Yashica lens ML 50mm 1:1.7 vs Yashinon ds-m 50mm 1:1.7

[Prince Harbinger]

I'm not able to find a comparison between the two. Yashica lens ML 50mm 1:1.7 vs Yashinon ds-m 50mm 1:1.7. Does anyone here know which one is the better lens between the two? Thanks for your time!

 

[Aoi Usagi]

They should have about the same image quality. Both have the same optical design and have multicoating. I think you just need to pick which mount type is better suited for you. The DS-M is m42 and the ML is Contax/Yashica mount. I would usually pick m42 over anything else because of affordable adapters and simplicity, however I noticed the Yashica made m42 have a protruding rear element (at least with my Yashinon-DX 50/1.4) that hits the focal reducer I am using. What camera will you be using it on?

BTW, they are not Carl Zeiss duplicates as one of our forum member has discovered.

 

[Prince Harbinger]

They should have about the same image quality. Both have the same optical design and have multicoating. I think you just need to pick which mount type is better suited for you. The DS-M is m42 and the ML is Contax/Yashica mount. I would usually pick m42 over anything else because of affordable adapters and simplicity, however I noticed the Yashica made m42 have a protruding rear element (at least with my Yashinon-DX 50/1.4) that hits the focal reducer I am using. What camera will you be using it on?

BTW, they are not Carl Zeiss duplicates as one of our forum member has discovered.

Thanks that's great news! I already have the ML version which is C/Y mount adapted to my A6300. I also have a Viltrox C/Y focal reducer. I have a few M42 adapter too. Slim adapters don't seem to work with APS-C. I'm not able to focus with them. Guess I'll save them for when I buy a FF in two years. I noticed that the Vivitar automatic tele converter doesn't lock on to my regular dumb C/Y adapter. Not really an issue since cropping doesn't reduce image quality as much as a tele converters does.

That's interesting that you mention that. I read this about the Yashica "supposedly Zeiss planar duplicates and are supposed to perform 99% as well as a Zeiss".




1

 

[Aoi Usagi]

They should have about the same image quality. Both have the same optical design and have multicoating. I think you just need to pick which mount type is better suited for you. The DS-M is m42 and the ML is Contax/Yashica mount. I would usually pick m42 over anything else because of affordable adapters and simplicity, however I noticed the Yashica made m42 have a protruding rear element (at least with my Yashinon-DX 50/1.4) that hits the focal reducer I am using. What camera will you be using it on?

BTW, they are not Carl Zeiss duplicates as one of our forum member has discovered.

Thanks that's great news! I already have the ML version which is C/Y mount adapted to my A6300. I also have a Viltrox C/Y focal reducer. I have a few M42 adapter too. Slim adapters don't seem to work with APS-C. I'm not able to focus with them. Guess I'll save them for when I buy a FF in two years. I noticed that the Vivitar automatic tele converter doesn't lock on to my regular dumb C/Y adapter. Not really an issue since cropping doesn't reduce image quality as much as a tele converters does.

That's interesting that you mention that. I read this about the Yashica "supposedly Zeiss planar duplicates and are supposed to perform 99% as well as a Zeiss".

They may perform 99% as well as Zeiss, but they have different optical formulas.

 

[SimonOL]

They should have about the same image quality. Both have the same optical design and have multicoating. I think you just need to pick which mount type is better suited for you. The DS-M is m42 and the ML is Contax/Yashica mount. I would usually pick m42 over anything else because of affordable adapters and simplicity, however I noticed the Yashica made m42 have a protruding rear element (at least with my Yashinon-DX 50/1.4) that hits the focal reducer I am using. What camera will you be using it on?

BTW, they are not Carl Zeiss duplicates as one of our forum member has discovered.

Thanks that's great news! I already have the ML version which is C/Y mount adapted to my A6300. I also have a Viltrox C/Y focal reducer. I have a few M42 adapter too. Slim adapters don't seem to work with APS-C. I'm not able to focus with them. Guess I'll save them for when I buy a FF in two years. I noticed that the Vivitar automatic tele converter doesn't lock on to my regular dumb C/Y adapter. Not really an issue since cropping doesn't reduce image quality as much as a tele converters does.

That's interesting that you mention that. I read this about the Yashica "supposedly Zeiss planar duplicates and are supposed to perform 99% as well as a Zeiss".

Yashica ML lenses are pretty good - just enjoy them for what they are! The Contax lenses might be just a little 'better' but the difference is not significant enough IMO to justify the additional cost particularly as you already have the Yashica lens

I'm a bit confused about your 'slim' adapters comment. What adapters are you talking about there? From my experience having used Sony APS-C and FF cameras, if an adapter won't let you focus on one format then it won't work on the other one either. Are you talking about adapter rings from a particular mount to C/Y so you can use your focal reducer? I used to use an M42 to C/Y adapter ring on my Lens Turbo with no issues.

If an adapter won't let you focus at all then it is too short (positioning the lens too close to the sensor). If it's too thick, it will allow close focus but won't allow focus at infinity.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/simonol/

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I have seen “slim M42” adapters for sale. At one stage I did know what they were meant to do but have forgotten. They certainly are too short for standard focusing by themselves.

Mybe they were meant to take helical focusing extensions and therefore convert a (say) enlarging lens into one with focus capability?

But that could be a single helical adapter between camera body and lens anyway - so I scratch my head a little as to their necessary purpose.

But they might be a way for me to get my “Komuraflex” lenses to focus properly with a right combination of extension tubes.

 

[SimonOL]

I have seen “slim M42” adapters for sale. At one stage I did know what they were meant to do but have forgotten. They certainly are too short for standard focusing by themselves.

Mybe they were meant to take helical focusing extensions and therefore convert a (say) enlarging lens into one with focus capability?

But that could be a single helical adapter between camera body and lens anyway - so I scratch my head a little as to their necessary purpose.

But they might be a way for me to get my “Komuraflex” lenses to focus properly with a right combination of extension tubes.

Now you've reminded me, I remember coming across those too ;-) I'm sure they are for mounting some types of helicoid to allow infinity focus which wouldn't be possible if that helicoid was mounted on a standard M42 adapter. They are no use as 'stand alone' adapters.

Still not sure if that's what the OP is referring to, but if he is then changing to FF isn't going to make them any more useful without additional accessories

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/simonol/

 

[Prince Harbinger]

They should have about the same image quality. Both have the same optical design and have multicoating. I think you just need to pick which mount type is better suited for you. The DS-M is m42 and the ML is Contax/Yashica mount. I would usually pick m42 over anything else because of affordable adapters and simplicity, however I noticed the Yashica made m42 have a protruding rear element (at least with my Yashinon-DX 50/1.4) that hits the focal reducer I am using. What camera will you be using it on?

BTW, they are not Carl Zeiss duplicates as one of our forum member has discovered.

Thanks that's great news! I already have the ML version which is C/Y mount adapted to my A6300. I also have a Viltrox C/Y focal reducer. I have a few M42 adapter too. Slim adapters don't seem to work with APS-C. I'm not able to focus with them. Guess I'll save them for when I buy a FF in two years. I noticed that the Vivitar automatic tele converter doesn't lock on to my regular dumb C/Y adapter. Not really an issue since cropping doesn't reduce image quality as much as a tele converters does.

That's interesting that you mention that. I read this about the Yashica "supposedly Zeiss planar duplicates and are supposed to perform 99% as well as a Zeiss".

Yashica ML lenses are pretty good - just enjoy them for what they are! The Contax lenses might be just a little 'better' but the difference is not significant enough IMO to justify the additional cost particularly as you already have the Yashica lens

I'm a bit confused about your 'slim' adapters comment. What adapters are you talking about there? From my experience having used Sony APS-C and FF cameras, if an adapter won't let you focus on one format then it won't work on the other one either. Are you talking about adapter rings from a particular mount to C/Y so you can use your focal reducer? I used to use an M42 to C/Y adapter ring on my Lens Turbo with no issues.

If an adapter won't let you focus at all then it is too short (positioning the lens too close to the sensor). If it's too thick, it will allow close focus but won't allow focus at infinity.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/simonol/

Thanks for the advice. The M42 to Nex adapter ring won't let me focus with a 50mm. If it's a 400mm I'm able to focus. I have seen some Youtubers with the ring on their FF with no issues. I have no issues with the thicker M42 adapter. I just wish I could use the slimmer one.




2

 

[Prince Harbinger]

I have seen “slim M42” adapters for sale. At one stage I did know what they were meant to do but have forgotten. They certainly are too short for standard focusing by themselves.

Mybe they were meant to take helical focusing extensions and therefore convert a (say) enlarging lens into one with focus capability?

But that could be a single helical adapter between camera body and lens anyway - so I scratch my head a little as to their necessary purpose.

But they might be a way for me to get my “Komuraflex” lenses to focus properly with a right combination of extension tubes.

 

[Prince Harbinger]

I have seen “slim M42” adapters for sale. At one stage I did know what they were meant to do but have forgotten. They certainly are too short for standard focusing by themselves.

Mybe they were meant to take helical focusing extensions and therefore convert a (say) enlarging lens into one with focus capability?

But that could be a single helical adapter between camera body and lens anyway - so I scratch my head a little as to their necessary purpose.

But they might be a way for me to get my “Komuraflex” lenses to focus properly with a right combination of extension tubes.

Now you've reminded me, I remember coming across those too ;-) I'm sure they are for mounting some types of helicoid to allow infinity focus which wouldn't be possible if that helicoid was mounted on a standard M42 adapter. They are no use as 'stand alone' adapters.

Still not sure if that's what the OP is referring to, but if he is then changing to FF isn't going to make them any more useful without additional accessories

 

[SimonOL]

Thanks for the advice. The M42 to Nex adapter ring won't let me focus with a 50mm. If it's a 400mm I'm able to focus. I have seen some Youtubers with the ring on their FF with no issues. I have no issues with the thicker M42 adapter. I just wish I could use the slimmer one.

That makes sense. Longer focal length lenses like your 400mm will extend much more in physical length when focusing between infinity and minimum focus distance than a normal lens like your 50mm.

(The above assumes that the lens in question does not have an internal focusing mechanism)

At some point, the 400mm lens will be able to focus at infinity as the optics will be at the correct registration distance from the sensor although the focus scale on the lens will be way off ; for example, you might be able to focus on distant subjects when the focus scale says you should be focusing at 5 metres! That also means that the minimum focus distance of the lens will be much further away than it should be so it will make the lens much less versatile

The 50mm lens will never extend a sufficient distance during focusing to make up for the 'too short' adapter.

FF will not change any of that. All lenses are designed to work at a specific distance from the sensor (or the film plane in the case of the old lenses we're discussing). A standard M42 adapter is quite chunky as it needs to position the lens the same distance from the sensor that it would have been if it were mounted on a native M42 film camera with a mirror box.

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/simonol/

 

[Daniel Machado]

I have both. While they have the same optical configuration, although that doesn't mean they give the same result. Since the rear lens of the yashinon-DS has thorium included. The ML has no thorium in its elements.
Another difference, and if you have both in your hand you will notice, is that the yashinon is of better workmanship, it looks like a German lens, more similar to the manufacture of a Pentacon or a CS. The ML its manufacture is nothing special.
This is because the Yashinon-DS was designed and built by the legendary Tomioka, while the other was another manufacturer.
In short I would choose the Yashinon-DS.