Cableaddict wrote:
Seriously, is there anything here that makes someone want to buy a Yaschica lens? I don't see it at all.
I disagree. Every lens produces a unique image. To those that can connect to the images they produce, they're interested.
After viewing this thread, I am on the hunt for a ML 50 1.9. I saw it and I'm sorry that you didn't. But in all honesty, it varies from person to person.
This is not a proper comparison, just the same subject from roughly the same angles (not even on a tripod). The Yashica holds itself well although the Contax is slightly sharper (much more so when stopped down) and possibly smoother in terms of bokeh. The ML also has more CA in the OOF areas, but the Contax is not great in that department either.
To my eye, they look practically similar.
Nice comparison... The yashica faq does state that the Yashie 1.4 is practically Zeiss-like - this kind of reinforces that assessment.
Interesting comparison between the Yashica and Contax. So what the heck are we looking at in this picture anyway?!? You can't just post a pic like that for some casual lens comparison
Jacob D wrote:
...So what the heck are we looking at in this picture anyway?!? You can't just post a pic like that for some casual lens comparison
Fair comment. They seem to be skinned foxes left on the barb wire fence along a rural road that I some times use as a location for shooting cars (this and this were shot in the same location). They've been there for maybe a couple of years. I have no idea why they've been left there, but they look pretty interesing to me. I have nothing against shooting pets and flowers as lens tests, we all do it, but I do prefer to go out and actually shoot stuff when testing lenses.
So if I understand the premise correctly--I should expect that same kind of rendering and resolution by f2.8-f5.6 on the ML 50/1.4 as the Contax 50/1.4? I'm not asking for perfection, just close
I'm looking for a less polite 50mm to complement my olympus 50/1.4. It seems the 50/1.4 ML has some attitude.
