Yashica Lenses vs Zeiss lenses

G

Guest

Someone was telling me he suspects that Yashica lenses are the ones that came off the Zeiss production line that did not make the standards to be called a Zeiss lense and were rebranded as a Yashica. He suspects this why some appearing as Yashica lenses have superb characteristics while others are of lesser quality.

This all sounds like bizarre hypothetical idea, so you comments would be appreciated.

Stuart
 
G

Guest

It is not true. The lenses are all mechanically different, have a different type of coating (some even don't have any!) and have different Painting on them. Not to mention that quite some of them have simply slightly different data like 24/2,8. There is no 24mm Zeiss lense e.g.

An number of people however claimed, that some of the Yashica lenses have been designed by the same Persons who where involved in designing similar Zeiss lenses and the fact that Kyocera manufactured the Zeiss lenses as well allowed them to do some technology-transfer to improve their Yashica lens densigns.

Mike
 
G

Guest

Dear All,

I have a Yashica ML 2,8/135 for many years. Once I had the idea to upgrade for a CZ 2,8/135 but after a few roll of films I had to realise that it's not better at all than my ML lens but much bigger further on the closest distance is even worth what is particulary a disadvantage for me because I like to take close-ups. That cannot be an exeption because I took surprisingly good quality images with the ML 2,8/15 Fisheye and the ML 8/500 Mirror. And what is really a concern of comparison the colors of the Yashica lenses are also similar. It's true that there are also lower quality Yashica lenses (3,5-5,6/28-200) but the price reflects it. It wuold be usefull for all to share the experiences with Yashica lenses.

Zoltán
 
G

Guest

Hi Zoltan,

I am sorry but I have to entirely disagree with you.

I was Yashica user because I had no money while I was a student. Once I used the very first lens of CZ 70-210mm. I find no reason to stick on Yashica except financial reason. (P.S. some ML lens are good indeed.)

You may look at the sharpness, color reproduction, the out of focus effect,......etc. You should find out the big difference even on 3R.

This is not a bias comment from a Contaxian but it is true.

Francis.
 
G

Guest

I currently own several Yashica ML lenses:

15mm 2.8 Fisheye - ebay
24mm 2.8 - original owner
55mm 2.8 Macro - original owner

The 15mm is really a nice lens. It was a rare eBay pickup and it's not in pristine condition, but it still creates very unique and sharp images. Well worth having.

The 24mm has a good reputation from what I've read. But while I like the 24mm perspective, I have never been overwhelmed with the sharpness of this lens. Others say just the opposite so maybe I have a less than perfect ex&le.

The 55mm macro is a very sharp 1:2 macro. I purchased this lens for <$100 from a photo shop that was clearing Yashica lenses and it's one of my favorite lenses.

I also have a 75-200 4.5 MC zoom that is very average. I don't use this focal length very often but it's a good $100 lens.

FWIW..The story I was told years ago (by a camera store guy who had no reason to fabricate a story) was that the glass used for Yashica lenses was rejected Zeiss glass. Not quite up to Zeiss standards but certainly not soda bottle glass. I might believe that for the 15mm or the 55mm, but not the 24mm.

As far a general construction however, the Yashica lenses I've seen have all been *very* well made using substantial metal barrels and components. I cannot fault their build quality in any way.
 
G

Guest

> > all to share the experiences with Yashica lenses.<

The Yashica lenses that I have (ML28, ML50 1.4, ML 135) I like. I have Zeiss duplicates for work, but take the Yashica stuff on holiday on one of my old FR's or FX-3. That way I can have good photos and it wouldn't seem like the end of the world if it was stolen. Jeff
 
G

Guest

> [I think you'd be better off taking your CZ lenses and a Glock 45 to safeguard your lenses! Let's start terminating some of these thieves.
 
G

Guest

I've used the Yashica 50mm2.0, 35-105 dsb, 35-105ML and the 100 macro. The DSB 35-105 is not such a sharp lens, while I feel that the ML version of this lens is really quite nice. It is sharp with nice contrast and good color rendition. The ML 100 macro gives 2 to 1 ratio or half life size. This is to me, a very good lens and it can double as a portrate lens. Now I have never used a loupe to check the negs for sharpness from corner to corner, so I won't argue with anyone that says Zeiss lenses are much sharper, of course they are or should be. I look at a photograph for its beauty, its effectiveness, its over all quality. I've never tried to ascertain the beauty of a photograph by use of a loupe.
 
G

Guest

(If this post appears twice, I apologize. I have trouble getting my messages through sometimes)

Back in about 1986 when I went away to school my meager budget let me buy the following:
Yashica FX-103,
Ziess AE 50/1.7,
Yashica ML 100-300/5.6
Yashica x2 Auto Tele Converter
Yashica CS-221 Auto Flash

Sometime in the 90's I traded most all of this gear to my brother. He still has it all, but stopped using it some years ago when he killed the FX-103 body (meter just flashes 'over' constantly, and the body leather all peeled off). Now that I've been reading about your reviews of the Yashica gear this morning, I'm tempted to buy back my old gear from my brother (less the body).

Would the Yashica gear all function on an Aria? Would they function like any AE Zeiss lens? Or would a different body be more suited (which one if I want at least a spot meter option?)

Any insight into the usefulness of these pieces would be appreciated. And also what might be a fair price to offer for them. It has been well over 10 years since I've used these items and can't remember too much about them. (Except of course the zeiss ae 50/1.7 which I adored as my first lens and still do!)

Thanks!
Lynn
 
G

Guest

Lynn,

"If this post appears twice, I apologize. I have trouble getting my messages through sometimes"

there is always a delay of messages appearing in the forum when they have been send via e-mail and/or as e-mail in your inbox. This delay is between 1 and maximum 5 minutes. The reason for this is the amount of members to which your comment is sent out in this time. Technically it is not possible to send (currently) over 2700 e-mails out in the same second without craching the server.

Secondly you have to follow STRICTLY the step by step guide provided in each email to answer to a comment (reply by e-mail).

If you ignore these instructions and/or try to write your text on a different place within your e-mail, your comment will never show up.

Dirk
 
G

Guest

> Hi Dirk, Thanks for the info. Yes, I understand the procedure for posting to your list. I reply in the same way I always have, and follow the directions closely, but it is just now (recently) that something disapears into the ether. I usually wait a few hours before trying to post a message a second time. -Lynn L.
 
G

Guest

> Hi Dirk, I was wondering if you'd move the discussion about the Yashica lenses to a new thread in this category? The subject "zeiss lenses below minimum standards" isn't really accurate for the discussion. A title like "yashica lenses" might be more useful to those of us who are interested. Does that that seem like a reasonable idea to you? Thank you, Lynn L.
 
G

Guest

Hi Lynn,

I changed the titel to a more appropriate one: Yashica Lenses vs. Zeiss Lenses

Dirk
 
G

Guest

I have noticed on a few web sites that the Yashica ML 70-210 f4.5 is a very good lens to use. One site said that it was 'almost' Zeiss in it's optical quality. Has any body any experience of this lens?

Paul
 
G

Guest

Re: Dave's message of January 7 (just discovered this thread!): I too own a Yashica ML 135 2.8 and a 55 macro 2.8 and am very happy with them. I have gotten very sharp pictures with the 135 with a 2x teleconverter. These lenses complement my 28 mm 2.8 and 85 mm 2.8 CZ lenses and give a good range of focal lengths to carry round (although I mostly use the 28 mm and 85 mm CZ).
 

joanjordi

Active Member
I have a CZ Planar 50 f1.7 and a Yashica ML 50 f1.7. The Yashica lens is quit sharper, but the CZ's colour reproduction is much better.

My first wide-angle was a Y ML 28 f2.8. This lens had a noticeable barrel distorsion. I bought a CZ Distagon 28 f2 (Germany) in 2nd hand market (my first CZ lens) and after a small test I immediatly sold the Y 28 lens. There's no comparison between two lenses. Distagon has'nt quite any barrel distorsion and the color saturation is the best I've seen in a lens.

I have a ML 135 f2.8 too. Its sharpeness and color saturation is like the ML 50 I think.

But, any of Y lens hasn't the CZ's 3D effect.
 

jvirtue

Member
We're talking chalk and cheese here, I feel. CZ lenses are so much "better " than Yashica lenses, and that's that. However, I am not complaining about Yashica Lenses, especially the ML series. Camera Magazine ( Uk early-mid 80's ) tested a range of focal lenses from ALL the Camara makers, 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 135, 200 + 1 macro, ( all Manual focus ). Yashica came out 3rd in most of the focal lengths, even beating Leica in one case, ( 55mm Macro, if I remember correctly), better than Olympus, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, and much better than the Independant makers'.

I bought a Y 28mm F2.8ML, years ago as I didn't have a great use for the length, but decided I couldn't be without it " just in case" I bought it because I couldn't justify the expense of a CZ. I used it many times and cannot complain about anything, except perhaps flare control. For £ 50 new, it was a cracking lens.

Horses for courses, I'm afraid. If you want CZ quality, buy CZ. If you can't afford, or cannot justify the price, then don't expect CZ Quality.
 

paulcontax

Well-Known Member
> Hi John ! I'm VERY interested in this test you mentioned ! Where can i get it =3F Can you make a copy (I'll pay for it) or can you give me the mail-address = from this camera magazin =3F Thanx ! Paul
 

matthias

Active Member
2.8/55 is a good guess! This is a really good lens, and very cheap, too. I cannot compare it to LEICA, but you can mix up slides taken with the 2.8/55 and ZEISS lenses. Nobody will realise it! matthias
 

swoolf

Well-Known Member
can you give me> the mail-address = from this camera magazin =3F Thanx ! Paul

Camera subsequently became Creative Photography and ultimately ceased publication entirely around 1986 or so . Pity , it was a good magazine . Steve
 
Top