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
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:47 pm    Post subject: Yashica ML 2.8/35mm poor man's Distagon Reply with quote
F2.8 on 5DmkII.

1855pixels:
http://www.deviantart.com/download/5416563367145602/ggggggg_by_juredolzan-d4wj3hx.jpg



PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
this is truly a lovely lens, especially considering the low price, and you use it very well! distigon...i dont know...
tony


PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I decided to post oversize samples: http://forum.mflenses.com/yashica-ml-2-8-35mm-poor-mans-distagon-t48923.html
And put question mark at the end of the title (i didn't invented the combination). I don't know Distagon, but this ML beats all my other low to medium budget lenses.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I once had the Yashica ML 2.8/35 and compared it with the Distagon 2.8/35 AEJ... the results were nearly identical.
There was more difference when I compared the Flektogon 2.4/35 with the Distagon.
So yes, the Yashica ML 2.8/35 is truly a hidden gem.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I once had the Yashica ML 2.8/35 and compared it with the Distagon 2.8/35 AEJ... the results were nearly identical.
There was more difference when I compared the Flektogon 2.4/35 with the Distagon.
So yes, the Yashica ML 2.8/35 is truly a hidden gem.


Wow, I'm really surprised to hear that. The ML 2.8/35 I had was not great at all, not bad but not worth keeping as I have better 35s. Copy variation perhaps? My ML was not in the same league as my Primagon 4.5/35, Canon FL 2.5/35, Konica Hexanon 2.8/35 or Konishiroku 2.8/35.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Orio wrote:
I once had the Yashica ML 2.8/35 and compared it with the Distagon 2.8/35 AEJ... the results were nearly identical.
There was more difference when I compared the Flektogon 2.4/35 with the Distagon.
So yes, the Yashica ML 2.8/35 is truly a hidden gem.


Wow, I'm really surprised to hear that. The ML 2.8/35 I had was not great at all, not bad but not worth keeping as I have better 35s. Copy variation perhaps? My ML was not in the same league as my Primagon 4.5/35, Canon FL 2.5/35, Konica Hexanon 2.8/35 or Konishiroku 2.8/35.


Ian, remember that your adapter was focusing past infinity. You sent it to someone else who tested it and it performed well.

The ML 35/2.8 is a really good lens, I preferred the Distagon for it's 3D type rendering and out of camera colour only.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's moot Graham, I tried it on the NEX when I got it back and it wasn't much better, I sold it after that because it was not as good as my other 35s. Maybe it's just that my other 35s are all stellar (I think they are) and the ML was just not as good. Or maybe I had a lesser copy of the ML, I don't know, but I think the copy I had was pretty average.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
That's moot Graham, I tried it on the NEX when I got it back and it wasn't much better, I sold it after that because it was not as good as my other 35s. Maybe it's just that my other 35s are all stellar (I think they are) and the ML was just not as good. Or maybe I had a lesser copy of the ML, I don't know, but I think the copy I had was pretty average.

No, it wasn't average, it was a super lens, equal at least to my best 35s, even with a coating of fine dots on the inner surface of the front lens.
http://forum.mflenses.com/yashica-ml-2-8-28-t42431,start,47.html


PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, you didn't say that at the time, but let's let sleeping dogs lie.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is it POP or 3D?


PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
Is it POP or 3D?


I do get a 3D feel from it, makes them feel real. What lens? Nice candid shot.
My eyes keep going to the girl on the right walking alone.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="Lightshow"]
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...


PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="izvar"]
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.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="Pancolart"]
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.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's my tentative of fix - however this picture would need to be restarted from scratch at RAW editor
for a real improvement:



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.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2