Yashica ML 100/3.5 Macro

[Laurence]

This is a newly acquired lens in C/Y mount on my Contax AX.

The slide, under the loupe, is superbly sharp and contrasty.

Although it's difficult to scan 35mm film properly with the flatbed, I still think that there is a certain
look to the results from the lens that is pleasing to me. I guess I can describe it as 'saturated and
deep'. I may be going out on a limb, but I think the rendered image has much the same 'feel' as the
Zeiss T* Makro-Planar that I owned a couple of decades ago.

I don't hear much about this lens, but the results, at least on the slide, are outstanding.

This is, of course, just a test shot looking straight down from an elevated position, into the mix of sticks
and stones. It possibly would benefit from post-processing such as Unsharp Mask, but it seems to have
rendered nice and sharp as it is.

Depth of field is pretty shallow with this lens; it might have been more expedient to stop
down to f/5.6 or so.

I'll post more, including macro mode (2:1), as they are scanned.


ML 100/3.5 Macro
Contax AX
Wide Open
Provia

[Attila]

With flatbed scanner need sharpen a lot scanned .tiff file, usually works quiet well. Famous and rare lens, congrats!

[woodrim]

Yes, excellent find. I don't see them around. Tomioka?

[Laurence]

Thanks for the scanning tip, Attila!

woodrim: Perhaps someone who knows the lens origins could tell us if it is made by
Tomioka or some other production company? The lens is incredibly compact for a
100mm macro. It extends from both ends when focusing down. The coating seems
to be really well done, with a coloring of purple and yellow from the coating reflections.

[kds315*]

Excellent result Larry! That lens really is an outstanding one and some mentioned that it rivals the Zeiss 100mm Macro Planar. I had both lenses and both are outstanding performers indeed.

[Laurence]

[kds315*]

Never tried that Larry, but maybe a short tube woudl do for that test - oh well, where to find the time for all that

[Attila]

[Laurence]

[AMDBill]

hello all,

this lens , the ML 100/f3.5, were the first manual that i adapt to an DSLR
a this time , 4-5 years ago,i bought a EOS 30D and start to be interested by using manual lens instead of auto-focus,and a french forum member offered it for free (gift)
at this time i were the first to say that i m ok and my sister lived in his town, but they never had time to meet themselves
happily he find a friend of him that comes to my city
i gave 10€ to him for the displacement to my home

i were very happy with the lens but no adapter to mount it on the 30D ,i were still waiting a M42-EOS (4-5 weeks for it) and i don t want to wait this zoo long time that i change the mount to M42 (irreversible)

whis 30D it was beautiful , very fine, but now i ve fuji XPRO-1 it flare and lost contrast badly even with a big hood
on the fuji the panagor 90/2.8 is better and extend to 1:1

i m gonna do more tests with it

[Laurence]

[hifisapi]

[Lightshow]

Adapters have been known to cause loss of contrast, flat black paint will help.

I missed out on 2 of the 100/3.5's to go with my 55/2.8 macro.

[Laurence]

Thanks for the information JC and Lightshow. I've learned a little bit about two possible reasons
why a particular lens will work differently on different digital cameras. This forum provides lots
of chance to learn something new.

[hifisapi]

Ive even heard there may be differences in the reflectivity of the sensors causing more flare in some situations.

[Lightshow]

Which was I think one of the root causes of early digital shooters saying old lenses are useless with digital cameras, but I think for the most part that myth has been put to bed.