Yashica ML 135 / 2.8 C

[Lloydy]

If I grab a bag of Yashica's I usually take the ML 80-200 / 4 zoom along with the 28 and the 50, the 80-200 is a very good lens. And because it covers 135mm I rarely use the ML 135 / 2.8 C, which is a shame as it is an excellent lens. It's sharp, very good wide open, shows remarkably little CA / fringing, and like the rest of the Yashica's I have it's very nicely made and compact.
It is often said that it's hard to find a poor 135mm lens, and I agree. Which makes it harder to find one that rises above the others, which I think this Yashica does. It's a lens I shall certainly be using more often, and one I would recommend to anyone wanting a 2.8 135 that doesn't cost a fortune.

A few samples, all shot at 2.8 or 4, there are no 1/2 stops. The only picture that has had any PP is the clock picture - I adjusted levels to lighten the shadows.

[Attila]

You have better luck or better camera than I had , my C marked lens was poor performer on Olympus E-1, I still have DSB which is excellent really.

[Lloydy]

Sony A6000 Attila. I thought the DSB were the poor relations to the ML, but a lot of people seem to like them for the simpler coating. The only DSB and ML lenses that I have that are comparable are the 28 / 2.8's. I can't remember using the DSB, I shall compare them sometime.

[Attila]

A6000 has top sensor and Yashica has no stable product line like Zeiss has , so individual items can be pretty different, try once both DSB 135mm and ML, may we see little difference due top of the line camera what you have.

[Lloydy]

Yes, maybe the A6000 is bringing out the best of this lens? But it still has to have 'something' that makes a decent image. With some PP I think there is good potential from this lens - and not sharpening, I think the sharpness is there.

This might not be the best 135 lens that I own, but it's certainly above average.