Yashica Auxiliary Telephoto Lens set - keep or get rid of?

I have a bad habit of buying cameras I don't need. I already have a Yashica 12 but when I saw one on craigslist for $30 I couldn't resist. It has a few nice things that mine doesn't like a case, genuine Yashica UV filters, Yashica lens hood, etc.

 

It also came with a Spiratone Close-Up set, and a Yashica Telephoto set. Both have pristine leather cases which leads me to believe they weren't used much. Are these things as bad as people say? Any reason to hold on to one or both?

Had one of the tele kits, it was kind of fun. I'd hang on to both of them for a while and play with them a bit, you might like them. You can always get rid of them later if you don't.

Depends if you own and plan on using a Yashica TLR that this lens will fit. If you do, I'd keep it. You not talking about a lot of money here, but if you should change your mind someday I'm sure it would be hard to find another for $30.

Rick: I actually have two tlrs now, - the telephoto kit came along with a camera.

 

I've read a few posts where people have said these produce really soft images and never used them again. I guess it's not going to hurt anything to try. I wish I had the wide-angle rather than the telephoto. A wide angle attachment could allow one to get shots they otherwise couldn't.

 

One can always crop to get a zoom effect and from what I've heard, that might produce better quality images than with these auxiliary lenses ;)

 

I guess I've got nothing to lose by trying it. I can take the same shot with the telephoto and without to see if cropping indeed produces better results.

Edited August 24, 2017 by tomspielman

Its going to depend on the quality of the individual unit. I was always a doubter when it came to afocal attachments, but since I now use a fixed-zoom lens Bridge Camera, they're the only way of getting more tele or W/A than comes as standard. I reluctantly bought the manufacturers (Fuji) w/a & tele as a kit for my old S 7000, dreading it. I was actually pleasantly surprised at how little the quality was effected.

 

Now I'm a convert to Good, high quality ones. I even bought the w/a one for the S9100 that replaced the old 7000!

If it is a genuine Yashica set, it will probably work fairly well, especially stopped down a bit. If it is brand X, then don't expect much in the way of sharpness.

Hello everyone. I still own & use, two Yashica Mats. An EM purchased in a PX in 64 & a 124 off Ebay around 2000 as I was "retiring". Both have a telephoto set in each kit. The EM a set from Yashica, the 124 a Spiratone set. Both yield very good negs and there is a noticeable difference between enlarged prints & prints with the telephoto lens on the camera. As mentioned, f32 & f45 (unofficial setting on camera) need to be used , so a tripod is given. Hold on to the set, and if you want to sell them, put a blurb here & they will fly out of your kit. Bill

I had the 124 G and both lens kits, good fun and a bit of a Steam Punk look as well. Have no idea where or which negatives are from that usage or I'd dig some up, scan and post.

Now that you mention it, it does have sort of a Steam Punk look to it with those things on.

 

I've got a 2 or 3 shots left on a roll that I was saving for something else, but now I'm really curious so I'm going to do a side by side, - telephoto vs cropped.

That's a good way to test. Where do you lose the more quality, enlarging or optically? Many criticize the afocals without figuring in enlargment of the original to the same magnification.

Well, I did my little test. Unfortunately due to some technical difficulties (I screwed up), I'm not sure the results are conclusive. What did I do? Well, when I went to take the film out of the camera I noticed the film door was not quite completely closed. I don't know if I didn't turn the locking knob all the way or what. I was still hopeful because it was *almost* completely shut.

 

Long story shot there was a light leak. Part of the joys of film photography. ;)

 

My first few photos turned out fine but those aren't the ones where I did the comparison with the telephoto adaptor and just a crop. But a couple turned out well enough to make some guesses. At at least I know why many people are not big fans of these auxiliary lenses. Here's the auxiliary telephoto shot of a skyline followed by the regular shot:

 

 

 

Notice the vignetting. This was at f8. The manual recommends shooting at 5.6 - f11 to avoid this problem. Obviously, it doesn't avoid it completely. If you crop off the bad spots and crop the standard to an equivalent magnification, there are some differences. Because of the middling aperture, you lose some detail on closer items if you're focusing on something farther away. Since I was focused on the skyline, some of the nearby plants were blurred in the tele shot.

 

It appears though that it did pick up some detail in distant objects that the standard lens did not. Maybe futzing around with the scanner more would have told a different story.

 

 

 

These last two shots are just for fun. The first was without any light leaks I could see. The last, the leaks kind of worked with the photo... kind of. It kills me that it happened. I'm going have to retake them. Oh well.

 

 

 

If you're curious, the film was 20 year old Kodak Vericolor HC. I think the HC stands for high contrast. It's a fun film but again, for test purposes, fresh stuff would have been a better choice.

Edited September 10, 2017 by tomspielman

Optically the tele attachments are weak Galilean telescopes. By limitations of that design no one could ever make one that made a significant focal length increase without having a huge front element. Typically most units boost focal length from 1.2 to 1.5 (if you're lucky) times. Still could be fun to experiment with, though.

Yeah, for a hefty hunk of glass, it doesn't do much, - 'cept put little black triangles in the corner of the picture. ;)

 

I'll keep it for a year to see if it ever gets out of the case again.

Worth mentioning that stopping down makes quite a difference. The closer to the edge of the lenses you get the bigger & more obvious the faults become. This is taken with the Fuji W/A converter.

Good to know. Personally I could see the W/A being more useful and I wish I had that instead.

Working with my EM/124's, I find the tele unit saves the day when you need another 4-5 feet closer to your "subject". Blackberry thorns are not to my liking, but the tele unit brings the subject TO YOU without the punctures. If you can get right up on the object, then the close-up set is your joy. Bill

I also have a Spiritone close up lens (#2) which I haven't tried yet. I could see getting some interesting pictures with that.

 

And interestingly enough, I just got handed a Rolleinar close up set #2, literally 2 hours ago as a sort of thank you for helping a friend price some Rolleiflexes at a garage sale I showed up at by chance. They found them after the garage sale was over.

 

Unfortunately they don't fit my Yashica, but they are beauties.

 

Since I can't use them I was thinking of selling them. However they were a gift, so I'd like to use the proceeds to get something that would fit my camera. I already have closeup set #2. Which would be better, a wide angle auxiliary lens or close up set #1?

Edited September 12, 2017 by tomspielman

The Rollenars are really nice as the viewing lens also corrects for parallax. Why don't they fit your Yashica, are they Bay2?

As for which one to get that will depend on your needs. If your close up set doesn't correct like the Rollenars then you'll need some form of correction device.

See my write up of the Yashica 635. I tested the auxiliary lenses extensively.

 

Yashica 635, The Complete Package

I looked through that thread and your pictures of the setup you used to take 35mm pictures. A question that went through my mind was why would anyone bother with a device that turned a perfectly good medium format camera into a clunky 35mm camera when much more usable 35mm cameras were readily available? Or for that matter, why spend good money on an telephoto auxiliary lens that is so limited when there's a whole world of SLR telephotos, wide angles, zooms, etc that do so much more?

 

But as someone pointed out in that thread, and maybe in this one too, it's not quite fair to evaluate the usefulness of those things in the context of today's world vs back when they were made. I never owned an SLR or TLR until relatively recently because they were too expensive for me when I was a young man. There's no way that back in the day I could afford both plus a slew of lenses like I can now. I've gotten some really nice things for very little and sometimes even free.

 

So, if you really wanted to shoot medium format AND 35mm 40 years ago, something like the Yashica 635 would have some appeal. And if you were heavily invested in a TLR, maybe it did make sense to buy auxiliary lenses in spite of their limitations rather than spend a small fortune on an SLR and a set of lenses.

Rollei did the same thing with a 35mm conversion kit.