Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Opinions on Yashica ML 50mm lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The ML 50mm f/1.7 and ML 50mm f/1.4 had way nicer build quality, then
on some of their other 50mm versions.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Keep in mind there are a couple of 55 macro MLs as well. The 4 and the 2.8. I have the 4, it's a tessar design, so better in the center. I think it's a fine lens, but based on user !Karen's thread on the 2.8, I think the planar design may be better suited as an all round lens.

Macros seem to hold up very well to digital sensors if you're doing digital, so you may want to consider these as well.

Sample from 55/4




PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
carliniphoto wrote:
The ML 50mm f/1.7 and ML 50mm f/1.4 had way nicer build quality, then
on some of their other 50mm versions.


I agree there is a lot of variation in the build quality of ML lenses. I have a 35-70 and the body is 100% plastic, it feels cheaper than any other 35-70 I own.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I just bought the 50mm ML f2 to test it !

It came with a mint Contax 139Q, lovely little camera.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
littleearth wrote:
I just bought the 50mm ML f2 to test it !

It came with a mint Contax 139Q, lovely little camera.



That's a nice little combo!

I've just landed an ML 50/1.7 myself and after this thread I'm really looking forward to trying it on my A7r.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 12:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just a bit OT. Does anybody know why only the ML 1.7 is radioactive and the rest of the ML line is not? Even the fastest one - ML 1.4 - is apparently not 'hot'.

It seems strange to me.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
As far as I know the ML 50mm 1.7 is not radioactive...
Ive owned several copies of this lens.. Where did you
see that it was radioactive?



PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Never heard about radioactive 50mm ML lenses !

Here is mine with the camera.

[/img]


PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 11:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
carliniphoto wrote:
As far as I know the ML 50mm 1.7 is not radioactive...
Ive owned several copies of this lens.. Where did you
see that it was radioactive?
Exactly, it's weird that the relatively modern ML line would be thoriated. Anyway here is the proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPMCMyNxbGY


PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Y that 50mm in the video is a much earlier version, I believe from the early 70s.
The front plate text is different and the lens body is different from the later version.

The later modern ML 50mm 1.7 that is compared with the Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.7
looks like this and I don't think its radioactive.




PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 6:40 pm    Post subject: Wading in shallow water a year later.... Reply with quote
50 1.4's - Wide Open and Stopped Down compiled by Dr. Loui of Wash U STL from the [u]OLD[/u] Photodo site

http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~loui/photodobest.html




@ F1.4 and F8 below


@50mm: Leica M Summilux-M 50/1.4.....0.60...... 0.80
@50mm: Leica R Summilux-R 50/1.4......0.58...... 0.84
@50mm: Canon EF 50/1.4....................0.58...... 0.84
@50mm: Minolta AF 50/1.4...................0.51...... 0.83
@50mm: Nikkor/Nikon AF 50/1.4...........0.56...... 0.80
@50mm: Pentax SMC-FA 50/1.4.............0.50......0.82
@50mm: Pentax SMC-F 50/1.4...............0.52.......0.85
@50mm: Yashica ML 50/1.4...................0.53...... 0.83
@50mm: Contax Planar T* 50/1.4...........0.57......0.85

These were the top 9 measured at the time, the only point is how extremely close all 9 are
I think the only place where a visible difference could appear is with the Leica wide-open compared to the Minolta/Pentax/maybe the Yashica all wide-open
In other words, they are so close only preferences in color and contrast (personal taste) truly separate them ?

Last edited by wildlight images on Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:23 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In my head to head Nifty-Fifties battle- Yashica ML 50/1.4 won over Minolta-PG 50/1.4 (less glow sharper, better bokeh actually -which surprised me) ,but lost to C/Y Planar 50/1.4

ML 50/1.4 lens is great lens, fantastic build, 8 blades, pleasure to use. Razz


PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm very impressed with my ML 50 1.7 It delivers some of the truest colours of any lens I have.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="Lloydy"]I'm very impressed with my ML 50 1.7 It delivers some of the truest colours of any lens I have.[/quote]

Last edited by wildlight images on Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:25 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Konica 1.7/50 is a far superior lens to either the 1.8/50 or 1.8/40. The 1.8s were made to a cheaper price point and it shows. The 1.7 is among the very finest 50s ever made.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I do own them, Minolta Rokkor PG 50/1.4, Yashica ML 50/1.4, 50/1.7 & 50/2, also Contax Zeiss 50/1.4 & 50/1.7, the 50/1.7 Zeiss does really have great 3D Pop, i never run a comparsion between all of them. But the 50/2 Yashica ML...sharp from F2.8 on, and was cheaper than 10 bucks for me, in great condition. For so little money its an steal.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had ML 50/2 for years but didn't use it much until bought a Samsung NX10. It makes a perfect really small short tele on a crop camera. With or without the beer.



PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A timely thread resurrection!

Been a fan of Yashicas ever since I discovered the performance from a Yashinon DS 50-f2. My affinity for nifty-fifties had me acquire each 50mm in their DS line.
Then added the DX in f1.7 and f2. A DS-M f1.7 soon followed. Of these, I found the the f1.7 were consistently stronger performers from wide open to stopped down. Their bokeh is better as well. The Thorium improvements are evident.

My first ML would be the f1.7, given how much better I liked their previous versions. Also to see just how much 'DNA' it shares with its Contax cousin the Planar.
The DS-M and the ML are supposedly the same multi-coating. Both appear very similar. But the ML was no longer radioactive. But given the above post and video, I'm very surprised. As I have the same early model with the silver edged treatment. (Looks similar to the DS-M body style)

Not a good thought, knowing this. I had a disassembled DX f1.7 and the ML near me everyday for a year! I guess my hair is going to fall out or my skin turn green!

Recently added the ML f1.4 and a f1.9 C. I found the f1.4 to be glowy and bloomy wide open. Hampering center sharpness. The f1.7 still better sharpness wide open. I found the f1.4 competitve with a Minolta MD Rokkor 50 f1.4 MD-I. The ML's color and contrast to be more to my liking, and the Rokkor cleaner overall and slightly sharper wide open. Stopped down both are neck and neck. Nod goes to ML due to truer colors and better contrast.

As for the 1.9 C, I decided to try this because it's an update to the f2, with improved edge-to-edge sharpness and nil errors. One reviewer stated it gave exceptional results with landscapes. The sample I got was a "C" version, which I assume stands for compact. The body is all plastic construction and the rim steps down from 52 to 49mm dia. filter threads. It's construction leaves a lot to be desired. As a matter of fact the face plate popped off, showing it was only glued on, not threaded. But at least the optics were top notch. The images were the best contrast, color and depth of all three ML 50s. The sharpness is uniform across the frame. There was no detectable problems that I could see. If it was razor sharp, it would be perfect.
If you should get one, look for the one with the f2 body style and avoid the C. The plastic build feels very cheap. The other body still had some aluminum.

I think it's superior to their DS 1.9, SMC Pentax-M f2, MD(III) f2, MD Rokkor 45mm f2, and Mamiya/Sekor f2.

While on topic about the 1.9, and also got handed a DSB 50-f1.9. The exterior resembles the DS-M style. Probably handed down after intro of ML line.
It needed cleaning of the blades. Disassembling it revealed the construction is noticeably cheapened compared to previous lines. The optics too. Some glued in place, simplified mounts. I haven't had the opportunity to shoot with it yet. Some say the DSB lenses aren't bad, just have to see.

Last edited by WNG555 on Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:35 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Are there both C and non-C versions of the ML 1.9? Or did they go straight from ML 2.0 to ML 1.9 C?


PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
WNG555 wrote:
A timely thread resurrection!


Recently added the ML f1.4 and a f1.9 C. I found the f1.4 to be glowy and bloomy wide open. Hampering center sharpness. The f1.7 still better sharpness wide open. I found the f1.4 competitve with a Minolta MD Rokkor 50 f1.4 MD-I. The ML's color and contrast to be more to my liking, and the Rokkor cleaner overall and slightly sharper wide open. Stopped down both are neck and neck. Nod goes to ML due to truer colors and better contrast.

As for the 1.9 C, I decided to try this because it's an update to the f2, with improved edge-to-edge sharpness and nil errors. One reviewer stated it gave exception results with landscapes. The sample I got was a "C" version, which I assume stands for compact. The body is all plastic construction and the rim steps down from 52 to 49mm dia. filter threads. It's construction leaves a lot to be desired. As a matter of fact the face plate popped off, showing it was only glued on, not threaded. But at least the optics were top notch. The images were the best contrast, color and depth of all three ML 50s. The sharpness is uniform across the frame. There was no detectable problems that I could see. If it was razor sharp, it would be perfect.
If you should get one, look for the one with the f2 body style and avoid the C. The plastic build feels very cheap. The other body still had some aluminum.

I think it's superior to their DS 1.9, SMC Pentax-M f2, MD(III) f2, MD Rokkor 45mm f2, and Mamiya/Sekor f2.

While on topic about the 1.9, and also got handed a DSB 50-f1.9. The exterior resembles the DS-M style. Probably handed down after intro of ML line.
It needed cleaning of the blades. Disassembling it revealed the construction is noticeably cheapened compared to previous lines. The optics too. Some glued in place, simplified mounts. I haven't had the opportunity to shoot with it yet. Some say the DSB lenses aren't bad, just have to see.


The 1.9 C (C may stay for compact, as many ppl suggests into also german forums) but the C may also stand for Cosina-made, and literally, it's worse than the 50/2, 50/1.7 or 50/1.4 in IQ terms, also plasticky-build quality - the last 50/1.9C into a line of ML 50s before
it was phased out…the single coated DSB line, as someone wrote on DPRview Forums, a time waste...i never played with them, only the Yashica ML series, or directly Contax Zeiss Lenses, my bad. Smile


PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
glaebhoerl wrote:
Are there both C and non-C versions of the ML 1.9? Or did they go straight from ML 2.0 to ML 1.9 C?

After the 50/1.7 ML, the 50/1.9 came out, which is the 50/2 successor - and from the 50/1.9, both 50/1.9 and 50/1.9 c do exist.

On digicamclub.de is a 1:1 comparsion between the non-c 50/1.9 and the 50/2 ML - the 50/2 ML wins, because the F1.9 ML does have
less contrast, and the F2 lens does look better. I wouldn't bother with the 50/1.9c, it's even worse in IQ then the Non-C version.

So into the end, choose from the 50/1.4 ML, 50/1.7 ML or the 50/2 ML, the F2 Version is the smallest, because of the pancake-like apperance.
Whileas the 50/1.7 ML is a great lens, prices rise to about 30-50 bucks, and the 50/2 ML still can be bought of ebay with little luck for less then 10 bucks,
in mint condition...that's how i got my 50/2 ML....and i've paid 20 for my 50/1.7 ML years ago.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I love the 50mm f1.4 picked up a mint boxed one and a yashica FRII for £25, use it for everything from indoor sports to flora and portraits

Scottish BJJ Open 2014 by Scott Hills, on Flickr

Griphouse BJJ by Scott Hills, on Flickr

Scottish BJJ Open 2014 by Scott Hills, on Flickr

Yashica ML 50mm f1.4 +ZLT II by Scott Hills, on Flickr

Yashica ML 50mm f1.4 +ZLT II by Scott Hills, on Flickr

Stuart and Alana by Scott Hills, on Flickr

Botanics by Scott Hills, on Flickr

Sol by Scott Hills, on Flickr

Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh by Scott Hills, on Flickr


PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fine pictures. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice samples caledonia84, shows you don't need the most expensive or exclusive lens you can find!
The road sign looks a bit different than the rest, somehow a little bit swirly (but I like it!), guess that's just the different focus distance.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
glaebhoerl wrote:
Are there both C and non-C versions of the ML 1.9? Or did they go straight from ML 2.0 to ML 1.9 C?


Looks like doomed-forever has covered the question thoroughly for me.

Sorry I should've been clearer that there was a a previous ML 1.9.

Interesting that the ML 2.0 did better than the 1.9, especially regarding contrast. I get a lot of contrast from the plastic-icky 1.9 C. And the only nitpicking I can think of was the afore-mentioned sharpness. If it could match the stopped down sharpness of its siblings, it would look perfect. I may have a decent copy.
But the plastic quality is appalling and I still say to avoid it. :0

As for the DSB 1.9, took some shots in overcast skies. It is soft and bloomy wide open. Definitely the worst Yashica 50 I have. It looks good once down to f/5.6.
Close shots are sharp. Color looks OK, reminiscent of their single-coated line. Are the DSB's multi-coated? I could not see a difference reflecting a light off it and an older DS. Bokeh was good, and the distant shots were quite good with depth, not flat and defracted.


[caledonia84]
Like 1
Yes, truly excellent images! I think my copy of the 1.4 can't match yours.

Last edited by WNG555 on Mon Feb 08, 2016 4:29 am; edited 1 time in total
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3