Opinions on Yashica ML 50mm lenses

littleearth · Joined: 21 Dec 2011 Posts: 77 Location: PT

Hello,

Anyone shooting these 50's ?

I see there is an f2, f1.9, f1.7, f1.4. They are all relatively cheap, but I would prefer to skip all the testing and buy the right one for my needs.
Looks to me like the f2 and f1.9 render a swirly bokeh with less "pop", while the f1.7 and f1.4 are closer to Zeiss Planar rendering.

Any opinions ?

Lightshow · Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary

I really liked the shots I've seen from the ML 50/2, so I bought one, it had fungus, so I tried to clean it, all the elements were glued in... Paperweight.

I came across an ML 50/1.4, optics seem good, but it flared badly so it's not seen much use,

l9magen · Expire: 2016-10-21

I have the f1.4 and had the f1.9 (got it for $15 but passed it along to friend). Both were very good but not quite as sharp (if that's your primary need) as their C/Y Contax Zeiss equivalents (f1.4 & f1.7).
The MLs seem to be cooler than the Zeiss, slightly bluer tone.
The bokeh for each is less smooth than the Zeiss, and the f1.9 is somewhat "swirly" fully open under certain conditions (back light scene with light coming through foliage).

Would I go for the f1.4 over the much cheaper f1.9? Well, depends on what you want to use it for? By f5.6 both are as good as each other. So if the usage will be "general purpose", save your money and be very happy with the f1.9. I kept my f1.4 to have the extra speed for night shots. Night street shots specifically.

What was your purpose for the lens?
Whichever you chose, enjoy it.

littleearth · Joined: 21 Dec 2011 Posts: 77 Location: PT

Thanks for the replies.
I'm considering buying the cheap ML 50 f2 as a small walk around lens, and save some money for the Planar 1.7 for more serious work.

l9magen · Expire: 2016-10-21

The Planar f1.7 is my go-to lens for travelling. You'll really like it, but why not just get it alone?
Or, save the money you intend to spend on both lens and buy the Planar f1.4 (MMJ version) instead?

invisible · Joined: 06 Jun 2013 Posts: 344

I don't have any first-hand experience with any of them, but I once read that the 1.7 is the one to get. It is supposed to be the one with the best balance of build/performance/price.

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

I got the 1.7 in a kit ( along with the 28 / 2.8 and 80-200 / 4 with and FX-D camera ) and it's a lens I use a lot. I don't know if it is better than the Minolta 50 / 1. 4 or 1.7 ? but it is certainly up there with the Minolta's.
For the low prices Yashica lenses go for I'd say they are probably the best bargains out there at the moment, all three of those ML lenses are very very good.
There does appear to be a lot of difference between ML and DSB lenses, I have the 28 / 2.8 in both lines and there is a clear difference. The DSB might not be 'bad' but they don't come close to the ML's.

shapencolour · Joined: 03 Oct 2013 Posts: 270

I got 2x50/1.4 ML (one silver nose),ML 50/1.7 and 50/2.All are good/very good fifties with "classic" performance (sharp,nice Yashica colours,some veiling wo due to non corrected spherical aberration (esp 50/1.4).All in all - keepers.My personal preference goes to 50/1.7 and 50/1.4.50/2 needs to be stopped down 2 stops to show it's best.

First A7+ML 50/1.7,second ML 50/1.4

#1

#2

anktonio · Expire: 2017-02-22

Almost any 70's and later multi-coated lens, refer to the focal length of 50 mm is perfectly valid. Personally I like the ML or DS-M 50/1.7. In my experience, the Planar gives contrast too many times, more desired.

In my case choose one or the other is manic subjectivity Smile

Happy shots!

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

YASHICA ML 1.4/50mm on NEX-C3, resize only

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Nice shot Pancolart, but what does the lens have that another 50mm doesn't...well excluding lenses like Helios with swirly bokeh etc.

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

Straight out of the camera - Yashica ML 50 / 1.7

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

carliniphoto · Joined: 27 May 2013 Posts: 52 Location: Bremen, Germany

The later ML version of the Yashica 50mm 1.7 is a very sharp lens and nice build quality...
I shot these on a Canon 50d with Yashica/Contax to EOS adapter.

kenetik · Joined: 02 Mar 2014 Posts: 521

I have the 50/2. It's a sharp lens, body isn't super substantial but glass is first rate. The bokeh is that kind that makes it look like you're on a merry go round, similar to some of the Russian lenses.

Here's an example on the Sony A7:

carliniphoto · Joined: 27 May 2013 Posts: 52 Location: Bremen, Germany

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.

kenetik · Joined: 02 Mar 2014 Posts: 521

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

kenetik · Joined: 02 Mar 2014 Posts: 521

littleearth · Joined: 21 Dec 2011 Posts: 77 Location: PT

I just bought the 50mm ML f2 to test it !

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

barryreid · Expire: 2015-11-04

y · Joined: 11 Aug 2013 Posts: 308 Location: EU

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.

carliniphoto · Joined: 27 May 2013 Posts: 52 Location: Bremen, Germany

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?

littleearth · Joined: 21 Dec 2011 Posts: 77 Location: PT

Never heard about radioactive 50mm ML lenses !

Here is mine with the camera.

[/img]

y · Joined: 11 Aug 2013 Posts: 308 Location: EU

carliniphoto · Joined: 27 May 2013 Posts: 52 Location: Bremen, Germany

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.