. Not having a 35mm (not a focal length I'm fond of on full frame) I'm only going by what I see in photos or have heard from other's experiences. That might be the only case where I'd choose the 35-70 without regret, but not for the reason one would think. It also gives me something that the primes won't... Macro capabilities that are razor sharp on the short end of the range. It's a bonus that its 'marked' lengths are close enough to their prime counterparts, and it's certainly lighter/quicker/faster, and not swapping lenses. I don't have any Zeiss zooms other than the 35-70 to give a comparison for the longer options. I do have the 135mm, 200mm and 300mm Zeiss primes if I need something longer.

For Yashica ML glass, I'm on the fence with different reasoning. I have the ML 28-50mm zoom, that compares well (or better) to all the ML series lenses at 28 2.8, 35 2.8, and the 50mm group (at any speed). It's on the heavy side for any zoom at the really short end of the range, but I wouldn't hesitate to use it instead of the others. I have the ML 28-85, that's a second fiddle to the Zeiss 35-70, and it stretches the range if I need a short tele. Yashica missed the boat with no 85mm prime offered in ML glass. Having comparable zooms to primes on the short end allows me to be comfortable with whatever combination suits what I'm shooting. Ultimately, that's the deciding factor for me.

I'm not someone on the hunt for the longer zooms as go-to lenses for what I'm likely to shoot. My experience with Yashica ML zooms at the long end hasn't swayed me into giving up primes at the 100mm-plus end of the spectrum. That's not to say that there may not be an 80-200mm that would blow my socks off. Honestly, I've run across some spectacular lenses - both zoom and prime - that others wouldn't think possible to be 'that great'. The serendipity factor comes into play, and anyone can end up with a remarkable sample in an otherwise 'okay' or mediocre family or focal length of lenses. Your 80-200 ML may have benefited from the same effect.

In terms of comparing the brands... They were both manufactured by the same company, and that company gained the expertise of Tomioka when it was a supplier, and later when it was bought and merged into the company. Granted, there were the German made AEG/MMG lenses from Zeiss too, but most of the parts were still supplied by Yashica/Tomioka. If lenses could have genes, they'd all show the same family heritage when it's all part of that common relationship. If you infuse that beginning with Zeiss know-how, it's understandable why that period at Yashica ended up producing some memorable optics.