Yashica ML Lens: they are so good?

Hi,

I have bought a Yashica FX3 2000 super with a 50mm 2.0... only 30 $ in mint condition.

I read that the quality of the Yashica Lens is similar to Zeiss and outperform Pentax and other lns producers.

It's true or is only a "legend born on some forum" ?

Thanks

You can't believe everything you read.

By the same token, most lenses are pretty good. Some better than others, but still.
Individual samples may be better than other brands. Or not.
Use it and I doubt you would be disappointed.

At one point I had a FX with the Yashica 50, I still have a Yashica 50 in M42, along with Pentax in M42, K, and AFK. I think the Yashica was as good as the Pentax, but I don't think it out performs Pentax K, and as I recall the Yashica 50 FR was tested by Popular Photography and the Zeiss made in the FR mount for Contax and although a good performer the Yashica version was not up the Zeiss. On the other hand the Pentax 50mm limited edition manual focus lens was one of the sharpest 50mm ever tested by Popular Photography, the other being the Konica 40, pancake. Remember the FR system was designed in the 70 and 80s. I don't know how the Yashica 50mm would stand up to current 50mm lens like the MF Zeiss or Sigma 50 1.4. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 art lens in on my wish list.

I have 28, 35 and 50mm Yashica lenses in ML and DSB variations, as well as Nikon, Canon and other equivalents. The Yashica is well made and renders colours slightly differently but I struggled to find any obvious difference between brands in sharpness or resolution in my tests. A bigger factor might be finding a good, long-term body on which to hang a lens. I don't think Yashica or Contax offered mechanical cameras to quite the same standard as the best Nikon or Canon.

Contax lenses are probably slightly sharper, and are sought after by digital users, meaning prices are relatively high.

I've never used a Pentax lens so no comment on that.

On the other hand I've had many Yashica ML and Contax Zeiss lenses, and still do (on digital bodies), and I can comfortably say that the Yashica ML lenses are not really in the same ball park as the Contax Zeiss lenses although they are certainly very good. At the end of the day there are many lens and many different aberrations or qualities to compare so while some qualities may be quite similar others are not even close. I think one of the main differences which applies to every lens is that the Zeiss T* coating sets the Zeiss lenses apart giving them better flare resistance, reduced veiling and higher contrast.

Frankly I think the main reason Yashica ML lenses get the praise that they do is because they tend to be cheap lenses so they are hyped up if they perform well, which many of them do and which virtually any 50mm lens will do regardless of the maker. The 50mm lenses, regardless of the manufacturer are often quite close in performance, especially sharpness, so it's common for people to compare different brands of 50mm lenses and assume that the rest of the range will be similar but this really isn't so.

The 2/50 ML is certainly quite sharp and not a bad lens, especially considering it's worth so little, 20$ or so. It has funky bokeh which can be a good or bad thing depending on your perspective, but it's not smooth. However comparing 1.4/50 Contax and Yashica it becomes fairly obvious that the Contax is sharper at every aperture and the Yashica has severe purple fringing wide open which the Contax does not (using a digital camera, so film might not show this). The rendering of the two lenses is very similar however.

Cost aside, I've not found a Yashica ML lens (I've had, or still have, 3.5/21, 2.8/24, 2/50, 1.4/50, 2.8/55 macro, 4/200) that I would prefer to have over a similar Contax Zeiss lens.

Dear Antigen,

My first SLR was a Yashica FX-2 with a 50mm f/1.4 ML lens. For years I was convinced that I should upgrade and when I finally got a 50mm f/1.4 T* I was in heaven. Of course what I really found out was that unless I was that the difference was small enough that I could have ignored it. I found the same thing when I rented a Nikon 300mm lens and when I borrowed a friend's Canon. There was no sudden jump in quality. Right now one of my favorite walking around combinations is with an RTS but with my Yashica 135mm YUS lens instead of my Contax 135mm T* simply because it is much smaller.

I love my T* lenses and they are a little better, but if you have an ML, you can buy a lot of film and paper instead of a new lens.

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

I can recommend the ML 50mm 1.9, the older version (not the 1.9 "c"). That lens is great even at minimum focussing distance, and has nice bokeh. A real sleeper. My ML 28/2.8 is good, but not great.

Antigen said:

Hi,

I have bought a Yashica FX3 2000 super with a 50mm 2.0... only 30 $ in mint condition.

I read that the quality of the Yashica Lens is similar to Zeiss and outperform Pentax and other lns producers.

It's true or is only a "legend born on some forum" ?

Click to expand...

Yashica ML lenses were made by Tomioka which is part of Yashica, and a very good lens factory highly capable. So capable that the same factory produced the Made-in-japan Zeiss lenses.

Now, to say that those ML lenses "outperform Pentax" is an exaggeration. You can be sure, however, that those ML lenses, in general, are good lenses that will perform in a similar way to comparable Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Minolta lenses.

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.

dynachrome said:

I have tried, unsuccessfully, to get a 35/2.8. The last one I saw on eBay went for almost $200.

Click to expand...

I picked up a 35/2.8 ML two years ago for £20. For me there are lenses which function properly, and ones that don't. Yashica lenses definitely work, and that's true of ML and DSB varieties. Cult lenses are lost on me, the difference in film, development and print is greater than any nuance worth paying an extra few hundred pounds for. If people want more definition, use a larger format.

There are some brands which sold well in other markets but not in the U.S. Two examples are Pentax K equipment and Yashica/Contax mount Yashica equipment. When it was first offered in the U.S. the Y/C mount Yashica was reasonably priced. The problem is that the market was already full of similar equipment from Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus etc. To keep some market share on the low end, several manufacturers offered a budget lens line. This included the Nikon Series E lenses, the Konica Hexars, the Minolta Celtics and at a slightly earlier time the M42 mount Yashikors. Canon offered less expensive versions of its FD lenses like the 70-210, 135/3.5 etc. I did not think of looking at UK eBay for a 35/2.8 ML and getting the lens is more about filling out a collection than about comparing it to this lens or that lens of a similar focal length and speed. I have enough 35mm focal length lenses of different types to sink a ship.

dynachrome said:

There are some brands which sold well in other markets but not in the U.S. Two examples are Pentax K equipment and Yashica/Contax mount Yashica equipment. When it was first offered in the U.S. the Y/C mount Yashica was reasonably priced. The problem is that the market was already full of similar equipment from Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus etc. To keep some market share on the low end, several manufacturers offered a budget lens line. This included the Nikon Series E lenses, the Konica Hexars, the Minolta Celtics and at a slightly earlier time the M42 mount Yashikors. Canon offered less expensive versions of its FD lenses like the 70-210, 135/3.5 etc. I did not think of looking at UK eBay for a 35/2.8 ML and getting the lens is more about filling out a collection than about comparing it to this lens or that lens of a similar focal length and speed. I have enough 35mm focal length lenses of different types to sink a ship.

Click to expand...

Yes, brands seem popular in certain territories and not in others. In the UK Minolta were a minor player, in the US I believe they were very much a mainstream buy. Screw thread Yashicas were not uncommon in Britain, especially the TL Electro, but I don't know anyone who bought a C/Y mount Yashica, whereas quite a few went for the Contax. I remember a time when the Canon FT/b was very common for people whose budgets didn't stretch to a Nikon, but very few seemed to go for the F-1 whereas lots bought the F and F2. In the 1970s I used an OM1 and didn't know anyone else who did.

In my opinion neither Yashica or Contax made a professional camera to match Nikon or Canon, though Contax certainly made technologically sophisticated cameras. I really like my old FR, but the frame counter died which seems to be an endemic problem. It also has an annoying metallic after ring when the shutter fires, but in other ways it's a very well built mechanical camera with full viewfinder readout and a simple fabric shutter, the kind of thing Zenit would have made if they weren't producing cold war heavy metal of uncertain fabrication. Yashica lenses are something of a sleeper, but whether they are better or worse than Nikon or Canon I couldn't say. In my tests they all come out sharp enough to work with.

Antigen said:

Hi,

I have bought a Yashica FX3 2000 super with a 50mm 2.0... only 30 $ in mint condition.

I read that the quality of the Yashica Lens is similar to Zeiss and outperform Pentax and other lns producers.

It's true or is only a "legend born on some forum" ?

Thanks

Click to expand...

Excuse me Antigen

I have no better words to answer: Great couple, wonderful combination and for that price! "Second" to none! ... that's Good Enough!

dynachrome said:

\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. \

Click to expand...

That is a nice collection of lenses you have.
I use only wide lenses and was able to track down all of these wides that I currently have and use. I didn't seek out those 50s, they came 'free' on camera bodies:
15/2.8 ML
21/3.5 ML
28/2.8 ML x 2 (two different lens formulas)
35/2.8 ML
50/1.7 ML
50/1.4 ML
50/2.0 ML
55/2.8 Macro ML with extension

blockend said:

I really like my old FR, but the frame counter died which seems to be an endemic problem.

Click to expand...

The first time i handled a FR-1, i was impressed. And i was using a Nikon F3 at that point in time. Very nicely built machine with truly excellent viewfinder.

I was about to buy me a FR-1 a month ago until I found out about the frame counter problem.

I am picking up a Contax RTS II tomorrow and it comes with the Yashica 28-80 f3.9-4.9 zoom lens. Cost is low for a Contax. Im not sure I'll keep the lens, as I know nothing about it. I am getting the camera so I can use the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 on it. Any comments on the camera or lens?

You may as well keep the zoom, in the US they don't have much value at all. Hang onto it incase something happens to the 1.4.