The Flu and the Yashica ML Lineup

[Lucio]

Since I'm stuck in bed, I thought it was a good idea to post an extremely long and pedantic post for you all to enjoy!
Here you go:

I was surprised by the extremely mixed reviews Yashica ML lenses receive online. At first, I took for granted that copy variances were the cause, but now I'm wondering if we're actually talking about the same lens, when we talk about a Yashica ML lens. As far as I know, most Yashica ML lenses had been produced by different manufacturers over the years and this could mean that also different suppliers (and maybe different kind of glasses) were involved. Anyways, After deeply testing 4 to 6 copies of several Yashica ML primes (I didn't test any zoom nor any lens slower than 2.8 ) here are my findings. Please note that I tested these lenses on a 24MP APS-C sensor, so I can’t comment on their FF behavior. All of the copies I tested were in great shape, with crystal clear lenses, smooth focusing rings and minimal to no amount of dust inside of the barrel.

24/2.8 ML
The first 3 copies I put my hands on were pretty weak and similar: low contrast, washed out and bluish colors, blurry edges, noticeable CA. The 4th copy was quite a different lens. Contrast WO was just a bit lower than with the Nikon AI, but edge sharpness was surprisingly good (a bit better than the Nikon's) and colors were vivid and neutral, with minimal CA. The 5th and last copy was (is) finally very good. Contrasty and sharp corner to corner straight from wide open, it’s actually better than both the Nikon NC and AI and than a late, highly selected Zeiss Distagon C/Y 25. Vivid, clean colors, minimal CA, low vignetting and minimal distortion. Just like the other copies, these one absolutely can't handle a strong light source inside of the frame, if used wide open. It's a flares and veiling parade. Field curvature was pretty visible in all copies (not worse than with most old 24mm, anyway). All lenses suffered from a small play between the focusing helicoids that made the image wiggle when changing the focusing direction. Nothing obscene (except in the 4th copy) but definitely a no-go for serious video use. All copies were about 1/4 of a Stop darker than the Nikon and the Zeiss, at f/2.8. In all copies, as I found out is standard with Yashica ML lenses, OOF rendition was smooth at any setting and in any situation, although highlight discs showed a defined edge if lenses were used WO. In conclusion, the Yashica ML 24/2.8 is a very good lens, definitely one of the best 24mm of the manual era, if flare resistance in extreme situations and excellent build quality are not necessary. And, of course, if you can get a good copy…

28/2.8 ML
This lens was produced with an older 8 elements and a newer 7 elements design. I tested 2 copies of the 8 elements version and they were both pretty bad, showing strong SA at f/2.8 and poor edge performances up to f/8. Field curvature was also quite prominent. 3 copies of the 7 elements version were decent, but they were still quite soft WO and showed poor resistance in backlight situations, with a huge amount of veiling that brought contrast to very low levels. 1 copy of the 7 elements version was (is) very very good. This lens doesn't shine in any particular way (except for the negligible field curvature) but it's absolutely reliable in any circumstance. It's sharp and contrasty enough corner to corner straight from wide open (only at f/2.8 there’s a bit of SA that lowers the contrast, but not to the point to be a matter of concern) OOF rendition is always perfectly smooth, flare resistance is good, lateral CA is only visible at the extreme edges of the frame and never excessive. Distortion is average, vignetting WO is above average but not extreme. Color reproduction is clean ad accurate. Again, this lens is about 1/4 of a Stop slower than most 28/2.8. As a reference, the Nikon AI has a much higher contrast WO, but it’s not as sharp toward the edges, it suffers from a much higher lateral CA and field curvature and it renders the OOF areas in a much more nervous way. Taking into account the long focus throw, I consider this 50-80 € lens one of the very best options among manual 28/2.8, if you're into filmmaking.

35/2.8 ML
I tested 4 copies of this lens and they all performed pretty much the same. They all looked like new (not even a trace of dust in 2 of them) but they all had the "wiggle" issue. It's a good lens from f/4. Distortion, vignetting, CA, sharpness, contrast... nothing to complain. And as usual, smooth OOF rendition always. Unfortunately, at f/2.8 the lens suffers from strong SA and lateral CA; to the point that I would never use it WO. If you plan to use it from f/4 onward and you don’t care about the “wiggle”, it’s a good lens, especially for the edge to edge sharpness and the OOF rendition.

50/1.4 ML
As far as I’m concerned, that's the most interesting lens in the Yashica ML lineup; although I'm quite sure there are at least two versions of this lens, one being outstanding. The first copy I tested was surprisingly good and none of the other 5 copies came even close. I compared that first copy with the best 50mm in my arsenal (Leica and Zeiss included) and it was in the same league, despite its low street price. It's one of the very few 50/1.4 that are not unusable WO. It sports an excellent build quality, good flare resistance, neutral, clean and vivid colors with low CA already by f/2. No focus breathing at all, smooth OOF rendition at all settings, both in front and behind the focus plan. From a less technical point of view, I find this lens to deliver very tridimensional images, the separation of plans is what strikes me the most about this lens. As a reference, at f/2 the Leica R is just a bit sharper in the center and much sharper in the corners, but the lower CA and SA of the Yashica ML at this setting make the images look sharper overall. By f/2.8 the Leica R offers higher sharpness and contrast on the whole frame, but the difference is only evident at the edges. Compared to a highly selected Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 C/Y MMJ, the Yashica is generally a bit softer at the edges of the frame (mostly because of the higher astigmatism) but it’s better corrected against lateral and longitudinal CA and has a neutral color rendition, while the Zeiss shows warmer colors. The Yashica also sports a higher contrast on most of the frame, at f/2. The only reason why the Yashica is not my go-to 50mm is related to its diaphragm design: those hideous 8 straight blades painfully show up in the highlight discs already by f/2. The other 5 copies of this lens that I tested couldn’t handle backlight at all, they were much softer on the whole frame if used wide open and they were visibly softer at the edges of the frame at any setting. They also felt somehow cheaper form a build quality perspective and suffered the “wiggle” problem. They showed a higher lateral CA at f/2 and they all delivered much flatter images. They didn’t look like the same lens at all.

50/1.7 ML
I tested 4 copies of this lens and they all performed pretty much the same. They were good for a 50 € lens, but nothing more than that. I would probably never use them WO, but they all could deliver clean, sharp and contrasty images by f/2.8; just like most vintage 50mm. All copies showed the “wiggle” problem. What stood out to me about those lenses were the colorful, intricate flares. Compared to the 50/1.4 ML (best copy excluded) those lenses were a bit weaker at f/2 but performed more or less the same by f/2.8, while handling backlight much better. In short, this lens is in the same league of all of the vintage 50/1.7-2 from the major brands, Leica excluded.

135/2.8 ML
4 copies, all very similar: soft WO, decent by f/4, good by f/ 5.6. Totally uninteresting lens, considering how many good 135/2.8 you can find at a reasonable price.

[bwfcnottingham]

Superb post.

Sorry about the flu

The 50mm ML 1.7 is one of my best 50mm primes . Apparently if it has "made in Japan " on the lens it is carl Zeiss glass . Mine does 😀

Thanks again

[stevemark]

[stevemark]

Interesting post, thank you

I have quite a few ML sitting around here, and most of them are

1) well built
2) below average in image quality

So whatever Yashica afficiados say - these lenses generally do not compare well to the corresponding Zeiss (or Minolta) glass.
I can see two exceptions: The ML 2.8/35mm is a very good lens (like all other 2.8/35mm from the 1975-1985 time frame), and the ML 3.5/21mm is interesting as well. That said, the Carl Zeiss CY 2.8/21mm is much better, of course!

Since you were testing on 24 MP APS-C, i will add complementary comments on the 24MP FF performance during the next days. I may start with comparing the ML 1.4/50mm to the Carl Zeiss CY 1.4/50mm, and continue with the ML 2.8/28 vs Distagon 2.8/28, and ML 2.8/24mm vs Zeiss Distagon 2.8/25mm.

S

[bwfcnottingham]

[stevemark]

[y]

My ML 50/1.7 is probably the overall best built lens I've seen. The aperture ring clicks, resistance and feeling are perfect. The same goes for the focusing ring.

However, sharpness is only OKish and it also has weirdly low-effective coatings.

[D1N0]

So these lenses are mostly the same as the m42 predecessors but with lesser build quality? (because wobbly).

Allphotolenses says the 50 1.7 is analogous to the CZ Planar 50mm 1,7 (a copy?) Does the same go for the DS/DS-M m42 versions?

http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_371.html#prettyPhoto

[stevemark]

[cbass]

Would you be able to post pictures of the the very good Yashica lenses that you have from those focal ranges? I am curious if they are the older chrome nose lenses or the more modern versions.

I haven't looked at all the Yashica optical formulas. However, the ones I have looked at are not the same optical formula as the Zeiss Contax counterpart. Generally, they have one less element than the Contax. The exception is the ML 50mm f/1.4, which shares the optical formula with the Planar. I am not saying the coatings are as good or the manufacturing quality the same. The difference is the Yashica has 8 aperture blades and the Contax 6.

[Alsatian2017]

[D1N0]

[stevemark]

[Alsatian2017]

[cbass]

I will admit that I am no expert at reading optical charts. However, why are these considered optically identical but not the Yashica and Contax?

http://forum.mflenses.com/distagon-c-y-28mm-f-2-vs-smc-pentax-k-28mm-f-2-t76482.html

Based on the charts there are differences in the thickness of certain elements. Some elements are very similar in shape but have slightly different notches and cuts.

[stevemark]

Here are some 100% crops from the corners of the 24 MP FF Sony A7II:
Two of the lenses are Minolta, one is Zeiss, and one is Yashica.

CLICK AT THE IMAGE AND VIEW IT AT 100% - OTHERWISE THE DIFFERENCES MAY NOT BE VISIBLE



Differences are clearly visible - can you find the Zeiss and the Yashica?

S

[stevemark]

[Lucio]

[kiddo]

[stevemark]

Lens 1: Zeiss CY Planar 1.4/50mm
Lens 2: Yashica ML 1.4/50mm
Lens 3: Minolta MD-III 1.4/50mm
Lens 4: Minolta MC-X 1.2/58mm

Stephan

[Teemō]

[kiddo]

[aidaho]

[y]

[woodrim]

Although not included so far in the conversation, the Yashica ML Reflex 8/500 has also been touted as a great mirror lens. I have even read that it was equal to or better than the Mirotar. Hogwash! It isn't bad, but it is not one of the better mirrors.