Group: Administrator
Post: 1,371 (303 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Jan 10, 2020 22:10:44 GMT
Posted: Jan 10, 2020 22:10:44 GMT
It's taken a few years, and lots of patience, but I'm at the end of my wishlist on ultrawides in C/Y mount. There were a couple of other adaptable mounts along the way (M42 and T-Mount) to round out the batch, and one zoom. Once weather permits I'll likely do some side-by-side tests out of curiosity - although I already have a really good idea what I'll find. The ultrawides are, in no particular order... Sigma Zoom-y II 21-35mm f/3.5-4.2, Yashinon DS 20mm f/3.3, Yashica ML 15mm f/2.8, Spiratone YS 18mm f/3.5 (a.k.a., A Sigma 'Widearama'), Yashica ML 21mm f/3.3 (1 early, and 2 late serials), and the most recent addition, a Zeiss Distagon 18mm f/4. I include the ML 15mm and even though it's technically a 'fisheye', it still isn't truly spherical but can be post-processed to produce a more rectilinear image.  I know that there's another Zeiss with a spectacular reputation that would also fit into this family - but - I just don't see the need to spend $1500-2000+ for yet another 21mm, just because of a faster f/2.8 aperture. It might be a full 2 stops higher in speed, but I personally doubt that I'd need to stop-motion a running cheetah at dusk:30. Because of the upside down weather it was 55-ish degrees on December 26th, so I had a chance to take some outdoor test shots with the Zeiss that I'd otherwise be forced to wait a few months to take. I won't post them here, but there are 5 posted to my gallery if you're interested. There are several images from many of the ultrawides in other albums, and also in the ' testbed galleries' too. As far as a comparison goes, all of these lenses are capable of somewhere between very good to 'Wow' photos. The Spiratone was a steal at $33.00 w/shipping and was definitely a lot of bang for the buck, plus the images it produces were far better than average, and close to the Yashinon DS 20mm - except for flares. The 3 ML 21mm's are nearly identical in capability (yes, I went overboard with getting 3) and are surprisingly close to the Zeiss, and in some aspects are better. The Sigma Zoom-y II is really very good - especially for a zoom - and can sometimes rival the ML 21's. The one caveat with it, is the horrendously gooey silicone coating that's covering everything that you'll likely have to remove! Mine has really bad zoom-creep, but they are a bit hard to find in any condition. With the Yashica branded lenses, the optical qualities get better with age. The DS is bettered by the ML's, with the later serials faring ever so slightly better than the earlier ones (with my samples at least). The 15mm ML easily equals the ML 21's in color, contrast, and sharpness, but it does require some thought while framing shots... plus the software to 'un-fish' it, if that's your intent. The Zeiss isn't perfect with the slightest bit of CA and a smidge of corner softness when wide open, but it has more micro-contrast than the others under any aperture, and a bit more 'pop' too. It seems to have a more accurate and natural color balance that doesn't oversaturate. There's a limitation with having no filter threads, so one has to be creative unless you also have the proprietary hood with it's filter threads to take on those 2 tasks. That hood can be elusive, and extremely expensive. One last issue might be that you can't use any old lens cap, as the front-element is almost even with the rim of the lens. If I were to recommend any of these, I'd say it might be a toss-up between the ML 21 and the Zeiss 18. I plan on carrying both. |
|
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 11, 2020 11:26:19 GMT
Posted: Jan 11, 2020 11:26:19 GMT
Hi lumiworx,
That's a very nice collection of super-wide-angles you have amassed!
The ML 21mm is a pretty good lens, even wide-open, and one (well, three to be accurate) which will please you; however, the Zeiss 21mm is in another league when it comes to edge-to-edge sharpness, resolution, and contrast. Although I would also recommend the Zeiss 15mm true wide-angle, it's price is still very high and I'm always nervous when using it as that massive, bulbous front element feels dangerously exposed.
One lens I would recommend - even if you only borrow it to test - is the Tamron SP 17mm f3.5 which from f5.6 to f11 is every bit the equal of the Zeiss 18mm and less than half the cost. Either version (51B/51BB) will do although as I still shoot b/w film, the earlier 51B is preferred as it has dial-in filters. It shares one feature with the Zeiss 18mm - a slip-on hood which is very hard to find but, if you get hold of the Contax 70/86 Adapter Ring or the Tamron dedicated hood, either can be used on both lenses.
I would be interested to hear your opinion of the Yashinon DS 20mm as it's a lens I've never tried; I've always been hesitant to buy one for fear of flaring problems when shooting into bright lights.
There are two quite cheap lenses that could also fall within your orbit that you might find surprisingly good. The first is Vivitar's Series 1 19-35mm f3.5-4.5 which produces quite stunning images and has a MM mount, so being able to get the most out of the later Contax models as well as all Yashica C/Y cameras. The other, if you are including the ML 15mm is Sigma's 16mm f2.8 Filtermatic which provides similar non-rectilinear performance for a lot less money - and is tiny by comparison, though you do need to be sure that the lens comes with at least one of its filters as they form part of the optical formula.
There is one note on which I have to disagree with you quite strongly - buying 3 ML 21mm lenses is definitely not 'going overboard'; you are merely demonstrating an empirical and scholarly enthusiasm for thoroughness. Well, that's what I always told my ex... |
|
|
Deleted
Group: Member
Post: 0 ( liked)
Join date: January 1970
Status:
|
|
on Jan 11, 2020 14:14:52 GMT
Posted: Jan 11, 2020 14:14:52 GMT
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,371 (303 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Jan 11, 2020 21:17:30 GMT
Last Edit: Jan 12, 2020 0:11:04 GMT by lumiworx
biggles3 ... I've come to appreciate wides and ultrawides, but I didn't start out that way, so I may have approached my eagerness to find 'my' perfect ultrawide with a little more zeal than most. My ex was more concerned about the subject matter in front of my lens, than the actual lens(es) and the costs involved - but - the idea of thoroughness is very apt in this case, just the same. I know myself well enough that I would never say 'never' if the right opportunity arises for a Zeiss 15mm/21mm in need of a good home, and the same might be said for the others suggested. If none of them fall from the sky, I'm happy to have found the Yashica and Contax 21's/18 I have. Besides - "You can't miss what you never had", which strikes fear into my brain to even think about borrowing/renting one and then being forced to return it. The DS 20mm showed up out of the blue. I wasn't aware that any such animal existed, and finding little info about them I assumed it to be rare-ish. I think I got it for $100-110 or so. Back in November of 2018 I did a set of comparisons shots between it and my first 21mm ML sample and posted some Lightroom Before/After processing photo pairs of the same scenes, from the same day and time. Those shots have only color and noise corrections, and no sharpening or distortion adjustments, so they still have room for improvement. There was a perceptible difference between the 2 lenses of course, but the heritage showed through. I doubt that the ML 21's would have been as good, if it weren't for the DS 20's coming before them. If you consider the time period that the DS lenses came out - and how few ultrawides there probably were in the marketplace at the time - I think they might have held their own at the consumer high-end. I haven't enough to go on about matching it up to other ultrawides of the time at the pro end of the spectrum. One problem (if any) about it's reputation was likely to be Yashica's lack of a marketing push. I've always felt they chose to be less aggressive, or maybe management felt the need to be more humble and less 'pushy and puffy' about their gear back then, but that might just be my perception and nothing more. That seems to have changed a bit by the Contax years, but early on they seem to be rather reserved. I'd say the DS is certainly a step up from the Spiratone and probably from similar 3rd party variants in the 18mm to 21mm sizes. I hesitate to call a Jena 20mm Flektogon a 3rd party lens, but I never could find one (2.8, or 4) that was in good enough physical/optical shape to buy at what I thought of as a reasonable price. It wasn't for lack of looking and bidding, as I'd like to have compared one or both of them with the others. @peterr ... Thanks for pointing to the hood. I picked up an all-metal Tokina AT-X 35-200mm hood ($10-ish) which fits and clamps on well, but suffers the same vignetting issues you noticed by being too deep. I have access to a Bridgeport mill and a metal lathe, so I hope to find a way to modify that for both the hood and filter duties when time permits. I saw the sample images you posted in part 2 from your link, and can tell from those shots alone that there's reason enough to have something for shading out the flares. I do have a tendency of shooting backlit as much as anything else, so it will help to use anything besides my hand. I have a Contax W-1 hood and no lens to go with it - so - I might try to 'marry' the 2 together somehow.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,371 (303 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Jan 12, 2020 0:35:00 GMT
Posted: Jan 12, 2020 0:35:00 GMT
I thought I had already posted a gallery pic of the DS 20mm, but maybe not...  I should note that the coating appears to be something like a 2-in-1 that's both red and blue based, and without any green. It might be on an inner element and isn't very obvious from the reflections alone. I'll have to dig it out and have a better look. I can say that the quality of the coating isn't great on my sample. It's a bit 'flakey' around the extreme edge, but I have nothing to compare it to that would indicate that would be normal for all of them. |
|
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 12, 2020 13:28:18 GMT
Posted: Jan 12, 2020 13:28:18 GMT
Hi lumiworx,
Thank you for your comments on the 20mm - and re-posting a piccie of it; I eventually found your original post showing its comparison with the ML 21mm.
There are 2 versions of the Yashinon-DS 20mm; I'm assuming the differences are cosmetic rather than optical or mechanical. Your one is the original type but by the time the serial numbers hit 1101xxx the external appearance of the lens changes. The bezel no longer carries the serial number, it being removed to the base, just above the aperture ring, as we find on almost all ML lenses. The coating looks to be the same on both versions; such a pity they didn't make a DS-M version as the multi-coating should have made a difference to its flare resistance and contrast. |
|
|
Deleted
Group: Member
Post: 0 ( liked)
Join date: January 1970
Status:
|
|
on Jan 12, 2020 18:16:12 GMT
Posted: Jan 12, 2020 18:16:12 GMT
(...) buying 3 ML 21mm lenses is definitely not 'going overboard'; you are merely demonstrating an empirical and scholarly enthusiasm for thoroughness. Well, that's what I always told my ex... YMMD  |
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,371 (303 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Jan 12, 2020 20:30:48 GMT
Posted: Jan 12, 2020 20:30:48 GMT
biggles3 ... Thanks for the version info. That reminded me of an old package insert that has a lens summary and a picture of the DS 20mm. The focus grip looks to be different, so I'm not sure which version it might refer to. It's unfortunate that vendors rarely had a way to distinguish versions when there was a major difference that would have mattered to users. Camera bodies started getting that treatment somewhere along the line, but that's only half the equation.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 272 (39 liked)
Join date: July 2014
Status:
|
|
on Jan 13, 2020 12:43:16 GMT
Posted: Jan 13, 2020 12:43:16 GMT
I'm going to be a bit controversial here given it's reputation but, based on my experiences, I don't believe the Tamron 17mm is in the same class as the Yashica 21mm or the Zeiss 18mm. In fact mine have been quite poor by modern standards and I would not recommend it at all for digital use - I've had a few and they have ranged from almost unusable to so-so due to strong field curvature. I'm aware that adapter thickness is critical with wides and I do have an original Tamron to EOS adapter and I find that it's good for my other tamrons - so that's less likely to be a factor. Ultimately build could be a factor, the best copy of the 17mm I had was an earlier model with the built in filters which seems more robust.
|
|
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 13, 2020 12:58:10 GMT
Posted: Jan 13, 2020 12:58:10 GMT
biggles3 ... Thanks for the version info. That reminded me of an old package insert that has a lens summary and a picture of the DS 20mm. The focus grip looks to be different, so I'm not sure which version it might refer to. It's unfortunate that vendors rarely had a way to distinguish versions when there was a major difference that would have mattered to users. Camera bodies started getting that treatment somewhere along the line, but that's only half the equation. Occasionally manufacturers were rather duplicitous over modifications to their equipment. A bad example, relevant to this Forum, that I can recall was by Zeiss when they were obliged to change the internal components in their AE 25mm f2.8 T* Distagon as the images delivered by early-numbered lenses were far too soft and both photographers and reviewers complained loudly. There was never an announcement - a foolish decision with obvious consequences - and the new lenses were simply slipped into the supply chain but the original ones were never withdrawn. The inevitable consequence of course was that the 25mm's reputation was severely tarnished, demand tanked, and sales of ML 24mm lenses helped fill the gap. It took a long time before the Zeiss 25mm was deemed a good lens again though Photax here in the UK were smart in sending out the revised lens with review cameras so that magazine readers could see that the lens was a good performer. But every now and then, an old one would resurface and complaints duly followed. Had the manufacturer come clean, admitted the minor problem and simply withdrawn the lenses, reputational damage would have been minimal; as it was, the failure in transparency led to problems with sales of the lens that lasted for the best part of a decade.
Just imagine the noise that would have been created if today's social media had existed then; a company can earn a superb reputation over decades yet it can be lost in seconds courtesy of the internet - and it can take years to restore it...
|
|
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 13, 2020 13:09:02 GMT
Posted: Jan 13, 2020 13:09:02 GMT
I'm going to be a bit controversial here given it's reputation but, based on my experiences, I don't believe the Tamron 17mm is in the same class as the Yashica 21mm or the Zeiss 18mm. In fact mine have been quite poor by modern standards and I would not recommend it at all for digital use - I've had a few and they have ranged from almost unusable to so-so due to strong field curvature. I'm aware that adapter thickness is critical with wides and I do have an original Tamron to EOS adapter and I find that it's good for my other tamrons - so that's less likely to be a factor. Ultimately build could be a factor, the best copy of the 17mm I had was an earlier model with the built in filters which seems more robust. An interesting series of negative experiences with the lens.
I have only owned two of them - both the original model - and they have proved great performers with Contax and Yashica gear. I've never tried the later model which is optically different so it would seem wise to be cautious. That being said, the majority (but not all) of the reviews on the pentaxforum rate both versions highly - I wonder how much has to do with the Adaptall II mount or production quality?
I have yet to try the lens on a digital camera so a little experiment beckons, once the storms currently lashing the south west of the UK abate...
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 272 (39 liked)
Join date: July 2014
Status:
|
|
on Jan 13, 2020 22:16:00 GMT
Posted: Jan 13, 2020 22:16:00 GMT
The Zeiss 25mm is a funny one. The AE version certainly still tarnishes the overall reputation of the lens in internet fora. Of course, even the MM version, while very nice for overall rendering and colours is still not fantastically sharp out to the corners compared to the likes of the Olympus 24/2.8. Mind you, I kept the Zeiss, but not the Oly.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jan 15, 2020 1:23:23 GMT
Last Edit: Jan 18, 2020 17:30:03 GMT by xkaes
There certainly are a lot of great super-wide lenses for Contax/Yashica cameras -- even before their merging/collaboration. Some are prime/fixed focal length, but plenty are zooms.
As mentioned the Sigma 21-35 is super. It came in at least two versions. One was a one touch and the other two-touch. I have the one-touch, but I'm not sure which came first. I assume that both were available in the C/Y mount.
Also as mentioned, there is the Vivitar 19-35, but don't forget the Samyang/Phoenix 18-28 -- but I don't know if that was available in a C/Y mount.
As to fixed mounts, I've got a Sigma 18mm f2.8 fitramatic which is great, and a hard to find Vivitar 21mm f3.5 with a T4/X mount so it will work with C/Y cameras.
And my widest is a Heliar 12mm f5.6. It was only available in Leica and Nikon mounts, but it's pretty easy to convert the Leica version to just about any camera -- with a mirror lock-up switch & accessory viewfinder. They apparently made a 10mm version as well -- these are NOT fisheyes.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,371 (303 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Jan 15, 2020 20:32:32 GMT
Last Edit: Jan 15, 2020 20:33:28 GMT by lumiworx
As mentioned the Sigma 21-35 is super. It came in at least two versions. One was a one touch and the other two-touch. I have the one-touch, but I'm not sure which came first. I assume that both were available in the C/Y mount. Mine is a version II (2), and it's the 1 touch manual focus model. The 1st version was a 2 touch, but I'm not sure what mounts they were available in. Sigma's support site has done away with the links to legacy lenses, so no help with going there for answers. There's also the AF versions too, but they are definitely not the same optical setup, and not quite as sharp - or compatible - as the manual versions. I have an AF in Nikon F mount, and it's 'okay', but not great. Sigma only warranted them to fit on and function with the current range of Nikon cameras at the time of release, so that means no digital bodies at all, and only the F4/F100/N80/N90 type models. |
|
Group: Member
Post: 272 (39 liked)
Join date: July 2014
Status:
|
|
on Jan 15, 2020 23:59:57 GMT
Posted: Jan 15, 2020 23:59:57 GMT
xkaes, the 18-28 was also mainly here in the UK as a Sirius and it was available in C/Y mount. I had it around 1990 in Pentax K and while it was a so-so lens, it opened up options that wouldn’t otherwise have been available on my student budget.
|
|
