Contax/yashica lenses, ML´s vs Zeiss

[seta666]

Hello,
One year ago my girlfriend bought me a C/Y ML 50/2, which I used for reverse macro shots. Then someonje suggested me to get an adapter for EOS. I the moment I did not take the advice, I had already some M42 lenses and starting again with another mount was an anoyance but at the I bought it.
I am glad I did get it, since I started using it I realiced of its quality and started getting them, quite affordable. Now I have the 24, 28, 35, 50/1.4, 50/1.7 and 50/2
I like them all, sometimes I read that they compare quite well to their zeiss counterparts and read that some of even perform better than the zeiss.
This would be the 28mm in APS-C and the 35mm. Is that true? Is the difference in quality that big to pay the ""zeiss" price premium
I heard that main diferences are colour rendering, ML´s being cooler and zeiss warmer. Also that with some lenses like the 28mm in full frame the zeiss lens keeps sharpness more even across the frame

Some ML´s I would like to get are the 21mm (this one does not sell cheap) and the 55 1.2(never seen one for sale, must be expensive too)

Regards

PD- I have never tried a zeiss

[Attila]

Try one times Zeiss and you will don't have more question why many, many people pay premium price , they are not silly

Yashica made many nice lenses indeed, none of them reach Zeiss level in my opinion , but some of them close . Like 24mm , 21mm , 28mm also a nice one good as any other Nikon, Takumar etc.

[MF-addicted]

I started from Yashica ML to Zeiss.
... and sooner or later you get there.
But the ML 15 and ML 21 are lenses really close to Zeiss quality at a fraction of cost. Recommended without doubt.
These two will be absolutely keepers.
And once, I will go for the 1,2/55, too

[Keysersoze27]

Once you go Zeiss , you never go back...

[Attila]

One thing more about Zeiss , I did try hundred of lenses, perhaps thousand. Many maker have some stunning lens , but I know only one maker who has all lens is stunning this is Zeiss Contax line.

[Orio]

Pretty much like Attila said, ML are good lenses, some of them excellent, but Zeiss Contax are a step above.

Regarding the two lenses you mentioned, the ML 28/2.8 is a good lens, but no real competition for the Contax counterpart.
The ML 35/2.8 is on par in performance as the Distagon 2.8/35, but the Distagon 2.8/35 is one of the less exciting Contax lenses. At least, as far as I am concerned.

The best ML lens that I ever used is the 24mm, which is absolutely to keep.

I have never tried the ML 21mm, so I can not judge, but considering the price, it is surely a great buy, because the Distagon 21mm costs 3 times as much.

[koji]

[seta666]

Well, lots of replies. I understand; zeiss is zeiss but for a beguiner like me Yashicas ML´s are a safe bet, also pretty affordable.
I paid 155€ for the 24mm from a member of the forum, that was the most expensive one; then a 28mm for 35€, 35mm 60€(again from a member of the forum), 35€ for the 50 1.7 and 70€ for the 50/1.4 incluiding a yashica FX-D Quartz.

I guess zeiss is better, but if the difference is not that big then either the Zeiss has the brand premium or the ML´s are under rated for some reason.
I would like to get some more of these, the 21mm and 55mm 1.2 are now out of my reach as they are well over 300€ but are on my future wish list. If I have the oportunity to get some of the ML´s macro I will get one too

One Day may get a zeiss lens and then I will have to start all over again but for now the yashicas quallity is over my quallity as a Photographer

Apart from that, what makes zeiss lenses that different? someone mentioned the 3D effect but I guess is overall quallity, sharpness, color, bokeh etc..

Regards

[MF-addicted]

Maybe Orio's actions will help.

http://forum.mflenses.com/free-zeissifiers-actions-t20729,highlight,zeissification.html

[Attila]

In fact a goos lens and a stunning one has not much quality difference, same than in other areas of life a luxury car and a good car both are perfectly ok , but they have huge difference in price. We are in lucky ages we can buy many good lenses for little money.

[Orio]

[seta666]

I completely agree with what you say, Orio
For my needs I think I have a great gear now, and of good quality in a cost/quality ratio. Now I have to make good use of it; I started photography a year ago but in the last few months I have not had enough time for myself; I am also adapting to the full frame thing, coming from APS-C all the focals are a bit different now
Regards

[alex]

The mistake I made in my early days in photography, when I had just discovered the interchangeable lens reflex camera, was to buy a range of lenses, all of low price and pretty average quality, in order to get a spread from wide to telephoto. To me at the time, glass was glass, and very expensive lenses were only status symbols, like having that red dot on your camera.

I bought my first Zeiss lens on a whim, and didn't even mean to. Planar f/1.4 50mm. When I saw the first images from it, I realised how much money I had wasted on cheap and mediocre glass. Instead of buying an assortment of focal lengths and third party low cost offerings, I should have save up and bought one decent lens. The only way you'll be convinced is to buy a Zeiss lens yourself. I've seen the f/1.7 50mm Planar go for as little as £45 (around $60 or so), and at that price, it would be folly not to.

The Yashica ML lenses are excellent, and I have a considerable collection of them, from 21mm to 300mm and most of the zooms. Some of them snap at the heels of their Zeiss cousins, at a fraction of the price. I should add that my discovery of ML lenses was also late. All the same, once you've seen for yourself the capabilities of a lens like the 28mm Distagon, the 50mm Planars, or the 85mm Sonnars, you'll know why people are prepared to pay the premium. Their reputation rests on merit.

[vic]

I have two yashica ml lenses: 50/2 and 75-150/4. Both are very very nice, and they are very cheap. Tested 50/2 against canon ef 50/1.8 mk 2, and the yashica was way better from wide open, edge to edge. Then I did the same test yashica 50/2 vs pentax M 50/1.4, and the pentax was just so sligtly better from f2 and more closed. This proves it is a hidden gem, since that pentax is a reference, classy lens. I also like its bokeh.
The zoom produced output very similar to the canon efs 55-250, which is a lot to say, given it is much older.
So, I would recommend heartily yashica ml glass, as far as I know. A shame they cannot be used on my pentax.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Modern Canon consumer level lenses are junk so most older primes outperform them. The ef 1.8/50 is a poor example of a fifty prime.

[Lloydy]

I grabbed a Contax RX camera with a bunch of lenses for £30 in a charity shop, the camera was unmarked, I didn't even look at the lenses. I paid the money and ran.
When I got home I found another camera, a Yashica FX-D and ML lenses 28 / 2.8, 50 / 1.7, 135 / 2.8 and 80-200 / 4. It was a strange kit, but the lenses fitted both cameras, and I think the previous owner bought the kit as a considered choice, the accessories were filters for B&W film, the proper cable release for the camera and a nice focusing rail all in a high quality bag. I think he bought the RX as an upgrade to the FX-D and kept the lenses as he was happy with them.
Was I dissapointed at the lack of Zeiss / Contax glass? Maybe a bit ..... , but I'm certainly not dissapointed with my Yashica ML glass.

[barryreid]

I just ordered an FX-D with a ML 35-105 attached. I had one a while back and liked it... Pic below taken with my previous copy on a 167MT, at the Braderie market in Lille about 4 years ago.


[/img]