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

Who needs a Planar, having a Yashica ML 50mm 1.7?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:50 pm    Post subject: Who needs a Planar, having a Yashica ML 50mm 1.7? Reply with quote

Oly E-P1, wide open:





Regards.
Jes.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice bokeh.

I almost bought a ML 1.7/50 this week, it went for less than 10ukp.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, it's a very underrated lens! I've never compared the 50/1.7 Planar to the ML.

The Planar 50/1.4 is significantly better than the ML 50/1.4 though, in my opinion Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah everybody .... so many good inexpensive lenses are out there , but almost everybody want Leica, Carl Zeiss etc. Fine results, good lens.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nothing to see here ML lenses are terrible nobody should get them and drive the price up.
Well not until i own them all.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eddieitman wrote:
Nothing to see here ML lenses are terrible nobody should get them and drive the price up.
Well not until i own them all.


Laughing Laughing Laughing

I have a Yashica ML 50/2 which cost me, er, 2.00 or so and it's also excellent Smile Even better with tubes Wink


PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your comments colleagues,

Another sample to show the coloouring, resolution and sharpness of this lens:




And a 100% crop:




Regards.
Jes.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And that is it!! Smile


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

beautiful lens. also agree with graham, planar 50/1.4noticeably better.

Last edited by rbelyell on Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:56 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Planar 50/1.5 does not exist? - I have the MM 1.4 and the AE 1.7 and all three Yashicas (1.7 / 1.7 and 2.0 ML lenses)

But an f1.5 Planar, now that's new to me...

lol

Doug

rbelyell wrote:
beautiful lens. also agree with graham, planar 50/1.5 noticeably better.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sorry doug, an obvious typo--especially since i referred to grahams post. it's now corrected. notwithstanding, i am immensely gratified that my lack of typing skills could provide such amusement for you.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Smile



rbelyell wrote:
sorry doug, an obvious typo--especially since i referred to grahams post. it's now corrected. notwithstanding, i am immensely gratified that my lack of typing skills could provide such amusement for you.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, I was obviously comparing it to the 1.7 Planar...

Thanks for your comments!

Regards.
Jes.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lol and with that the one that is on ebay has gone from 3 watchers before this post to 20 watchers this morning.
PMSL


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've never used the ML 50/1.7 so maybe I'm wrong about this lens but the ML 50/1.4 and ML 50/2 are inferior to similar Contax lenses. The ML 50/1.4 is not bad and I assume the ML 50/1.7 is possibly better, but the Contax lenses are really much nicer, even at the higher price.

JJ


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

couple of thoughts: when i did my ml-planar comparisons they were done with a full frame canon 5d and the differences, especially people shots which show 3d effect, as well as clarity, were obvious. this was surprising to me because the ml series performed so well on the 5d.

interestingly, when tried on my olly ep1 (which i had at the time), the planar was not a clear winner, in fact given its ff performance, its olly performance was disappointing.

OT, i noticed exactly the opposite effect for my kodak retina lenses! it is interesting and noteable that the cam used effects the performance of the lens!


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Didnt the contax/yashica project have some cross pollination though? I though the ML 50/1.7 was a planar design? though not exactly the same as the Zeiss 50/1.7 ( best lens I ever owned, *sniff*)


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

better than the cron??


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the lenses may have been assembled in the same place, but as far as I'm aware they are not the same optical design. Same goes for the 28ML and 28CZ, both of which have a different character on FF.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbelyell wrote:
better than the cron??


I think it was, but its a hard comparison, different bodies for 1 , and also 40 years newer Smile

But I really did like the Contax Planars I had ( the 85/1.4 and the 50/1.7)


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

graham, when you say 'different character on ff' do you also notice inferior performance on your nex vs 5d?


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbelyell wrote:
graham, when you say 'different character on ff' do you also notice inferior performance on your nex vs 5d?


Unfortunately I bought the Nex after I sold the Yashicas, so I can't answer. The Yashicas certainly didn't have the pop on full frame, but they were VERY sharp stopped down. The 50/1.4 was poor compared to the Planar 50/1.4 and Nikon 50/1.4 wide open.


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

no, i meant do you notice different IQ from the planar between the 5d and nex, as i described?


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nice samples Jes

let me reformulate the question
Quote:
Who needs a Yashica, having a Planar?

Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rbelyell wrote:
no, i meant do you notice different IQ from the planar between the 5d and nex, as i described?


Sorry, I still can't answer the question as I haven't used the Yashicas on a crop camera Laughing