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

Yashica ML 2.8/35mm poor man's Distagon
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yep Orio's looks best on my calibrated IPS monitor Smile


PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for given suggestions. It's a messy photo allright - main actresses being in shadow area thus raising leves there makes upper part of photo loosing dynamics.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your first edit was fine on my calibrated BenQ.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well my monitor shows the 3 pix ! I think it's just a matter of contrast and a few light filling in LR. i'm a crap developer ... anyway.

I had the 28ML Yashica, it produced good pix on film, now i can't compare with a Distagon. What i'd like one day, just by curiosity is to compare the 1.4 Planar to the 1.4 Yashica in real. Some say these lenses are equal in iq, which i can't tell unless proven.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ManualFocus-G wrote:
Yep Orio's looks best on my calibrated IPS monitor Smile



Agree...but might be very slightly dark (for some) on my new, factory calibrated, Dell monitor.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hexi wrote:
I had the 28ML Yashica, it produced good pix on film, now i can't compare with a Distagon. What i'd like one day, just by curiosity is to compare the 1.4 Planar to the 1.4 Yashica in real. Some say these lenses are equal in iq, which i can't tell unless proven

a Yashica is not to the level of a Zeiss
check http://www.reocities.com/ilprode/TestY.htm for test of the 28ML and 50:1.9ML
compare to http://www.reocities.com/ilprode/TestZ.htm
those tests are made by an Italian university and are reliable
they compare resolution but colors are not tested
Orio version may be a little better but colors are still unnatural
one advantage of Zeiss lenses is that colors are good without poposhop, even with shadows or mixed lights
Yashica lenses have only one advantage, they are cheaper


PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excalibur wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Yep Orio's looks best on my calibrated IPS monitor Smile



Agree...but might be very slightly dark (for some) on my new, factory calibrated, Dell monitor.


Yep, agree. BTW, Dells are very good out of the box, but I still needed to tweak mine ever so slightly with Spyder Pro.

Hexi - the Yashica 50/1.4 is definitely weaker than the Planar. I sold it straight away.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The image was very flat, I needed to push black and white points in order to add more contrast.
Of course if I had the raw file I could have done better with the dynamic range, that is why I said that
this editing is limited.
In my view, anyway, better to lose something at the ends, but have a lively image where it counts,
than having a totally readable image that is flat because of compressed dynamic range.
If you look at the subject in my edit, it is lively, in the other two versions, it is more flat.
Another thing not to forget: the subject is in the shadow. We want to keep that, in order to keep the image realistic.
We don't want the subject to come out bright, it would look innatural.
The subject must pop, but it must remain a subject in the shadow. It is important that the shadow/light feeling
is maintained, otherwise the image becomes boring.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanx poilu and Graham, this is what i thought anyway ...


PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:
hexi wrote:
I had the 28ML Yashica, it produced good pix on film, now i can't compare with a Distagon. What i'd like one day, just by curiosity is to compare the 1.4 Planar to the 1.4 Yashica in real. Some say these lenses are equal in iq, which i can't tell unless proven

a Yashica is not to the level of a Zeiss
check http://www.reocities.com/ilprode/TestY.htm for test of the 28ML and 50:1.9ML
compare to http://www.reocities.com/ilprode/TestZ.htm
those tests are made by an Italian university and are reliable
they compare resolution but colors are not tested
Orio version may be a little better but colors are still unnatural
one advantage of Zeiss lenses is that colors are good without poposhop, even with shadows or mixed lights
Yashica lenses have only one advantage, they are cheaper


Abstract from links you provided is telling a different story:

Yashica ML 2.8/24mm
http://www.reocities.com/ilprode/_24f28ML.txt

F2.8
Center: 8.3
Border: 6.3
Average: 7.5

F4.0
Center: 8.4
Border: 7.0
Average: 7.9

Zeiss Distagon T* MM 2.8/25mm
http://www.reocities.com/ilprode/_25f28.htm

F2.8
Center: 6.8
Border: 4.8
Average: 5.9

F4.0
Center: 8.8
Border: 5.2
Average: 7.1

Sadly there is no side by side comparisson made for 2.8/35mm and 1.4/50mm. Well Zeiss clearly beats 21mm and 28mm.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Poor man's Distagon; nah, not brutal enough. Why not just kill the Distagon. Congrats for creativity Wink Click here to see on Ebay.de


PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the basis of my copy I'd say that if the Yash 35/2.8 ML is better than Zeiss then the D35 must be the worst lens Zeiss ever made. My copy of the 35ML is really, really bad. I have shot only one frame with it at f/5.6, in flat light, and nothing was properly sharp - even in the centre! I suspect that I have a bad copy though as it's hard to imagine a manufacturer like Yashica releasing such a terrible lens.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

barryreid wrote:
On the basis of my copy I'd say that if the Yash 35/2.8 ML is better than Zeiss then the D35 must be the worst lens Zeiss ever made. My copy of the 35ML is really, really bad. I have shot only one frame with it at f/5.6, in flat light, and nothing was properly sharp - even in the centre! I suspect that I have a bad copy though as it's hard to imagine a manufacturer like Yashica releasing such a terrible lens.

Could be dropped, or serviced by an amateur. I had two YML 35/2.8 lenses, both were excellent. I kept one. It's one of the best 35mm lenses I have. In my tests, it was better than Nikkor AIS 35/2.8 (which I sold), for example, and better than Olympus Zuiko 35/2.8, which I kept. Unfortunately, I don't own a Distagon 35/2.8 to compare.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What price could be fair for this lens remaining a "poor man's" one? I see now on German ebay a proposal Click here to see on Ebay.de for 40 euros, in "top condition". I am not planning to buy that one. Just wish to have an idea for the future.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My ML 35/2.8 is a nice,sharp lens.I prefer it than the 28/2.8 and 24/2.8.Not as good as Distagon 35/2.8 C/Y (less microcontrast and poorer corner sharpness),but not that far behind - just like ML 50/1.4 and Planar 50/1.4 C/Y.

NEX5N+ML 35/2.8 at f2.8



PostPosted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 11:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

alex ph wrote:
What price could be fair for this lens remaining a "poor man's" one? I see now on German ebay a proposal Click here to see on Ebay.de for 40 euros, in "top condition". I am not planning to buy that one. Just wish to have an idea for the future.

40 EUR is a bargain IMHO. Nevertheless i doubt that "top condition" description a bit. Inner elements seem dirty. But i could be mistaken.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looks like a finger print, go for it.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you guys, for giving me an idea. I see another copy which is way more expensive! Click here to see on Ebay.de

I did not intend to get that one, cross my heart. So, congrats to the new owner and looking forward for new sample shots.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aoleg wrote:
barryreid wrote:
On the basis of my copy I'd say that if the Yash 35/2.8 ML is better than Zeiss then the D35 must be the worst lens Zeiss ever made. My copy of the 35ML is really, really bad. I have shot only one frame with it at f/5.6, in flat light, and nothing was properly sharp - even in the centre! I suspect that I have a bad copy though as it's hard to imagine a manufacturer like Yashica releasing such a terrible lens.

Could be dropped, or serviced by an amateur. I had two YML 35/2.8 lenses, both were excellent. I kept one. It's one of the best 35mm lenses I have. In my tests, it was better than Nikkor AIS 35/2.8 (which I sold), for example, and better than Olympus Zuiko 35/2.8, which I kept. Unfortunately, I don't own a Distagon 35/2.8 to compare.


I'm now getting convinced that my copy is a lemon - i just popped it on a couple of contax bodies rather than a Digi and it indicates the wrong aperture by couple of stops. I'm not sure now whether to get it serviced, buy another or wait for a sensibly priced Distagon...


PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I bought an otherwise mint condition 35 2.8 ML (it has some condensation or spots just under the front element). It is the earlier 7/6 version. I also have a well used but optically fine AEJ of the Distagon.

At close distance (~0.7m) and wide open-
D35 has smoother bokeh and the drop off of what's in focus is quicker.
The Y35 has less field curvature, more things are in focus in the same plane.
Sharpness on both are very close.
The Y35 is cooler, D35 warmer.
The Y35 handle flare a little better, both flared a little (a nice little haze in the corner) with strong light just outside the frame. I need to compare it to my D35 MM as that should handle flare better than the AE.
The D35 has better microcontrast.

The Y35 also focuses down to 0.29m whereas the D35 focuses down to 0.4m. Considering I paid $16 for the Y35 and and $200 for the D35 AEJ, I'd say the Yashica can certainly hold it's own weight or at the very least, quite a bargain.

Of course, these observations are only at the measured distance and aperture and from these two copies. Things may change as I test them further.


Last edited by Dudewithoutapet on Sun Aug 10, 2014 10:09 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Aug 07, 2014 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I prefer the Zeiss Flektogon 35mm....


PostPosted: Sun Aug 10, 2014 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd say the M42 Flektogon 35/2.4 is overrated...but anyway a great lens, have my copy in way good condition, too. Wink
About the Yashica ML Series vs Zeiss Distagon 28/35 F2.8 lenses - the ML's do have cooler color and less microcontrast, in my opinion.
The Yashica Lenses are a bargain compared to Zeiss for their optical performance - sadly nowadays, they do sell more expensive then
a few couple years ago...


PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Orio"]
Pancolart wrote:
izvar wrote:
Lightshow wrote:
Pancolart wrote:
Is it POP or 3D?

is above all a dark picture that lost everything, 3D, pop, rock, jazz and the girl, walking alone Wink
sorry, Pancolart, maybe it's about only my monitor settings...


Thanks for comment. I guess it's time to have my monitor calibrated or even better, replaced.


The "cured" photo looks worse than the original, in my opinion.
I think Izvar's monitor is really miscalibrated.

+1


PostPosted: Thu Dec 01, 2016 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I recently got a good looking copy of the Yashica ML 2.8/35mm. Tests on 24MP FF reveal that the lens is excellent from corner to corner, even wide open. Stopping down simply reduces vignetting. I have run parallel tests using the following lenses:

Yashica ML 2.8/35mm
Pentax M SMC 2/35mm
Minolta MC-X 1.8/35mm
Nikkor AiS 1.4/35mm

The tiny ML 2.8/35mm has by far the best f2.8 performance of all these lenses. Stopped down to f5.6 all lenses are very good; the Nikkor however has more CAs than the other ones.

The f1.8 Rokkor and the f2 Pentax M have soft corners wide open; the Minolta having visibly less coma and astigmatism than the (much smaller) Pentax M. The Nikkor is always about a stop behind the Minolta / Pentax, and it is quite soft at f1.4.

Stephan