Home
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
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kimble wrote:
I just used my ML 50mm f/1.9 for the first time in months last week. What I cannot figure out is why I don't use this lens more often. This photo is taken with Canon EOS 700D and ML 50mm f/1.9. It has not been edited in any way (except for resizing).

ISO 100, f/8, shutter 1/640:





As you can see, the colors are quite good. This lens also has a very nice bokeh, and it is sharp enough at least for me. True, it could be faster and that is why I have been thinking of buying ML 50mm f/1.4, but probably I should get Planar 50mm f/1.4 instead... After all, it's not that much more expensive.

Yashica ML 50mm lenses are without a doubt great lenses, that I can recommend to anyone if the price isn't too high. I paid 10 Euros for my copy of ML 50mm f/1.9.


It certainly produces a lovely image.
Well done
OH


PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
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.

You obviously have read this information on Alex Buhl's webpage (www.buhla.de). If you would know these lenses, and if you would have compared them carefully, your statement might be quite different.

Stephan


PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
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.

You obviously have read this information on Alex Buhl's webpage (www.buhla.de). If you would know these lenses, and if you would have compared them carefully, your statement might be quite different.

Stephan


It's true as I have all three plus the Hexanon 50mm F1.4..but comparing the 1.7/50 to f1.8/50 is more difficult when both are stopped down unless doing large crops (which I haven't done). And for "The 1.7 is among the very finest 50s ever made" might still be true if even comparing with modern digi lenses...maybe someone has done this comparison.
The 1.8\40 is a very good lens considering bang for buck as they were going for peanuts not so long ago http://www.northcoastphotos.com/Lympa_2007_09_29.htm
Sorry folks for deviating off topic as I'm a Hexanon fanboy.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My two bits on the Hexanon AR trio debated....
I also own the three, plus the older 52mm f/1.8, and the f/1.4's.

The 1.7 is better, just slightly over the 50 f/1.8, and more so over the 40mm f/1.8. Stopped down, they are a toss up, all render wonderfully.
Note: the 50, 40 f/1.8s are of a less robust build, manufactured by Tokina.

Back to Yashica ML 50s...

That sunset shot looks great and is similar to the f/1.9 C.
I just picked up a nice copy of the ML 50 f/2 because of the previous page's claim as being sharper than the later f/1.9.
IMHO, the f/2 did worst in wide open performance. Less center sharpness, more coma. The f/1.9 C did better. So, in my opinion. the revised f/1.9 is the better choice.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dont think so - it's just sample variation, i'd guess. Well, when i'd have ordered a few Film Rolls, i'd check out my Contax 167mt with the 50/F2 ML...i'd also compare it to my Zeiss 50/1.7 Contax then....but i must admit, i do like my Icarex 35s most...


PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="caledonia84"]
davidblue1984 wrote:
I believe I shot one roll of film on a yashica electro camera using a yashinon 50mm f1.7 lens . It def had great character .


It's a 45mm f1.7 but I agree it's a great lens, I was toying with the idea of stripping down one of my old electro and adapting it yo digital, couldn't quite bring myself to do it Sad

I bought two Yashica Electro 35 cameras on the cheap and one had a dead meter. So I attached it to a modified Sony A7 body cap and it behaves--well--like a Yashinon DX with a handy 45mm focal length--which I think is very often ideal. As soon as we get a little sunshine, I'll test it. I also converted the DX 35mm/1.8 lens (with rocketship two-blade aperture!) from a broken Yashica Electro 35 CC and I love the results so far.



PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, double posting ... my fault!

Last edited by stevemark on Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:04 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Especially the ML 1.4/50mm feels really good, and it performs nearly as well as the corrsponding Zeiss CY 1.4/50mm.
At 295g, the ML 1.4/50mm is quite heavy. Focusing is smooth.
Together with the ML 3.5/21mm and the ML 2.8/35mm it is one the few Yashica lenses i occasionaly use.

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
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.

You obviously have read this information on Alex Buhl's webpage (www.buhla.de). If you would know these lenses, and if you would have compared them carefully, your statement might be quite different.

Stephan


I'm getting rather sick of your condescending, know-it-all attitude. I have owned all three of those lenses for at least 6 years and have used them all extensively, both on film and digital.

The 1.7 I have is much better than the 1.8 I have, but of course, you, as always know better....


PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
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.

You obviously have read this information on Alex Buhl's webpage (www.buhla.de). If you would know these lenses, and if you would have compared them carefully, your statement might be quite different.

Stephan


I'm getting rather sick of your condescending, know-it-all attitude. I have owned all three of those lenses for at least 6 years and have used them all extensively, both on film and digital.

The 1.7 I have is much better than the 1.8 I have, but of course, you, as always know better....


Sorry, that was a misunderstanding. My remark was about you (and Alex Buhl) saying that the 1.7 is among the very finest 50s ever made, and not about comparing the AR 1.7/50 with 1.8/50 and 1.8/40.
I should have cited only the relevant sentence; so again: sorry, my mistake!

The Hexanon AR 1.7/50mm has a very similar performance as the Minolta MC/MD-I/MD-II 1.7/50mm lenses (yes, i have tried several Hexanon 1.7/50mm).
And, for instance, all 1.4/50mm lenses from Minolta perform slightly better than their 1.7/50mm counterparts. Therefore i wouldn't say that the 1.7/50mm is
among the very finest 50s ever made, especially since we have lenses such as the Leica 2/50mm APO, the Sony/Zeiss ZA and ZE 1.4/50mm, the Zeiss Otus
1.4/55mm and the Sony Zeiss ZE 1.8/55mm. Or the Canon nFD 1.2/50mm L. Or the Minolta MD-III 2/50mm ...

Stephan


PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Based on this german site , I bought my first Hexanon 50 1.7 ( I use an Sony A7) . It was a lemon. I did not give up and bought two other samples . I was disappointed . If you like the Hexanon colour rendition , you will appreciate this lens but that is all.
I did not find any quality which would help this lens to stand out of the pack. Its performance WO is poor and it is not nice to use (focusing and aperture ring) .


PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

caledonia84 wrote:
davidblue1984 wrote:
I believe I shot one roll of film on a yashica electro camera using a yashinon 50mm f1.7 lens . It def had great character .


It's a 45mm f1.7 but I agree it's a great lens, I was toying with the idea of stripping down one of my old electro and adapting it yo digital, couldn't quite bring myself to do it Sad



MORE than a great lens : an EXCEPTIONAL lens :
I made in 1985/1986 a comparaison beetween some different lens with a Yashica Electro 45/1.7 for reference (will it be good enough - or not - to compare with very high quality lenses) : Olympus OM 50mm 1.4 // Olympus OM 55mm 1.2 // Olympus OM 35-70/3.6 // (and for comparison with the om 35/70): Vivitar (komine) 35-70/3.6 and the winner was .... the Yashica electro 45/1.7 !!


Last edited by PBFACTS on Sat Feb 03, 2018 4:21 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 2:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's very interesting, cheers. Actually, I found a Yashica f1.7 3.2cm that has been removed from a half frame camera in my box of bits the other day, maybe I should dig it out and adapt it, see if it is as good as that exceptional 1.7/45. Smile


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PBFACTS wrote:
caledonia84 wrote:
davidblue1984 wrote:
I believe I shot one roll of film on a yashica electro camera using a yashinon 50mm f1.7 lens . It def had great character .


It's a 45mm f1.7 but I agree it's a great lens, I was toying with the idea of stripping down one of my old electro and adapting it yo digital, couldn't quite bring myself to do it Sad



MORE than a great lens : an EXCEPTIONAL lens :
I made in 1985/1986 a comparaison beetween some different lens with a Yashica Electro 45/1.7 for reference (will it be good enough - or not - to compare with very high quality lenses) : Olympus OM 50mm 1.4 // Olympus OM 55mm 1.2 // Olympus OM 35-70/3.6 // (and for comparison with the om 35/70): Vivitar (komine) 35-70/3.6 and the winner was .... the Yashica electro 45/1.7 !!


I had this camera in the past with a Leica M3.

The cron DR (old 7 elements version) was better than the yashinon, in my taste.

The yashinon 1,8 of the yashica 5000 liked me much more than the electro 45 mm lens


PostPosted: Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PBFACTS wrote:
caledonia84 wrote:
davidblue1984 wrote:
I believe I shot one roll of film on a yashica electro camera using a yashinon 50mm f1.7 lens . It def had great character .


It's a 45mm f1.7 but I agree it's a great lens, I was toying with the idea of stripping down one of my old electro and adapting it yo digital, couldn't quite bring myself to do it Sad



MORE than a great lens : an EXCEPTIONAL lens :
I made in 1985/1986 a comparaison beetween some different lens with a Yashica Electro 45/1.7 for reference (will it be good enough - or not - to compare with very high quality lenses) : Olympus OM 50mm 1.4 // Olympus OM 55mm 1.2 // Olympus OM 35-70/3.6 // (and for comparison with the om 35/70): Vivitar (komine) 35-70/3.6 and the winner was .... the Yashica electro 45/1.7 !!


For landscapes I doubt you will get the same experience on an FF digital sensor. I did convert a Color Yashinon 45mm 1.7 for use on a Sony A7RII. It looks nice on that camera but comparing the image quality with an Olympus OM 50mm 1.4 on the same camera shows that the last is better. Not discussing lens "character" here but light fall off, resolution fall off to the edges, etc. Another Yashica lens discussed here, the ML 50mm 2.0, shows that the corners / edges on an FF sensor are not holding up either. Both fit APS better, centers are very nice. No experience with other Yashica lenses for 135 film though.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4381799


PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I’ve had the Yashica ML 55/1.2, 50/1.4, 50/1.7, & 50/2 over the years. The only one I’ve kept is the 50/2, which is great on my half-frame FX-3.