Mimi - Yashica DSB(?) 28mm f/2.8

Lazzaros · Joined: 15 Jul 2008 Posts: 975

My C/Y adaptor arrived.

Just tested the Yashica. I thought this one was ML 28mm but it has "DSB" inscrited.

It is the same lens? (sorry my ignorance)

f/2.8
ISO800
1/30

(tomorrow I'll put some testes of my Planar T* 50mm 1.7)

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

No, Yashica ML lens shoud better. You have a nice model easy to make beautiful pictures with any lenses Wink

My bird is lot more problematic model Laughing

Lazzaros · Joined: 15 Jul 2008 Posts: 975

"You have a nice model easy to make beautiful pictures with any lenses "

This is one lens. I used it on my 400D.

koji · Expire: 2012-12-27

I have the same lens (Yashica DSB 28/2.8 ), which won the best of camera industry award (don't remember which year), according to son of machine shop supervisor of Tomioka optical factory. Though my sample is weak against strong incoming light, ie. gets flare easily.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Lazzaros · Joined: 15 Jul 2008 Posts: 975

I thought it would be just a "20� lens" but i liked the results very much!

koji · Expire: 2012-12-27

According to my Yashica-collecter friend, your DSB 28/2.8 is replacement for the previous YUS 28/2.8 lens distributed only in USA (YUS=Yashica US), which I own.
The lens was designed by Yashica team (not Tomioka Optics) most likely based on YASHIKOR series. Tomioka made YASHINON (ML-line) series.

This was shot by YUS 28/2.8, I may need a better hood or avoid against Sun.

bawang · Joined: 26 Mar 2008 Posts: 548 Location: Indiana, USA

koji · Expire: 2012-12-27

Yes Yashica's ML-lines are all designed and made by Tomioka optics except longer focal length lens and zooms (except ML 28-50/3.5). Those tele and zoom lenses are all made by Tokina so there is no use to spend lots of money to long focal length ML-lens. Smile

ML28-50/3.5 is a great lens, but large and heavy. It has a variable aperture to make the lens to have a constant speed f3.5, so at 28mm wide focal the lens apeture closes a bit to retain constant f3.5, this is relatively common feature at that era. Nikon made 25-50/4 (do not make a mistake as 24-50 af zoom) with same aperture mechanism, possibly Minolta's 24-50/4 zoom (might be f3.5, my memory is fading) too.

ML28/2.8 is better than Contax Distagon T* 28/2.8 IMHO, ML28 has uniformly sharp across entire frame and slightly less distortion. Although the centre shaepness is better for CZ28, this same thing can be said to ML35/2.8 against Contax Distagon T* 35/2.8. ML50/1.4 is far less distortion than Planar 50/1.4 and ML50's colour rendition is more normal ie. not too enhanced like Zeiss', I would say they are almost equal. For ML55/1.2 I think that it becomes a cult lens but after f1.4 both ML50/1.4 and ML55/1.2 are undistingushable to me, you do not have to spend money for 55/1.2. Wink

Do not forget ML24/2.8 (which to me might have an aspheric front element), ML macros (F4 and F2.8 almost identical, also comparable to Ziess 60/2.8 macro lens, and better yet (but rare) ML100/3.5 you can call it a macro lens). I have never used ML16mm fisheye and of course telephoto lenses. Embarassed

I have ML-lens directory if you have not seen it. > http://www.pbase.com/kkawakami/yashicas Embarassed

You should visit Luis Lam's Yashica ML lens page too > http://louislam.photopage.org/Yashica/Yashica.htm

He has a very interesting description of ML21/3.5 lens design. ML21/3.3 was replaced by slower ML21/3.5, but 21/3.3 was distributed only in Euoope as a stop gap, the lens 21/3.3 was developed for security camera as I heard, there is Chinon name 21/3.3 too made by Tomioka of course. This 21/3.3 lens was never sold in Japan, Yashica did not have any document today for this odd lens. And one more about the linage of ML Macro 55/4, this lens was originally designed to work as a part of industrial micro-fiche copy machine. Later it was replaced by ML Macro 55/2.8, though I do not see a big improvement against the slower sibling, which was already pretty good. One time with my friend we compared it against Zeiss Makro 60/2.8, we could not see much difference. Maybe we were blind. Rolling Eyes