The Contax Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.7 C/Y is in rare company. It's one of nine lenses with 'old photodo' averaged MTF scores of 4.6 or higher (I have or have had six of them).
I've never tried any of the Yashica's, although I've been sorely tempted; given their heritage and (especially) price.
jcolwell wrote:
...I've never tried any of the Yashica's, although I've been sorely tempted; given their heritage and (especially) price...
My ML 50/1.4 does not compare well with either AE or MM (they're the same) Contax 50/1.4's. The Contax lenses are sharper at all apertures although the drawing style of the ML is almost identical.
My ML 50/2 is a little embarrassing (in a bad way) in it's wide open performance, but it's fine stopped down (as are ALL 50's so that shouldn't be a surprise).
My ML 24/2.8 is not so hot either, but not bad.
All in all I would not waste too much time or money investigating the Yashica lenses and am a little surprised to hear that the ML 50/1.7 is as good as the Contax but was that wide open or stopped down, or both?
Interesting indeed... I too found that there is little difference between my Yashica ML 21/3.5 and Zeiss ZE 21/2.8. BTW my Yashica 21/3.5 is for sale...
helimat wrote:
Interesting indeed... I too found that there is little difference between my Yashica ML 21/3.5 and Zeiss ZE 21/2.8. BTW my Yashica 21/3.5 is for sale...
What's your ML 21/3.5 like wide open and compared to the Zeiss?
Mine was fairly ordinary until stopped down to about f8-11 where it was extremely sharp.
JohnJ wrote:
My ML 24/2.8 is not so hot either, but not bad.
JJ
Yeah, there seems to be quite a lot of sample variation in the Yashica lenses. For example my current ML 24/2.8 couldn't possibly be any sharper. As some people say here /it out-resolves the sensor/ and at every aperture from it's widest 2.8 to it's smallest f/16. It also would not be a very easy lens to focus without live-mode tho - so there's that too as a contributor to difference. The only lens I have that even comes close to it is the Canon nFD 20mm F/2.8 - which BTW, is sharper than the 20L.
Anyway, I see a lot of people here and elsewhere who say and show Yashica primes to be very awesome... like the OP here is saying, on par with the Zeiss equivalents. But I also see about an equal number of people saying and showing the same lenses to be fairly mediocre.
Of the Yashica 24/2.8 I've had three identical (looking) copies and all three delivered different levels of sharpness. Noticeable differences, tested differences. So, between reading and seeing conflicting critiques/samples and experiencing it myself with the 24/2.8 I'm inclined to think Yashica's QC people drank on the job a lot - or some other factor which caused this kind of sample variation.
dbehrens,
Are you sure you didn't just miss-focus the 1.7 shot? If you look at the upper left corner of the 100% crop that cut off petal seems to be the focus point and is about the same sharpness as the 2.0 sample. Or am I seeing things?
Bifurcator wrote: dbehrens,
Are you sure you didn't just miss-focus the 1.7 shot? If you look at the upper left corner of the 100% crop that cut off petal seems to be the focus point and is about the same sharpness as the 2.0 sample. Or am I seeing things?
No - the difference between 1.7 and 2.0 has been consistent with this lens. The sample pics posted were also taken with the 1D Mk4, tripod, best of 3 shots each, 10X live view and probably cable release as well.
Bifurcator wrote: dbehrens,
Are you sure you didn't just miss-focus the 1.7 shot? If you look at the upper left corner of the 100% crop that cut off petal seems to be the focus point and is about the same sharpness as the 2.0 sample. Or am I seeing things?
The tulip is tilted forward a bit, so, logically, the focal plane intersects parts that are further back in the flower.
Wide open or stopped down? I wouldn't expect a big difference when stopped down but the wide open performance usually separates the men from the boys, so to speak. JJ
my tests are made wide open.
i try to post samples later this day
and promise always to post samples in future.
My eyes don't see big difference in warmth but the Zeiss looks like it has tiny bit more contrast. A bit confusing at first because the top left is labeled Y and the bottom left Z; it's just me.
Here are the results of tests I ran on my old Yashica 50mm f1.7. I think it proves to be quite good. I'm no expert at interpreting resolution charts so you'll have to do that.
The images were made with Nex5N at the various stops and were all shot on a tripod with no changes in focus. All were PP in ACR using the exact same settings and with all noise and sharpen sliders zeroed out. No external sharpening was performed on the 100% crops.
The four resized images of the wagon wheel were PP in ACR with my default setting. No additional adjustments were made in ACR.
Following resize all four images received the exact same amount of very light sharpening with dslr Fractal.
Very nice turbines! That's pretty typical of Yashica. They seem to be very Zeiss-like - almost all of them! And as such one of the best bargains going! And also just like Zeiss lenses they take a little more practice to become competent at fine focusing them!
The one outstanding difference which I've actually seen demonstrated is with some of the wider Yashica lenses. On a FF camera the Yashica will have some softness in the extreme corners where the corresponding Zeiss typically won't. But for APS-H and smaller users that's not an issue.
Anyway I agree with the initial premiss Reinhard put forth: [usually] very little difference between ML and T*
This thread has come up at a good time. I'm currently thinking about pulling the trigger on a Yashinon 50/1.7 DX in the next couple of days. Why the DX? To go with my 28/2.8 DX of course!
Now aside from the ML being multicoated and DX single coated, anyone have any experience with both the ML and DX or can point me towards a comparison of these two fifties? I've noticed an increase in the cost of DX lenses the past few months. What's a fair price for a 50ML if it really is substantially better than the DX?
The Yashica build quality is definitely not near that of Zeiss. Also I have bought several Yashica ML 50 & 28 lens that had extremely rough helicoids due to congealed thread grease and hardly worthy spending money and time for a CLA. If you get a good one they are great. Some of the ML zooms are pretty good too.
Somewhere I believe I have a 50mm DX and also a multi-coated DS-M. If I can find more free time I will try do a test and see how they compare with my ML.
turbines wrote:
The Yashica build quality is definitely not near that of Zeiss. Also I have bought several Yashica ML 50 & 28 lens that had extremely rough helicoids due to congealed thread grease and hardly worthy spending money and time for a CLA. If you get a good one they are great. Some of the ML zooms are pretty good too.
Somewhere I believe I have a 50mm DX and also a multi-coated DS-M. If I can find more free time I will try do a test and see how they compare with my ML.
Thanks Turbines. I would be very grateful if you got some free time and could do that. I'm very well aware that the quality will be nowhere near that of the Zeiss. But I'm on a very limited budget at the moment. Besides, I've become a huge Yashica fan since getting my 28/2.8 DX. I love it even if it isn't regarded as one of the "elite".
I have two DSB 24/2.8 and two ML 24/2.8. The DSB ones aren't worth your time when compared to the ML ones. In comparison to each other the DSB ones are not very sharp. Maybe sharper than Rokkor or some others but not up to the ML and Zeiss standards.
I love my $35 Yashica ML 50 1.7! 
BTW my Yashica 21/3.5 is for sale... 
