Yashica ML 200 f4

[peters8]

Hi Guys!Could you give informations and opinions about this lens?...Is it similar,better or almost better than the beautiful Canon FD 200 F4?Thank you very much!

 

[peters8]

Hi guys!...0 Answers?why?

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Sort of an uncommon line, old. That said I shoot the Contax/Yashica line and though I have not used that particular lens many of the Yashicas lenses are not bad at all. Especially 1 or 2 stops from fully open. Just do not pay much.

 

[ic-racer]

I read the thread and I have a bunch of Yashica ML lenses, but no Telephoto lenses so I cannot comment.

 

[Yashicano Alemán]

peters8,

Here's a user's review in German if that helps you any:

http://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php?t=11661

I don't have this ML lens myself, but conventional wisdom has it that, apart from the far-famed ML 500 mirror tele, the best MLs are on the short side, that is, from the superb macro lenses down to the ultra-wides and most anything in between. I once had an ML 2.8/135mm and swapped it for a Tokina prime with identical specifications, and it proved to be much sharper than the Yashi. If I were you I'd also consider getting an RMC Tokina 80-200 f4.0 manual zoom lens.

later

Michael

 

[PhotoJim]

This is a pretty simple lens and it's likely good - I wouldn't expect it to be markedly better or worse than any other Japanese name-brand 200/4 of its era. It will very likely be better than zooms (excepting professional zooms) at 200mm though.

 

[jjphoto]

I've owned the ML 200/4 (not sure if it was the C version or normal) but I've never used the FD 200 so I can't compare them. I didn't like the ML 200 as it simply wasn't very sharp, wide open, and was OK stopped down but so are all lenses. I certainly wouldn't consider it a worthwhile lens and I wouldn't ever recommend one. Maybe I had a mediocre one but TBH I found most ML lenses (of the several I've owned over the years) to be average, with the odd exception.

 

[peters8]

Thank you for your support.
for JJphotoo you remember the positive exception from the Yashica ML serie ?
Thank you very much

 

[jjphoto]

Thank you for your support.
for JJphotoo you remember the positive exception from the Yashica ML serie ?
Thank you very much

No problem.

At present I have the ML 50/1.4, ML 50/2, ML 55/2.8 Macro, ML 24/2.8. I use them on a Canon 5D2, don't tell anyone... I've had the ML 21/3.5, ML 200/4 which I used to use on transparency film and B+W.

The 50/2 is rubbish. Just rubbish. It makes a decent body cap.

The 50/1.4 is OK in that it renders very much like the Contax 50/1.4 but the ML is less sharp at every aperture and it suffers significantly from purple fringing/CA wide open (on digital, it might not be a problem on film). You can get much better 50/1.4's for the same or less money but why not just save a bit for the Contax and have one of the best 50/1.4's even compared to modern lenses.

ML 50/1.4 at F1.4

The ML 55/2.8 is in my bag most of the time and I use it quite a bit. There are no purple fringing or significant CA issues with it. It's a very good lens, I would certainly recommend it, but I suspect that macros are just an easy lens to design/build and I don't think I've ever heard of a bad macro lens. I suspect it's not in the same league as 'better' macros from Contax but it's also a very cheap lens.

ML 55/2.8 all at F2.8

The ML 24 is quite good and I have no real complaints about it. I just don't use it enough to comment much more, but I would certainly recommend it at the right price. I must like it because I sold one a very long time ago and then bought another one back again, but I just don't use that focal length much these days.

The ML 21/3.5 has a reputation for being a fine lens. Mine was not very good wide open (and I'll bet they are all the same) and needed to be stopped down at last one stop and preferably 2 at which point it was extremely sharp. I would certainly recommend it but not at current prices.

Having said/written all that, don't buy any of it (except maybe the ML 55/2.8). Save your money and buy the equivalent Contax lens if you can. The Contax coatings are superb and contribute significantly to improving contrast and controlling flare in general. They work perfectly on Yashica bodies so there's no excuse to NOT use them except for their cost. Good luck.

JJ

PS, don't tell anyone I'm shooting digital!

 

[PhotoJim]

My ML 50/2 and DSB 50/1.9 lenses were terrific so I'm guessing the 50/2 that you describe has taken a fall or something.

 

[Yashicano Alemán]

John,

I'm sure I'm not the only one round here who'd be really keen on learning about the story behind the first two images you posted...


Michael

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

My ML 50/2 and DSB 50/1.9 lenses were terrific so I'm guessing the 50/2 that you describe has taken a fall or something.

I agree. 50 is my favorite focal length and they are some of the cheapest lenses to be found. Over the years I've tried many (Nikon, Contax, Yashica, Leica, Canon, Mamiya, Fujinon, etc). They vary in character (contrast, bokeh, build quality fit and feel) but I've yet to find one that was not tack sharp at least when closed 1 or 2 stops.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

John,

I'm sure I'm not the only one round here who'd be really keen on learning about the story behind the first two images you posted...


Michael

Got to be an Australian thing. Guaranteed.

 

[Yashicano Alemán]

Got to be an Australian thing. Guaranteed.

I suspected as much as ... yes ... it does look kind of ... uh ... Australian (I'd rather not try to fancy what it might smell like)... :confused:

But what is it all about? Art? Religion?--Food??


Michael

 

[jjphoto]

I suspected as much as ... yes ... it does look kind of ... uh ... Australian (I'd rather not try to fancy what it might smell like)... :confused:

But what is it all about? Art? Religion?--Food??


Michael

They are skinned fox carcases left to dry on a fence in country Victoria, Australia. They don't smell at all but none of them where fresh at the time either. They've been there for years and there are new ones added from time to time. I find them quite interesting.

I've not spoken with the particular landowner who's strung out those foxes but have asked others what it's about and have been told a few stories. The most plausible seems that displaying the foxes lets neighbours know that they're around and to look out for them. Some councils pay a bounty on them as foxes can eat small animals and cause havoc. Just yesterday I saw the remains (two separate legs) of what must have been a very cute bunny rabbit which I suspect was the work of a fox. Although rabbits are vermin and won't be missed.

Mamiya M645 80/2.8 at F2.8

 

[jjphoto]

My ML 50/2 and DSB 50/1.9 lenses were terrific so I'm guessing the 50/2 that you describe has taken a fall or something.

I take it back, it's not rubbish.

My 50/2 is 100% OK and I'm pretty sure it's typical based on the performance I've seen posted by others from other samples. I'm just not impressed with it in any way, it doesn't have any character or qualities that make me want to use it, but it's certainly an OK lens.

If you only have $15 to spend a lens then it will be fine, but I think most people can do better.

 

[Yashicano Alemán]

I see. Thanks for the info!


Michael

 

[peters8]

thanks to all!...what about the 50 1.7?thanks

 

[peters8]

Please!help me!

 

[ambaker]

Yashica made some very nice equipment. Back in the day they were well regarded. I owned a 50mm 1.4 and found it to be very capable. I have a 1.7 on my Yashica GTN rangefinder, and it is very sharp.

Yashica lost out to Canon/Nikon, like so many others, but it was not for lack of quality.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Yashicano Alemán]

Please!help me!

The ML 1.7/50 is an excellent lens--I own one myself--and you cannot go wrong with it.

Then again, keep in mind that 50mm is the standard focal lens for 35mm film cameras, so there are millions of such lenses around, and most manufacturers can be trusted to have produced good quality in that field.

What I'm getting at is, don't pay more than the equivalent of, say, $30-35 for a good ML 1.7. The usual asking price of German EvilBay dealers, for example, would be around €60 or more, which is definitely too much.

One last hint: If you search EvilBay for Yashica ML lenses, look for Yashica FR or FX bodies as well. They can often be had at around 20 or 30 bucks (or even less) with a nice ML thrown into the bargain. I got many of my standard and wide-angle lenses that way, by buying cameras, which I then either kept in my collection, sold off again, or threw into the trashbin... ;-)


cheers

Michael

 

[peters8]

Thanks,very interesting!!!
if someone can give others opinions or advices about Yashica lens it will be a big plesure to me!
I'd like a wideangle (24-28) that doesn't cost too much,but with a good quality...I'm not searching for very bright models...If 24 or a 28mm 2.8 or 3.5 has an aceptable quality it will be the right objetive for my FX-3.
Regards

 

[jjphoto]

...

One last hint: If you search EvilBay for Yashica ML lenses, look for Yashica FR or FX bodies as well. They can often be had at around 20 or 30 bucks (or even less) with a nice ML thrown into the bargain. I got many of my standard and wide-angle lenses that way, by buying cameras, which I then either kept in my collection, sold off again, or threw into the trashbin... ;-)


cheers

Michael

+1

 

[Yashicano Alemán]

Thanks,very interesting!!!
if someone can give others opinions or advices about Yashica lens it will be a big plesure to me!
I'd like a wideangle (24-28) that doesn't cost too much,but with a good quality...

I own both the Zeiss and the ML 2.8/28 lenses, and I can't say the ML compares that poorly at all. In fact, it is one of the best lenses in the MF range, so by all means grab it if the price seems right. (The same goes for the Kiron 2,0/24, but it's rather hard to find and there is often an issue with oiled aperture blades).

But you have to be patient. If you want it tomorrow, you're likely to pay way too much for it.

Amongst wide-angle manual lenses with C/Y mount, there's quite a lot of trash on the market. Beware of brand names like Sigma, Hama, Hanimex, Danubia, Soligor, Vivitar and the like if you don't know exactly what you're doing. (There are some excellent lenses in this motley assortment too, but it takes some research to tell them from the rest, which are usually rather poor performers.) A priceworthy alternative to the ML 28 might be a Yashica DSB lens. However, I have no personal experience there.


Michael

 

[Yashicano Alemán]

Correction: My second sentence must read, "The 2.8/28 is one of the best lenses in the [Yashica] ML range."