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

Yashinon DS-M 50mm /1.4
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:43 pm    Post subject: Yashinon DS-M 50mm /1.4 Reply with quote
So, in my search for a fast "nifty-fifty", a couple of months ago I got a pretty good deal for this one:



I don't see it very often, actually I have never seen this specific flavor on eBay so I am assuming is not exactly the most common.

These are my first test pics with apertures ranging from 1.4 to 5.6. The last picture will need to be loaded fullsize for you guys to see the performance increase/decrease as aperture goes narrower.

As a side note, post-processing did not happen. RAW conversion and resizing only. Not color correction nor sharpness increase, this is the real deal.

Hope you enjoy them.













PS: all pics taken on a crop 10Mp sensor.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Without PS it looks crap, lack of contrast , so so sharpness , doesn't help to much to poor lens. I my opinion better to show best what we can get from a lens than pure RAW conversion.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow I gotta say that I am unpleasantly surprised, specially when such comments came from you Attila. Purely destructive hey?!

I didn't comment on the outcome of the photos not to influence other users opinions and I won't for now but I must add that most pictures were taken wide open (because that is why I bought it).

Don't get me wrong, I do like criticism, both positive and negative but that was sheer bashing and I am sorry but i am not very fond of that.

Poor or not it is my lens, I spent my money on it and well, I am not rich either so we are right for each other Exclamation

Thumbs down I'm sorry.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is my honest opinion , nothing personal I say what I think about these pictures without post processing.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well 'poor' lens is what I can actually afford so I guess that makes me poor also.

Anyway thanks for your opinion.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Can I ask what camera these were taken with? I would love to find the DSM 50 1.4 to go with my DSM 50 1.7.

Here is a link to a couple pics taken with my Canon EOS 10D using the DSM 50 1.7 with no PP.
The color reproduction is just about dead on.
http://forum.mflenses.com/yashica-dsm-50-1-7-on-10d-t39899.html


PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well unfortunately your no-PP photos look too flat in colors, and sharpness isn't there, it is just another poor lens I'm afraid. Buy yourself a Takumar or anything that starts with Z (hint: Zeiss or Zuiko) and then just spend two hours messing with sharpness filters and contrast boosting so you can put some steroids on your pics! Only then we can talk about genuine lens performance! Twisted Evil

As you might have noticed that was my sarcastic self writting =)

Well the photos I took require almost no color correction either (yes I have sinned and checked with PS to see the difference), the lens has a beautiful coating, i guess that helps of course. I will be trying it on tubes too just to see if I can get any closer and see how sharp it can get.

I took them with Canon's 2008 low-end dSLR the 1000D.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have one 1.4 recently purchased on a thrift market for 2. And discovered at home that it has no AM-switch and is not easy to turn to manual aperture. So I did not use the lens yet. I think I will try on film first, before I try to glue the aperture pin.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Minolfan wrote:
I have one 1.4 recently purchased on a thrift market for 2. And discovered at home that it has no AM-switch and is not easy to turn to manual aperture. So I did not use the lens yet. I think I will try on film first, before I try to glue the aperture pin.


Try to cut plastic ring and glue into an M42 adapter or ask a machine shop to make a metal ring into an M42 adapter and you will have an adapter with flange. Better than ruin lens.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The first I tried with little succes for an other lens without AM switch; did last and conflicted with the MAF mount (KM/Sony). May be I only use the lens for film. Sometimes helps a piece of plastic sponge, but this lens doesn't give easy acces to the aperture mechanics.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My DSM 50 1.7 has no A/M switch, but my flanged adapter pushes the pin down enough for it to work properly.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Suggestions -

- Underexpose a bit. Highlights are getting blown out. Underexposed
shots also preserve contrast better. On a DSLR expose for the highlights, when in doubt.

- Flowers and other close-focus objects like your dandelion ball benefit a LOT from a high-contrast lighting situation, often even a degree of backlight. If there is no direct sunlight try to get a dark backround.

- Were you using a hood ? Highly recommended, more so with wide open
apertures. This also helps contrast. I believe this lens is single coated and the old design is badly affected if no hood is used.

- I can't tell, quite, if you were nailing focus on this. This lens is certainly capable of pixel-peeping wide open on a 10MP sensor. Close focus with f 1.4 can be fiendishly difficult.

- Try the jpg mode on your camera. Sometimes straight RAW conversion needs some tweaking.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had a Yashica Yashinon DX 1.4 which I sold: man that was some weight of a lens.



Why did I sell it? I had a phase of "too many 50mm lens-itis!" I think it worked well:







damn, I want it back now!!


PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
Suggestions -

- Underexpose a bit. Highlights are getting blown out. Underexposed
shots also preserve contrast better. On a DSLR expose for the highlights, when in doubt.

- Flowers and other close-focus objects like your dandelion ball benefit a LOT from a high-contrast lighting situation, often even a degree of backlight. If there is no direct sunlight try to get a dark backround.

- Were you using a hood ? Highly recommended, more so with wide open
apertures. This also helps contrast. I believe this lens is single coated and the old design is badly affected if no hood is used.

- I can't tell, quite, if you were nailing focus on this. This lens is certainly capable of pixel-peeping wide open on a 10MP sensor. Close focus with f 1.4 can be fiendishly difficult.

- Try the jpg mode on your camera. Sometimes straight RAW conversion needs some tweaking.


Thanks for the good vibes luisalegria, I don't want to sound apologetic but well I am very inexperienced and this was the best I could get.
I didn't use a hood, but to me wider apertures actually look better than narrower, as I look to that last picture, after f/5.6 everything is blown to pieces, I have no ideia why this happens, it looks overexposed but why if I am using such narrow apertures?..

I will take a hood with me next time for sure, and try to expose better because to be honest I never think about it, I just expose to the center =X

Thanks again.

As far as I know the DS were better built but the latter DS-M were better coated and superior lenses regarding IQ. The DX's were the worse of the bunch but those pics look pretty good to me.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with Attila and show my lens results after post processing, although I do see the point of RAW being a neutral way of showing for comparisons.

ChromaticAberration: Try to remember that it is the lens and not you or your photography that Attila is commenting on. The representative pictures did not present anything more than an average result - it's just a matter of fact. When looking at 100% crops, if I think the picture can stand on its own at that magnification, then I like the sharpness very much. Those pictures were not sharp enough to present as final images, thus do not meet that one criterion of mine. However, also remember that sharpness is but one of several criteria to be considered when evaluating a lens.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like to see the production of the lens, to myself, without any PP. In this way I can know the lens better.

But to show the pics, the best way I guess is using the best PP that I can use.

I like to show the best of my own. My best work that i can do.

Buit it's my personal choice.

Rino


PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some other tips -

- Don't trust your cameras metering. Digital cameras with old lenses often don't work so well as far as metering. On mine I note that I have to set EV compensation for each lens.

- Usually meter response also changes when you change stops on the lens, so test your exposure again.

- Digital also has very little latitude compared to film, so getting exposure right is critical. Fortunately these are digital after all, and you can directly check for whether you got your exposure.

- Even if all the auto metering is working, the meter very likely isn't getting the critical parts of your subject. Ansel Adams "Zone System" is very useful to keep in mind, even when we are using color digital. Fortunately again, with digital you don't have to go to elaborate systems to predict the outcome on film. Trial and error is much faster.

- If you want to pixel-peep, set ISO to the lowest.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
- Don't trust your cameras metering. Digital cameras with old lenses often don't work so well as far as metering. On mine I note that I have to set EV compensation for each lens.


Yep this is something I have to be on the lookout for but the pics usually look good enough for me on the LCD. Maybe I am not noticing the important details.

estudleon wrote:
I like to see the production of the lens, to myself, without any PP. In this way I can know the lens better.

But to show the pics, the best way I guess is using the best PP that I can use.


This is exactly my opinion too, I didn't wanted to show any skills just to increase the available pics for this lens for someone who might be curious about it's capabilities. Of course that if any of the pics would be good enough to made it into a "hall of fame" sure I would post process it

woodrim wrote:
I agree with Attila and show my lens results after post processing, although I do see the point of RAW being a neutral way of showing for comparisons.

ChromaticAberration: Try to remember that it is the lens and not you or your photography that Attila is commenting on. The representative pictures did not present anything more than an average result - it's just a matter of fact. When looking at 100% crops, if I think the picture can stand on its own at that magnification, then I like the sharpness very much. Those pictures were not sharp enough to present as final images, thus do not meet that one criterion of mine. However, also remember that sharpness is but one of several criteria to be considered when evaluating a lens.


I understand all that but to me a simple "the lens just doesn't cut it" would suffice, not something like "you gotta post-process the damn things before I have anything constructive to say about them", that is just outrageous since I never meant to show off anything of mine in the first place.

I am objective enough to look at the other threads Pancolar pics and recognize far superior quality but hey, I was never in a competition anyway.

Thanks for the constructive comments guys, I really appreciate them Wink


PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You really need to un-knot your knickers mate, no-one was being destructive, chill, it's all good.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
almost all old lenses (specially the low level) prone to strong light. lack of contrast is common. All we do is using it in right time (due to source of light)
then it will get the best result. even no need to PP Smile


PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Without PS it looks crap, lack of contrast , so so sharpness , doesn't help to much to poor lens. I my opinion better to show best what we can get from a lens than pure RAW conversion.


I am a friend of pure RAW showing, without PP...

1. Me, i would like to see the "pure" IQ of a lens and not how good a photographer can do a PP

2. The better way to see, how a lens performs on different DSLR if no sharpening = 0 is applied, no contrast and a neutral profil..


Otherwise we see how good a user can did the Postprocessing.


I did own the Yashica DS-M 2.8/24mm, DS-M 2.8/35mm, DS-M 1.7/50mm, DS-M 1.4/50mm, DS-M 2.8/135mm, DS-M 4/200mm..

The DS-M 1.4/50mm is a very nice lens, with a brilliant color-rendering, contrast and if someone can find this gem for a good price... go for it.

From the line of DS-M lenses i did have, only the 1.7/50mm and the 2.8/135mm are average performers..



Cheers


PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hinnerker wrote:

I am a friend of pure RAW showing, without PP...

1. Me, i would like to see the "pure" IQ of a lens and not how good a photographer can do a PP

2. The better way to see, how a lens performs on different DSLR if no sharpening = 0 is applied, no contrast and a neutral profil..


That is pure common sense right there!
From the moment you start post-processing you are adulterating the lens. If you boost contrast or sharpness or whatever that pretty much means the lens just isn't able to faithfully reproduce what you see when you look thru the viewfinder.

What is the wrong in that? What is wrong in having a "I tested this lens" samples gallery that contains no post-processing?

Thinking about this made me wonder if many of the pics we show here are not just simply deceiving the perception of potential owners that will be very disappointed when they get to see the REAL outcome.

That being true, meaning that 90% of the photos showing in the threads right now on this forum are post-processed when they're purpose was to show a lens capabilities, than we are doing more harm than good to those who appreciate manual focus lenses and this threads should be elsewhere, in a different section maybe.

hinnerker wrote:

The DS-M 1.4/50mm is a very nice lens, with a brilliant color-rendering, contrast and if someone can find this gem for a good price... go for it.


That is a refreshing statement since these are probably lenses that are not far from the later ML line only in a different mount (M42 vs C/Y), and I will definitely try to test more of these if I can get my hands on them.

Sure It won't hold a candle to the better optical formulas such as Planars, Pancolars, Takumars, Zuikos or Nikkors but then again they will cost you WAY less.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree 100%. This is not a Gallery. This section is for lens questions and
lens testing. So I use no PP testing my lenses.
If the lens is shall we say low quality, or a problem lens on digital, I will post it first with no PP, then post another shot with Post Processing to show how it can be corrected. I always list any PP that I do. I do need to correct several of my threads, do to bad vision, so I can post accurate results from the lenses tested.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
That is a refreshing statement since these are probably lenses that are not far from the later ML line only in a different mount (M42 vs C/Y), and I will definitely try to test more of these if I can get my hands on them.

I don't think ML is just a matter of mount (M42-C/Y), ML is representing multi coat. And it's the best of Yashica.
If you see my pictures here, specially with Sony NEX, there's no sharpening etc. I'm with you about showing what a lens perform, not how we show best picture with PP. I used to be a Photoshop fan, but now I just use Irfanview for most view and process a Pict.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
IAZA wrote:
I don't think ML is just a matter of mount (M42-C/Y), ML is representing multi coat. And it's the best of Yashica.


I also believe it is not just a mount difference but prices on the DS-M are almost as high as the ML's anyway. The only inexpensive version is actually the one mentioned earlier by hinnerker the 50mm f/1.7.

I will be trying again some shots with a hood this time, which I am still looking for in fact, and post them back. But of course, there will be no PP once more.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2