I took an interest in Yashica/Contax mount equipment a few years ago and now have a modest collection of later Yashica cameras and of ML/MC/YUS lenses. I have had three FX-3 bodies overhauled and recovered. They do not cost much and can be repaired easily enough. The FX-3 has a glass prism and a fairly bright finder. My ML collection, not including any duplicates, consists of 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 50/1.9c, 50/1.9, 50/2, 55/2.8 Macro, 135/2.8, 135/2.8C, 200/4, 200/4c, 42-75, 75-150/4 and 80-200/4. I have tried, unsuccessfully, to get a 35/2.8. The last one I saw on eBay went for almost $200. I didn't pay that much more for the 35/2.8 Zeiss AEJ lens. It's my only Zeiss lens in Y/C mount. I haven't used it enough to know it very well. So far it seems sharp and has nice out of focus rendition. I have an FX-3 Super and another regular FX-3 which have not been overhauled yet as well as an FX-3 Super 2000 in working condition. To supplement the ML/MC/YUS lenses I have a number of independently made lenses. These include a 28/2 Kiron, a 35/2.8 Super Paragon (Tokina?), two 50mm f/2.8 Sigma Macros, a 100/3.5 Vivitar Macro and others. How good are the ML lenses? Speaking only about the fixed focal length lenses I would say the ones I have are decent performers. The 135 and 200 c lenses seem sharper than their pre-c counterparts. Certain ML lenses were not big sellers and are worth more now to collectors. They are not "cheap." Yes, random 50mm f/1.9 and f/2 ML lenses are cheap. The performance of the ML lenses on digital cameras does not interest me. I use them with film. As I collect the ML lenses I fill in with Tamron Adaptall II/SP and Vivitar TX models. The ones I have tried with the Yashicas include the Tamron 24/2.8 (last 2 models), Tamron 90/2.5 (52BB), Tamron 35-135 (both models), Vivitar 35/2.8 TX, Vivitar 135/2.5 TX. I enjoy using the Yashica (Y/C) cameras and lenses and I also have collections of other brands.