Yashica vs Contax Zeiss lenses

[dude163]

Hi all
I took a dip into the C/Y field and bought a Planar zeiss lens a while back, how good in quality are the Yashica lenses?

From doing a search here, it appears the ML Yashicas are good . Are they better than the Pentax Takumars, but not as good as the Zeiss lenses?

or are there certain lenses from each range that are good and bad?

Im looking for a decent 28mm lens as I have a Super MC Takumar 28 3.5 and its great, I would just like something a bit clearer , I have a super 50mm 1.4, the 85mm planar , so Im looking for something in the 105-135 range also ( i have a 135/3.5 SM Tak too) to fill out my MF collection

Also, how difficult would it be to mod a C/Y mount to M42?

[Orio]

[dude163]

Hi Orio

I have a rebel XT , but that small viewfinder is a pain! luckily I received a split prism focusing screen on friday, but havent installed it yet.

You are right though, but now I am screwed I love the KX, but the EOS system has so many more lenses that can be compatible with an adapter!

so many lenses!

RTW

[Orio]

Then my suggestion is to wait and not make purchases for some months, so that you can save some money and decide what road to take.

I think we already talked about it, but I offer again my suggestion: if the manual lenses road is the road that you want to take, a full frame digital camera is you best buy. The crop format equalizes the differences between the lenses, as it uses only the central part of the glass, where most lenses are good and clear enough, and where optical defects such as geometric distortion, coma, sperical aberrations, are perceived much attenuated due to the crop factor.

You may say: "but then it's a good thing, because I can buy good lenses and have them perform as excellent lenses, saving money".
Of course, that is true. And that can be the best choice if you are on a tight budget.
But if you are totally into the old lenses and want to try everything with them, you need to use them on a full format and savor their qualities and their defects as they are mapped on the whole glass surface and not only in the centre.
Yes, this can be expensive hobby - but nodoby has ever denied that

[dude163]

Ive seen shots of a Helios 40 on a Full frame, exquisite bokeh!

Yes: we had talked before , I think a KX for running around with the kids and the inexpensive MF lenses , and an EOS FF camera for everything else is probably the best bet.

It isnt the cheapest hobby, but I get to indulge a few at once this way: Collecting old and rare stuff, photography, and also archiving pics of my family

[aoleg]

I have quite a few Yashica ML and Contax Zeiss lenses in overlapping focal lengths, so I can make a few conclusions.

24mm: Yashica ML 24/2.8 is very nice, but so are the latest versions of Olympus Zuiko 24/2.8 and Nikkor 24/2.8, both of which are less rare and cheaper than the Yashica. (I don't have a Distagon 25/2.8 to compare due to the price of the latter).

28mm: Yashica ML 28/2.8 is around 80% the performance of MM Distagon 28/2.8, and close to 95% the performance of AE Distagon 28/2.8 (I have/had all of these). Note that latest Olympus Zuiko 28/2.8 is at least as good; AIS Nikkor 28/2.8 is a totally different beast (better down close, same or slightly inferior at infinity) but costs quite a bit more. The Distagon has visibly stronger contrast though.

35mm: only have Yashica ML 35/2.8, and it's great; easily the best 35/2.8 lens I ever tried. Olympus Zuiko 35/2.8 is no comparison to this lens. I guess MM Distagon 35/2.8 could be even better (more contrast).

50mm: In 50/17, the Planar is clearly more interesting than the Yashica ML, although I prefer the rendering of my "miJ" version Zuiko 50/1.8 to both of these. In 50/1.4, the Planar is still better than the Yashica, but Yashica ML 50/1.4 is about 85% (subjective) the performance of the Planar (a corresponding Olympus lens is no comparison wide open, but still interesting in its own way). Also, Yashica has super-cheap 50/1.9 and 50/2 that are worth having just for their swirly bokeh and very nice all-around performance.

85mm: Yashica does not have anything in this range.

100mm: Yashica ML 100/3.5 is a macro lens, but works quite similar to Sonnar 100/3.5 (latter having stronger contrast). Both lenses are priced similarly.

135mm: Yashica ML 135/2.8 and 135/2.8 C are absolutely NO comparison to the Sonnar 135/2.8. Not even remotely close. It's hard to make a bad 135mm, but Yashica has come really close. Prices clearly reflect this.

200mm: don't have any YML or Zeiss.

300mm: Yashica ML 300/5.6 C is good but not great. The lens shows lots of CA of all types, and is not very sharp wide open. Long MFD. The lens looks like a rebadged Tokina, although this may not be the case.

500mm: Yashica ML 500/8 Reflex (a mirror lens) is actually extremely nice. Better than RMC Tokina 500/8 (sold), Tamron 500/8 (tried), and better than my Zuiko Reflex 500/8, which is a highly regarded mirror. Non-ML version reportedly not as good.

Zooms: Yashica ML 35-105/3.5-4.5 is really very nice except prone to flare. The 80-200/4 is so-so, not even close to Vario-Sonnar 80-200/4; the Yashica zoom looks suspiciously similar to RMC Tokina 80-200/4. The YML 35-70/3.5-4.5 is so-so and very prone to flare; dubious mechanical quality. YML 75-150/4 is actually very nice except the zoom range is quite limited. Mechanical quality is dubuious though. I still want to try a YML 28-85 though.

[Excalibur]

[AhamB]

[Orio]

[dude163]

must .........resist urge ..........to ................buy...................film !!!!!!!!!

[dude163]

[stingOM]

I have the Yashica ML 15mm f2.8 semi-fish. This lens is exceptional in terms of IQ to my eyes.

http://louislam.photopage.org/Yashica/Yashica.htm
Click here to see on Ebay.de

sample photos

[visualopsins]

[alex]

Aoleg gives a good rundown of the similarities and differences that characterise Yashica and Zeiss cousins, where they exist. The YML 75-150 is a nice lens, compact, though the 70-210 ML is hardly much bigger, and is at least as good optically, if the extra reach is important. The 28-85 YML is my favourite zoom in the range, though it can hardly be called petite, and can be subject to flare. Don't confuse it with the similarly-ranged 28-80 YML.

My favourite YML primes are the 21, 24, 28, and the f/1.7 and f/1.4 50's, though the f/2 50 is an undervalued gem. The 50's aren't Planars, but the f/1.4 may startle you with how close it comes. The 35mm YML is also a keeper.

The 28-85 and 70-210 make a good travel set, as long as you're aware that Yashica zooms are not speed demons, and the f/2 50mm is so petite it would be nuts not to throw it in the bag. My focal length interests these days tend to be in the 35-100 range, so the 35-105 YML fits that bill very nicely.

Forget trying to attach a CY lens to an M42 body. The registers are almost identical, but the CY throat is wider, which is why it's very easy to make an adapter to mount an M42 lens on a CY body, but not the other way round. Fortunately good CY bodies can be had for little money.

[RioRico]

Pentaxians:
I have devised a simple, non-exclusionary modification to put C/Y and OM lenses on PK mounts. This mod is non-destructive in that the lenses can still be used on their native mounts. The problem: bayonet flags on C/Y and OM bases *almost* fit under the corresponding lugs on PK mounts. My trick: shave away a little metal on the underside of the leading edges of those bayonet flags.

LEADING EDGE: the edge of the flag that first encounters the mount lugs.
UNDERSIDE: the side of the flag that faces the lens body/front.
SHAVE AWAY: use a Dremel cutting wheel to taper the flag, back 10mm.

On a C/Y base, do this to the two bayonet flags that are NOT notched (that notch is towards the leading edge of its flag). On an OM base, do this to all three flags. The tapering allows about a 15mm twist onto the mount, enough for a firm grip, even if not locked-on. I suppose the next trick will be to cut a small notch in each lens base, for the PK camera's locking pin. Hey, I could do that to a Nikon non-AI base also, which fits onto a PK mount without other modification.