Yashica Lenses vs Zeiss lenses

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Guest]

Hi Lynn,

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

Dirk

 

[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

 

[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]

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]

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]

> 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]

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]

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