Yashica 635, The Complete Package

<p>When I was 18 or so when the photo bug first hit me, I would peruse all the back pages for the ads in the Photo mags and wish for the day I could afford all those goodies. My father had a Sears Tower TLR and I was most familiar with TLR procedures so my attention often went to the TLR ads. The Yashica impressed me because the prices were more reasonable and most write-ups considered the Yashicas to be good quality for the price. The Yashica 635 stood out because it took 120 film and the cheaper 35mm film. Wow! Two cameras in one package! Some ads also featured the wide angle and telephoto auxiliary lenses. At age 18, around 1968, that was my dream outfit. I figured with the dual formats with auxiliary lenses, it was all I would ever want or hope for. For a lot of reasons, that dream never materialized until several years ago. </p>

<p>In an antique store in Georgia, I came across this Yashica 635 with 35mm kit and the two auxiliary lenses, all complete with leather cases and instruction manual. Remembering my initial fascination with this outfit, I couldn’t resist and plunked down $80 –Heck, I was on vacation( I tend to pay more for cameras on vacation--you too?) After checking some auction sites, recently, it seems $80 was a bargain.</p>

<div></div>

<p>"635' cont'</p><div></div>

<p>"635" cont'</p><div></div>

<p>Here is some historical data on the “635.” There were many variations of the Yashica TLR line, but the “635” started its run in 1958 and ended in 1971(It’s sister camera “D” was produced simultaneously.) In the last few years of production the “635” and the “D” had the 4 element Yashinon lenses. My version has the 3 element f 3.5 80mm Yashikor lens and, based on the serial number, it was made in 1967. The price in 1969 was $90, the same as the 124 Mat. The “635” included the 35mm adaptor kit as standard. (I read one version of the Rolleicord also came with a 35mm kit.) There is not much historical data on the auxiliary wide and telephoto lenses. The versions I have are “Yashinon” and are a 2^nd generation model. I could not establish at this time what the cost was in 1969 but I suspect they were about $30 to $50 each. Many aftermarket auxiliary lenses were made, too.<br>

My initial impression of the “635” is that it appears well made and well designed for its dual purpose. While never having used a Rolleikin 35mm adaptor on any Rollei, I suspect the “635” is far easier to change formats. I believe with the Rolleikin that small screws had to be swapped out for longer ones (Please correct me if I am wrong.) <br>

The shutter has a Copal-MXV with manual cocking with no double exposure prevention. Shutter speeds range from 1 sec to 1/500 sec. It also has a self timer, but to engage it, you must be sure the flash sync is set on “X” or you could damage the shutter. The camera functions exactly like the Yashica D except when using the 35 kit. My camera was in excellent condition with smooth focusing and all shutter speeds appeared accurate.<br>

In reading about the “635,” most users regard the Yashica 3 element lens to be very good, just a little soft on the edges especially when using large apertures. There are not a lot of opinions on the 35mm performance. As far as the auxiliary lenses are concerned the overwhelming opinion is <em>negative</em>, except perhaps the use of the Telephoto for “soft” portraiture.” So with that information, I decided to test both 120 and 35mm formats along with the two auxiliary lenses. <br>

I was fortunate that I have the original “635” manual which detailed how to change the format to 35mm and load the film. I suspect most camera users could have figured out how to do this without the manual. Interestingly enough, the main manual never mentions the use of auxiliary lenses. I managed to find a separate manual for the auxiliary lenses with very skimpy information. It states “no compensation in exposure is necessary.” It goes on to say “Apertures of f/5.6 to f/11 are recommended to prevent vignetting.” The conversion with the Telephoto is 112.8 mm, close to a 50% increase in focal length. Conversion for the Wide Angle is 58.4mm, a focal length reduction of 25% and a picture area increase of 75%. On the cover of this manual, it shows the auxiliary lens attached to a “635”. Does that mean the auxiliary lenses were designed specifically for the Yashikor lens? Does the performance improve or deteriorate with a Yashinon lens?<br>

The “635” loads 120 film like most TLRs by lining up arrows on the film backing with the camera arrows. Controls for using 120 film are all on the right side. Knob film advance is initiated by pushing the film release button. It is simple and very reliable whereas the 124 Mat has some history of problems with the crank advance.</p>

<div></div>

<p>First the 120 film performance without auxiliary lenses.</p><div></div>

<p>Example 2</p><div></div>

<p>Example 3</p><div></div>

<p>Example 4</p><div></div>

<p>With auxiliary lenses.</p><div></div>

<p>Park Scene 2</p><div></div>

<p>Park Scene 3</p><div></div>

<p>Despite following the instructions to the letter for the auxiliary lenses, shooting mostly at f/8, I did get significant vignetting. I can only guess that if I shot at f/22, it would have been a lot worse. The other thing I noticed was the small “notch” in the lower right corner of the photo. Every frame had this and I quickly discovered the culprit was the 35mm film release knob <em>in its normal position</em> protrudes just before the film plane on the upper left side of the camera. This is easily remedied by pulling out the knob and twisting it in the “out” position, which to me is counterintuitive. This is not always evident in a lot of photos but every negative clearly shows a clear notch. For full frame aficionados this is a bit disquieting. No mention of this is in the manual. Personally I am kicking myself for not having observed this when I loaded the film.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Without the benefit of blowing up the negative in an enlarger the photos appear sharp in the center even with the auxiliary lenses. There was some more fuzziness with the Wide Angle toward the edges. Using the auxiliary lenses was notable in that the taking lenses are quite heavy. Attaching them was easy—too easy in fact. In my examples there was some “slop” in the bayonet mount and while they never fell off the camera, I was constantly in fear that a simple bump could make it crash to the ground. The viewing lens attachment, being smaller and lighter, were much more secure.<br>

Now for the 35mm adaptor. </p><div></div>

<p>35mm kit</p><div></div>

<p>The change to 35mm was fairly simple with 6 separate pieces that made loading the film a piece of cake. The first thing that one realizes is that all 35mm controls are now on the left side of the camera. This is contrary to all my TLR experiences. Advancing the film is by a knob and you must press a film release button to do this. I knew beforehand that all images would be vertical with typical camera orientation. The normal 80mm lens is now a slight telephoto, good for portraits --not so good for landscapes. Now you say just hold the camera on its side at right angles to the subject and compose landscapes. TLR users know the image is reversed so holding the camera in this way <em>makes the image upside down</em>! I have kept an old Popular Photography article from the early 70’s, written by Norman Rothschild called “The guide to the twin-lens reflex.” In it he wrote very favorably about the “635.” Here is what he said about using 35mm for landscapes:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“…you can turn the camera on its side for horizontals. The image will be upside down. <em>With a little</em> <em>practice this should not disturb you too much </em>(emphasis is mine). To control the vertical movement of the image, simply rotate the camera on an imaginary axis formed by the eye and the center of the focusing screen. To make the image parallel to the edges of the picture frame, rock the camera body up and down on an imaginary axis formed by the lens and subject.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bear in mind the image within the 35mm frame lines on the fresnel viewing screen is very small. Using the magnifier helps but I found Mr Rothschid’s description almost impossible to accomplish especially when handholding the camera. I have little experience with view cameras and an upside down 4 X 5 image at does not normally intimidate me. However this tiny upside down 35mm image did intimidate me and I wonder if other TLR users have really ever tried this. My answer to Mr. Rothschild is: “<em>Yes it does disturb me very much!</em>”<br>

My solution was to use a tripod, but that proved difficult too, as the “635” along with many TLR’s do not lend themselves to the Hex quick release plate I had on my good Bogen. I had to settle for my old Welt Safe-Lock as long as I oriented the legs in such a way so as to not tip over. Even then I still had difficulties because of the tripods limitations (Note to self: Get a good ball head.) For hand holding the camera, the best way is to pre-focus and then with the 35mm mask installed, to use the Sportsfinder Believe me it will make life a lot simpler.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>When I first got interested in darkroom photography, when I was 9 in 1967, I used a different Yashica camera with 120 film. (I never knew about an adapter for it.)<br>

But not long after that, I mostly went to 35mm. I inherited a few cameras from my grandfather, and also started using my dad's Canon rangefinder. I started spooling film from bulk rolls.(Freestyle for about $5/100 foot roll.)<br>

The 80mm lens is about right for 120, but short telephoto for 35mm. <br>

Auxiliary lenses are, in general, known to be lower quality than the camera lens. With 35mm film, though, you shouldn't have so much vignetting as with 120.<br>

Personally, my favorite lens for 35mm photography is 35mm, not the "normal" 50mm.</p>

<p>Sportsfinder in use.</p><div></div>

<p>35mm frame attachment</p><div></div>

<p>My theory about the Yashikor lens despite its being a 3 element lens is that the central portion of the 120 format (also the 35mm portion) will be reasonably sharp perhaps through all apertures. Therefore, in my evolving reasoning, it seems plausible that the auxiliary lenses will be sharp also with 35mm film. That is essentially my test. This means the Wide Angle auxiliary at 58mm is now my normal lens, the 80mm camera lens is a short telephoto, and the Telephoto Auxiliary is the maximum telephoto at 112mm. I kept my exposures within the recommended f stops of f/5.6 to f/11. The images were scanned on a 2450 Epson Perfection flatbed which admittedly not the best for 35mm. The film was Ilford HP4+ developed in HC110 dilution B at 9 min.</p><div></div>

<p>Cemetery Building 2 with 35mm film.</p><div></div>

<p>Cemetery Building 3 with 35mm film.</p><div></div>

<p>I used a 24 exposure roll of Ilford HP4+ and I could not get the last frame in without the frame overlapping because I ran out of film. In the future I would just expose for 23 frames. This is probably due to the camera needing a slightly longer leader. Otherwise spacing was perfect. One flaw with my camera was the fresnel viewing lens had a mottled look due to age and the thin red 35mm frame lines were hard to see especially in sunlight.</p><div></div>

<p>The results in my limited test would say the auxiliary lenses work better with 35mm film—there is no vignetting. Both of them showed some loss of sharpness but for the average person, it may have been acceptable. I might give a slight edge to to the Telephoto. When I think about it, probably almost 90% of my 35mm shots with an SLR are horizontal so that to use this camera with 35mm film I would have to be dedicating myself to vertical portraits, something I seldom do. As for the auxiliary lenses because of the aforementioned difficulties, I don’t think I would ever use them again. Almost every TLR user zooms with their feet anyway. I will likely just use the “635” with 120 film only in the future as I expect most owners did. <br>

My fantasy about the dream outfit at age 18 was shattered completely but this test was fun. I hope you enjoyed it. I apologize for it being so long.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Bravo.<br>

Nice report in every dimension.</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing. As an aside, if you decide to seriously use this camera, you might consider replacing the fresnel screen with a brighter/different one from John Oleson (I did this for two of my TLRs a couple of years ago and found them much easier to nail the focus).</p>