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

Opinions on Yashica ML 50mm lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 6:40 pm    Post subject: Wading in shallow water a year later.... Reply with quote
50 1.4's - Wide Open and Stopped Down compiled by Dr. Loui of Wash U STL from the [u]OLD[/u] Photodo site

http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~loui/photodobest.html




@ F1.4 and F8 below


@50mm: Leica M Summilux-M 50/1.4.....0.60...... 0.80
@50mm: Leica R Summilux-R 50/1.4......0.58...... 0.84
@50mm: Canon EF 50/1.4....................0.58...... 0.84
@50mm: Minolta AF 50/1.4...................0.51...... 0.83
@50mm: Nikkor/Nikon AF 50/1.4...........0.56...... 0.80
@50mm: Pentax SMC-FA 50/1.4.............0.50......0.82
@50mm: Pentax SMC-F 50/1.4...............0.52.......0.85
@50mm: Yashica ML 50/1.4...................0.53...... 0.83
@50mm: Contax Planar T* 50/1.4...........0.57......0.85

These were the top 9 measured at the time, the only point is how extremely close all 9 are
I think the only place where a visible difference could appear is with the Leica wide-open compared to the Minolta/Pentax/maybe the Yashica all wide-open
In other words, they are so close only preferences in color and contrast (personal taste) truly separate them ?

Last edited by wildlight images on Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:23 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In my head to head Nifty-Fifties battle- Yashica ML 50/1.4 won over Minolta-PG 50/1.4 (less glow sharper, better bokeh actually -which surprised me) ,but lost to C/Y Planar 50/1.4

ML 50/1.4 lens is great lens, fantastic build, 8 blades, pleasure to use. Razz


PostPosted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm very impressed with my ML 50 1.7 It delivers some of the truest colours of any lens I have.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="Lloydy"]I'm very impressed with my ML 50 1.7 It delivers some of the truest colours of any lens I have.[/quote]

Last edited by wildlight images on Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:25 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2016 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I do own them, Minolta Rokkor PG 50/1.4, Yashica ML 50/1.4, 50/1.7 & 50/2, also Contax Zeiss 50/1.4 & 50/1.7, the 50/1.7 Zeiss does really have great 3D Pop, i never run a comparsion between all of them. But the 50/2 Yashica ML...sharp from F2.8 on, and was cheaper than 10 bucks for me, in great condition. For so little money its an steal.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had ML 50/2 for years but didn't use it much until bought a Samsung NX10. It makes a perfect really small short tele on a crop camera. With or without the beer.



PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A timely thread resurrection!

Been a fan of Yashicas ever since I discovered the performance from a Yashinon DS 50-f2. My affinity for nifty-fifties had me acquire each 50mm in their DS line.
Then added the DX in f1.7 and f2. A DS-M f1.7 soon followed. Of these, I found the the f1.7 were consistently stronger performers from wide open to stopped down. Their bokeh is better as well. The Thorium improvements are evident.

My first ML would be the f1.7, given how much better I liked their previous versions. Also to see just how much 'DNA' it shares with its Contax cousin the Planar.
The DS-M and the ML are supposedly the same multi-coating. Both appear very similar. But the ML was no longer radioactive. But given the above post and video, I'm very surprised. As I have the same early model with the silver edged treatment. (Looks similar to the DS-M body style)

Not a good thought, knowing this. I had a disassembled DX f1.7 and the ML near me everyday for a year! I guess my hair is going to fall out or my skin turn green!

Recently added the ML f1.4 and a f1.9 C. I found the f1.4 to be glowy and bloomy wide open. Hampering center sharpness. The f1.7 still better sharpness wide open. I found the f1.4 competitve with a Minolta MD Rokkor 50 f1.4 MD-I. The ML's color and contrast to be more to my liking, and the Rokkor cleaner overall and slightly sharper wide open. Stopped down both are neck and neck. Nod goes to ML due to truer colors and better contrast.

As for the 1.9 C, I decided to try this because it's an update to the f2, with improved edge-to-edge sharpness and nil errors. One reviewer stated it gave exceptional results with landscapes. The sample I got was a "C" version, which I assume stands for compact. The body is all plastic construction and the rim steps down from 52 to 49mm dia. filter threads. It's construction leaves a lot to be desired. As a matter of fact the face plate popped off, showing it was only glued on, not threaded. But at least the optics were top notch. The images were the best contrast, color and depth of all three ML 50s. The sharpness is uniform across the frame. There was no detectable problems that I could see. If it was razor sharp, it would be perfect.
If you should get one, look for the one with the f2 body style and avoid the C. The plastic build feels very cheap. The other body still had some aluminum.

I think it's superior to their DS 1.9, SMC Pentax-M f2, MD(III) f2, MD Rokkor 45mm f2, and Mamiya/Sekor f2.

While on topic about the 1.9, and also got handed a DSB 50-f1.9. The exterior resembles the DS-M style. Probably handed down after intro of ML line.
It needed cleaning of the blades. Disassembling it revealed the construction is noticeably cheapened compared to previous lines. The optics too. Some glued in place, simplified mounts. I haven't had the opportunity to shoot with it yet. Some say the DSB lenses aren't bad, just have to see.

Last edited by WNG555 on Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:35 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Are there both C and non-C versions of the ML 1.9? Or did they go straight from ML 2.0 to ML 1.9 C?


PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
WNG555 wrote:
A timely thread resurrection!


Recently added the ML f1.4 and a f1.9 C. I found the f1.4 to be glowy and bloomy wide open. Hampering center sharpness. The f1.7 still better sharpness wide open. I found the f1.4 competitve with a Minolta MD Rokkor 50 f1.4 MD-I. The ML's color and contrast to be more to my liking, and the Rokkor cleaner overall and slightly sharper wide open. Stopped down both are neck and neck. Nod goes to ML due to truer colors and better contrast.

As for the 1.9 C, I decided to try this because it's an update to the f2, with improved edge-to-edge sharpness and nil errors. One reviewer stated it gave exception results with landscapes. The sample I got was a "C" version, which I assume stands for compact. The body is all plastic construction and the rim steps down from 52 to 49mm dia. filter threads. It's construction leaves a lot to be desired. As a matter of fact the face plate popped off, showing it was only glued on, not threaded. But at least the optics were top notch. The images were the best contrast, color and depth of all three ML 50s. The sharpness is uniform across the frame. There was no detectable problems that I could see. If it was razor sharp, it would be perfect.
If you should get one, look for the one with the f2 body style and avoid the C. The plastic build feels very cheap. The other body still had some aluminum.

I think it's superior to their DS 1.9, SMC Pentax-M f2, MD(III) f2, MD Rokkor 45mm f2, and Mamiya/Sekor f2.

While on topic about the 1.9, and also got handed a DSB 50-f1.9. The exterior resembles the DS-M style. Probably handed down after intro of ML line.
It needed cleaning of the blades. Disassembling it revealed the construction is noticeably cheapened compared to previous lines. The optics too. Some glued in place, simplified mounts. I haven't had the opportunity to shoot with it yet. Some say the DSB lenses aren't bad, just have to see.


The 1.9 C (C may stay for compact, as many ppl suggests into also german forums) but the C may also stand for Cosina-made, and literally, it's worse than the 50/2, 50/1.7 or 50/1.4 in IQ terms, also plasticky-build quality - the last 50/1.9C into a line of ML 50s before
it was phased out…the single coated DSB line, as someone wrote on DPRview Forums, a time waste...i never played with them, only the Yashica ML series, or directly Contax Zeiss Lenses, my bad. Smile


PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
glaebhoerl wrote:
Are there both C and non-C versions of the ML 1.9? Or did they go straight from ML 2.0 to ML 1.9 C?

After the 50/1.7 ML, the 50/1.9 came out, which is the 50/2 successor - and from the 50/1.9, both 50/1.9 and 50/1.9 c do exist.

On digicamclub.de is a 1:1 comparsion between the non-c 50/1.9 and the 50/2 ML - the 50/2 ML wins, because the F1.9 ML does have
less contrast, and the F2 lens does look better. I wouldn't bother with the 50/1.9c, it's even worse in IQ then the Non-C version.

So into the end, choose from the 50/1.4 ML, 50/1.7 ML or the 50/2 ML, the F2 Version is the smallest, because of the pancake-like apperance.
Whileas the 50/1.7 ML is a great lens, prices rise to about 30-50 bucks, and the 50/2 ML still can be bought of ebay with little luck for less then 10 bucks,
in mint condition...that's how i got my 50/2 ML....and i've paid 20 for my 50/1.7 ML years ago.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I love the 50mm f1.4 picked up a mint boxed one and a yashica FRII for £25, use it for everything from indoor sports to flora and portraits

Scottish BJJ Open 2014 by Scott Hills, on Flickr

Griphouse BJJ by Scott Hills, on Flickr

Scottish BJJ Open 2014 by Scott Hills, on Flickr

Yashica ML 50mm f1.4 +ZLT II by Scott Hills, on Flickr

Yashica ML 50mm f1.4 +ZLT II by Scott Hills, on Flickr

Stuart and Alana by Scott Hills, on Flickr

Botanics by Scott Hills, on Flickr

Sol by Scott Hills, on Flickr

Royal Botanic Gardens Edinburgh by Scott Hills, on Flickr


PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2016 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fine pictures. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice samples caledonia84, shows you don't need the most expensive or exclusive lens you can find!
The road sign looks a bit different than the rest, somehow a little bit swirly (but I like it!), guess that's just the different focus distance.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
glaebhoerl wrote:
Are there both C and non-C versions of the ML 1.9? Or did they go straight from ML 2.0 to ML 1.9 C?


Looks like doomed-forever has covered the question thoroughly for me.

Sorry I should've been clearer that there was a a previous ML 1.9.

Interesting that the ML 2.0 did better than the 1.9, especially regarding contrast. I get a lot of contrast from the plastic-icky 1.9 C. And the only nitpicking I can think of was the afore-mentioned sharpness. If it could match the stopped down sharpness of its siblings, it would look perfect. I may have a decent copy.
But the plastic quality is appalling and I still say to avoid it. :0

As for the DSB 1.9, took some shots in overcast skies. It is soft and bloomy wide open. Definitely the worst Yashica 50 I have. It looks good once down to f/5.6.
Close shots are sharp. Color looks OK, reminiscent of their single-coated line. Are the DSB's multi-coated? I could not see a difference reflecting a light off it and an older DS. Bokeh was good, and the distant shots were quite good with depth, not flat and defracted.


[caledonia84]
Like 1
Yes, truly excellent images! I think my copy of the 1.4 can't match yours.

Last edited by WNG555 on Mon Feb 08, 2016 4:29 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 2:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some clarity here.

The first Yashica y/c lenses were the Yashica YUS line (Yashica United States=YUS). Not good overall as they had low contrast and thin coatings plus were rough and heavy. These were the first Y/C to be available with the FX series which were the first Y/C mount Yashica bodies (FX1, FX2)

The Yashica ML was the premium line that coincided with the splendid FR series bodies. Except for issues with the self timer locking up and film counter gear cracking, these were fine brass bodied cameras.

The ML line was metal bodied.
The DSB line was a less expensive version of the ML lenses, having slightly inferior coatings.

So, ML 50 1.7, ML 50 1.4, ML 55 1.2 (kicked myself for not buying that one), ML 50 f2.0, DSB 50 f1.9 being the common ones.
Add the 55mm f2.8 and 4.0 macros (or were they 50?) to the "normal" focal length group.

The 50 F1.4 was an excellent performer.

I am not surprised that people tend to underrate the ML line as Yashica was never a premium camera but having sold many, many Canon, Nikon and Minolta when I was selling ca,eras decades back, I had a chance to try many out and went for the Yashica line.

If you can get your hands on one, the 55 Dental and 100mm Medical are super sharp as well. I have converted mine for my A6000 (Sony NEX) body and really enjoy the sharp and vivid images. Although stop down can be a bit annoying as I have to stop down and maintain my focus, the EVF compensates nicely for composition.

Instructions elsewhere i this forum.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some clarity here too, the YUS line was only avialable into the US, not into the rest of the world, into other words: meh, and therefore unimportant...same for the DSB series, or DS-M, which was Yashicas cheap consumer series...only the ML series truely shines, and still performs great. Nothing knew here, know this for decades. no offence. Wink
Love my ML lenses much more then Konica AR or Minolta MD/MC lenses...


PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
True but with this border-less buying and selling world we live in, a buyer from your area may consider a "dsb" or "yus" as it is a Yashica product but not know the differences. Information is good.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
just right, it wasn't bad meant anyway. Wink ebay & others are global today, so it's nice for sharing information about different lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Koen Nhz wrote:
Very nice samples caledonia84, shows you don't need the most expensive or exclusive lens you can find!
The road sign looks a bit different than the rest, somehow a little bit swirly (but I like it!), guess that's just the different focus distance.


Very observant of you! The sign and the flower above it were both taken with the lens turbo ii attached, giving a full frame fov perhaps the yashica ml 50mm f1.4 swirls a little just like the 50mm f2 or f1.7 (I can't remember which one)


PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A correction to one statement above regarding the DS-M line.
It was not a consumer 'cheap' line similar to the DSB line that came later to supplement the C/Y mount lines.

DS-M replaced their DS line of lenses. M stood for multi-coated, as the DS were single-coated like their predecessor the DX.
The M coating used is said to be the same applied to the ML lenses.

I have a DS-M 50 f/1.7, and I don't think it's cheaply made. With a f/1.7 from each line (except the DSB), I have the opportunity to compare each against the other. The ML is simply the progression of refinement of design over the decades. The previous lines were far from mediocre quality.
Although there seem to be critics of Yashinon prevailing. At least it keeps the prices lower.

As for YUS, it seemed to be born from some legal/marketing agreement. Some of the product looks like DSB models.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2016 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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 .


PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2016 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
WNG555 wrote:
A correction to one statement above regarding the DS-M line.
It was not a consumer 'cheap' line similar to the DSB line that came later to supplement the C/Y mount lines.

DS-M replaced their DS line of lenses. M stood for multi-coated, as the DS were single-coated like their predecessor the DX.
The M coating used is said to be the same applied to the ML lenses.

I have a DS-M 50 f/1.7, and I don't think it's cheaply made. With a f/1.7 from each line (except the DSB), I have the opportunity to compare each against the other. The ML is simply the progression of refinement of design over the decades. The previous lines were far from mediocre quality.
Although there seem to be critics of Yashinon prevailing. At least it keeps the prices lower.

As for YUS, it seemed to be born from some legal/marketing agreement. Some of the product looks like DSB models.

I know the DS-M is für Multicoated, that's where the M fits into - but these are being considered radioactive...into other ways,
the ML Series is that kinda cheap...so i wouldn't bother to collect the DS-M Yashica lenses...no offence, i'm trying over the years
to finish my ML Series Collection. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3