Evolution of the 6x6 Yashinon 80 mm lens

If one has an interest in Yashica Mat cameras, he or she will find many different models at vearious price points. In Germany a Yashica Mat 124 G in good condition sells for 400+ € today. The earlier Yashica Mat sells for around 100 €. Of course, there are some differences, like the light meter in the 124G. However, the most important aspects of the cameras remain similar. So I was wondering, if there are any differences regarding the taking lens. Did the Yashinon also have any kind of evolution, or is a Yashinon on an 80s Yashica Mat the same lens as the Yashinon from the 50s?

You could ask the experts over at:

https://yashica.boards.net/

This site should answer all you questions.


Enjoy!

In my personal experience with several generations of Yashica 6x6, the Yashinon and Lumaxar are both excellent Tessar copies. And even the Yashikor can be very nice in the right hands. So I will not hesitate to go for the earlier Yashica models. If anything, the earlier Yashica-Mat are a bit meatier due to use of more metal parts.

I own a Yashica Mat with Lumaxar 75mm. Excellent lens and I’m fine with it, I wanted a Rolleiflex 3.5B but at the end I realized I had already a TLR that is as good as the German one.

About the Mats, as repairman I would go for a latest copy of a Mat, it might be a 124G or whatever the latest you find.
First reason, the leatherette of newer model will resist the peeling, first models as mine won’t and I placed new skin all over.
Second reason is that a Mat and the materials used on it will worn out much faster than a Rolleiflex and the design for cocking when winding is the weak point, it will fail at some point so the newer sample the better.
I have seen this on early Mats a couple of times but never on newer Mats, just a matter of being used I guess.
Of course in my opinion.

As for the lenses, I remind one line Mark Hama wrote me years ago regarding the Yashinons, the later models have better coating than the older ones, in terms of sharpness my tests reveals the lens didn't change.

Why a 124G is 400€+? Probably because the light meter is not selenium and it’s still usable, instead of getting a Ikoflex or any other with Tessar and a handheld light meter or using Sunny 16…

Unless the working light meter on the G is important, the lest expensive entry into Yashica is the later model Ds with 2.8 viewing lens and 4 element 3.5 taking lens. Does not have crank advance so the shutter needs to be manually cocked which can be helpful for those who like multiple exposures. Regardless of the model, see if you can find a flocking kit, Yashicas are poorly flocked which increased flar.

Alex Varas said:

Second reason is that a Mat and the materials used on it will worn out much faster than a Rolleiflex and the design for cocking when winding is the weak point, it will fail at some point so the newer sample the better.
I have seen this on early Mats a couple of times but never on newer Mats, just a matter of being used I guess.

Click to expand...

I'm not certain about Europe, but in the US, Yashica-Mats were common for police, journalists, wedding photographers, high school classes, etc. Simple camera that gave great detail. And ended up in car trunks, etc. The basic step-up camera for 'serious' high school students in the '60s and '70s. So lots of rough use.

By the time the 124 and 124 G came about, 35mm was starting to edge in. So the 124Gs probably had the least amount of hard use all in all.

Being made from sheet metal and having rather mediocre finishing internally didn't help. of course. Except for keeping cost down and allowing them to be bought in large quantities.

I've seen tons of great pictures from the Yashica Mats. I never had a desire to get one because I used Autocords, but they aren't slouches.

Paul Howell said:

Regardless of the model, see if you can find a flocking kit, Yashicas are poorly flocked which increased flar.

Click to expand...

+1. Flocking my LM made a big difference.

loccdor said:

I've seen tons of great pictures from the Yashica Mats. I never had a desire to get one because I used Autocords, but they aren't slouches.

Click to expand...

I think the Autocord has a better lens, better flocking, but a weak focusing mechanism. At time Minolta made it own glass, really fine lens.

Paul Howell said:

I think the Autocord has a better lens, better flocking, but a weak focusing mechanism. At time Minolta made it own glass, really fine lens.

Click to expand...

I agree, but at regular enlargements both lenses are capable.

Paul Howell said:

Regardless of the model, see if you can find a flocking kit, Yashicas are poorly flocked which increased flar.

Click to expand...

Regardless of the model?

I have an early YashicaMat with Lumaxar 80 and the film chamber is about as dull as that of an early (non-functioning) Rolleicord that I have. You don't hear many people saying that flocking Rolleicords is mandatory as you do for YashicaMat 124. Judging from online pictures 124G seems to have much shinier finish to film chamber.

I should have said later models, the 124 and D.

Over the decades, I have briefly owned a couple of Yashicamats with the 75mm 3.5 taking lens. At one point, I did on film resolution test comparisons of five different TLRs, including the new in the box Yashicamat. All mounted some version of a Tessar-copy 4-element taking lens. My test conclusions were:
1. Thee Yashinon lens used on the first Yashicamat is the same as used on the last over a 26 year period. Lens coatings may have been altered over time, but the on film performance is basically identical.
2. The Yashinon lens was the poorest performer of them all, and by a significant degree. The best was the Minolta Autocord, followed closely by two different Zeiss Tessars in Rolleiflex and Rolleicord, Ricoh Diacord, and way down there, the Yashicamat.
3. The Yashinon is quit poor wide open, but improves significantly as closed down. At 5.6 to 11.0, it is quite respectable, nearly equal to others.
4. With most prints today made by scanning and inkjet printing in smaller enlargements, the differences among these lenses is made insignificant by the digital processing. Making a traditional wet print larger than 11x14 inches might show a difference under critical examination.

Randy Stewart said:

Over the decades, I have briefly owned a couple of Yashicamats with the 75mm 3.5 taking lens. At one point, I did on film resolution test comparisons of five different TLRs, including the new in the box Yashicamat...

Click to expand...

75mm Yashinon?

Unless it's a typo, I wonder what Yashinon lens did you test. It surely wasn't something that most of Yashicamat camera users have on their cameras (80mm f3.5).

Far from being an expert on Yashicamats, but I thought that the only 75mm lenses were the very first Yashicamats with Lumaxar 75/3.5. All later models quickly adopted 80mm Lumaxar/Yashinon.