Yashica SLR lenses vs Zeiss

<p>The intent here is to determine the cheapest way to get into a Zeiss/Zeiss equivalent SLR system. Interstingly the first camera I bought was a Yashica FRII because of a dealer recommendation that it was a cheap way to get into Zeiss. I sold it.</p>

<p>Now years later and after going the Pentax LX route and then very invloved in Nikon I am still wondering if I missed something lens wise; i.e. Zeiss. I've done a lot of reading but I am still not clear if Yashica lenses in C/Y are equivalent to any of the Zeiss in C/Y.</p>

<p>It seems anything Zeiss in any mount is not dirt cheap due to adaptations to DSLR. Also Zeiss in C/Y mount works on Contax so I aasume values are still high.</p>

<p>Dirt cheap is what I am looking for.</p>

<p>I am wondering if there are hidden Zeiss jeweles branded Yashica or Yahinon? ML or MM etc. Can someone iterate the Yashica glass for me?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>I am not certain about this, but I don't think the "Zeiss" lenses made for the Contax 35mm SLR system were actually made in Germany. Some may have been but I believe most were made in Japan with the Zeiss name licensed. Whether or not that makes a difference depends upon how you feel about the Japanese made Zeiss lenses. They should be excellent for general photography.</p>

<p>Well, Zeiss name is associated with good quality so I wonder if looking for dirt cheap Zeiss lenses is not a waste of time. Perhaps if you find defective ones and you are handy to restore and CLA them, but that is a different scenario... IMHO cheaper but not dirt cheap would be the M42 Zeiss screwmount lenses that go with the Spotmatics, Prakticas, Fuji screwmount bodies. There are also the Zeiss lenses in the Exakta mount that may be reasonably priced.</p>

<p>Thanks - I think I need to clarify a bit. What I am refering to is lenses that are "Yashica" branded but are actually Zeiss equivalents.</p>

<p>From my reading I am quite sure there are Japanese built Zeiss as well as the German however I made the assumption either would be overpriced (per my limitation) so I was trying to to dertermine if there were Yashica branded but Zeiss speced. Of course they would be Japanese built which is ok by me. Does that make more sense?</p>

 

<p>Heres a reference:<br>

My question is in reference to the Yashica premium lenses referenced below. How good were they? Were thet equilvalent to the Contax or Zeiss?<br>

Yashica and Contax manual-focus lenses with a common bayonet mount were introduced in 1975 simultaneously on the <a title="Contax RTS" href="http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Contax_RTS">Contax RTS</a> and on the <a title="Yashica FX-1" href="http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Yashica_FX-1">Yashica FX-1</a>. The <a title="Yashica" href="http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Yashica">Yashica</a> range of lenses included a premium range of lenses for the more serious photographer (termed 'ML' or 'MC' for multi-coating), while consumer SLR cameras were usually equipped with 'DSB' lenses, which had single-coated optics. The top of the line was the renowned <a title="Carl Zeiss" href="http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss">Zeiss</a> AE series of lenses, intended for the Contax SLR cameras, each of which displayed a T* for Zeiss' proprietary multi-coating. Some <a title="Carl Zeiss" href="http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Carl_Zeiss">Carl Zeiss</a> lenses were made in Germany and the rest in Japan under Zeiss license. But all of these lenses were interchangeable with any Yashica or Contax camera equipped with the C/Y bayonet lens mount.</p>

<p>Yashica's lens plant (Tomioka, which originally was an independent company) had a high reputation. The plant also made or designed lenses for some other labels. Under Yashica, it made some of the Zeiss lenses under license.<br>

For various reasons, bloggers sometimes credit Tomioka with making certain lenses that were actually made elsewhere.<br>

See http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Tomioka</p>

<p>I am all for our glorious German camera industry, but lenses are lenses. I don't think you will take better photos with either Zeiss or Yashica, especially if you stay in 35mm format. Get real, get out and shoot more instead of worrying about who built what lenses based on which design. As we say in German: <i>We all cook only with water, too.</i> (in the sense of: All put on their pants one leg at a time...)</p>

<p>What I would be out to exceed is lenses like Micro-Nikkor 55 2.8 AI, 105 2.5 AI, Nikkor 35 F2 AI, Nikkor which I have and do shoot.</p>

<p>I have a feeling Zeiss may not exceed these anyway and I am very happy with Nikon bodies, FE2, F100 etc.</p>

<p>I shoot medium format as well.<br>

It is always enjoyable to try out new gear and bargain hunt on the cheap. I like Russian gear as well.<br>

On a more significant scale I could also consider selling out of Nikon and moving to RTS III or similar and Zeiss lenses if I felt there would be a real difference over the best of Nikon.</p>

 

<p>Like Bueh, I am a great fan of Zeiss (in my case, Jena and Dresden), but I think all the Zeiss and Contax brand name C/Y-mount lenses were made in the same place (Japan). I don't think there was even any difference in quality-control measures, but there might have been.</p>

 

<p>You should probably just consider the Yashica lenses on their own merits, rather than any supposed resemblance to Zeiss. Apparently there was a separate production line set aside for the Zeiss stuff in the Yashica factory, and only the Zeiss-branded lenses benefited from Zeiss's glass design, coating and QC. I have heard that Yashica designed (e.g.) barrels and electronics for some of the later Contax lenses, however. There were certainly some very nice lenses in the Yashica lineup - the ML wideangles had a good reputation, especially the 21, and I always had excellent results with the 50/2. This guy seems to like it too:</p>

<p>http://www.retrocamera.net/2008/11/review-of-yashica-ml-50mm2/</p>

<p>You can read another guy's subjective take on the relative quality of various Yashica lenses here:</p>

<p>http://www.faqs.org/faqs/rec-photo/yashica-slr-faq/</p>

<p>This seems to be the place to discuss Yashica nowadays:</p>

<p>http://www.yashicaforum.com/</p>

<p>If instead you want to try an actual Zeiss lens without spending too much, pick up a cheap Yashica or Contax body (make sure the electronics are in working order!) and the terrific Zeiss 50/1.7 in YC mount. Of course you can also now buy Nikon-fit Zeiss lenses made under license by Cosina, but they aren't cheap.</p>

<p>I think you are going the wrong way on this. If you want Zeiss glass but cheap and that isn't being converted for digital use by everybody else then try the old Rollei 35mm SLRs. If you don't like that, try the older East German stuff from the '50s or '60s when they were still labeling things with the Zeiss logos. </p>

<p>I would check the lenses on the site MFLenses where they provide pictures taken with each lens of a particular make, such as, Carl Zeiss, Carl Zeiss Jena, Yashica, NiKon, Canon, Pentax etc. IMHO each lens, even of the same manufacturer exhibits a different set of characteristics in regard to sharpness, tonal range and the like. So, one may have to examine these for each lens before exercising a preference. I am not sure if one make <em>per se</em> can be said to be any better than any other, in a sweeping way.<br>

For example, Meyer Domiplan had earned a bad reputation among a lot of people. But there are those who prefer it for its sharpness and crisp color rendering. Similarly, Meyer Oreston was thought to be an ordinary but decent lens for a long time, for more than a decade or two since 1965-66 when it was introduced. Today, people are raving about it and its successor Pentacon 50mm. The lens is rated by many on par with the CJZ Pancolar and the KMZ Helios [biotar]. Then again the Oreston/Pentacon seems to emphasize tonal quality a bit more as against the Pancolar, which emphasizes sharpness a bit more. Again, each sample may also differ slightly from the norms set by the manufacturer. I would do some more research and exploration on each item before I buy rather than going wholesale to buy products of one company or another. Regards, sp.</p>

<p>Everyone is offering a useful opinion on this. Here's mine.<br /> <br /> CZ lenses made in Japan weren't just made under licence, they were made under Zeiss quality control standards and specification. I have CZ lenses made in Germany, and others made in Japan. They are all built to the same high standard, and the same high optical standard. Zeiss lenses are individually tested and supplied with individual performance certification - not batch sampling. Choosing one made in Germany over one made in Japan is for someone whose priorities are not photographic and not optical.<br /> <br /> The Yashica ML lenses are very good indeed. I have most of the primes (except the elusive 15mm and the 55mm, and the mirrors), and most of the zooms. Many of them are good examples of the Pareto principle applied to their Zeiss cousins. I love the wides, especially the 24 and the 35. I have two copies of the ML 50/1.4, and they approach my Planars as near as dammit. So did their cost, so it's a toss-up which you'd go for, and you're likely to add the small extra and go for the CZ 50/1.7. The ML 50/1.7 is excellent. So is the 28-85 ML zoom.<br /> <br /> I'm not convinced that the way in which Zeiss lenses hold their values is because of digital conversion possibilities, though there's an element of that. The telephotos hold their values rather well, and Zeiss has never been strong on telephotos ; there are plenty of alternatives for digital users at the longer end too. In any case, CZ glass is now available in mounts that don't need conversion rings any more. I think the reason Zeiss glass holds its price it the obvious one, and the same reason Leica and other top glass holds its price.<br /> <br /> I too bought my first Yashica because of a dealer recommendation that it was a cheap way to get in to Zeiss. There isn't a cheap way to get in to Zeiss. It was merely a cheap way to get an SLR with a Contax mount that would accept Zeiss CY lenses. I made a terrible error by being put off CZ glass when I discovered the prices. I spent far too much on half a dozen examples of third-party mediocrity when I should have spent it all on just one 50mm Planar. But then, everyone has a PhD in Hindsight. I also made the mistake of thinking that ML lenses were just DSB lenses with extra coating.<br /> <br /> Yashica is under-rated, and probably always will be. The good folks here can do their bit by helping keep it that way and not spilling the beans, so that the rest of us Yashica enthusiasts can keep our collections ticking over at modest cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /></p>

 

<p>Assuming you stay in the same format, a significant improvement to image quality will come from a good tripod, not a change in the brand name being held in your hands.</p>

<p>So much helpful information here.</p>

<p> "There are also the Zeiss lenses in the Exakta mount that may be reasonably priced."</p>

<p>I do have an Exacta Varex IIa with a Tessar which is very soft for some reason. I am keeping an eye in that direction.</p>

<p>"I don't think you will take better photos with either Zeiss or Yashica"<br>

<br />I understand your meaning espicially in 35mm but my various lenses do give various results and there may be a somewhat higher level than I have experienced. It seems fairly often that a Zeiss convert claims so anyway. I agree content, even blurred content can be more important than anything else yet special glass can add to an image. Also some of us occasionally like to experiment with a new to us camera even if it's just for the enjoyment.</p>

<p>"You should probably just consider the Yashica lenses on their own merits, rather than any supposed resemblance to Zeiss. Apparently there was a separate production line set aside for the Zeiss stuff in the Yashica factory, and only the Zeiss-branded lenses benefited from Zeiss's glass design, coating and QC"</p>

<p> That makes sense I just thought some of the Yashica might be the same lens with different cosmetics. If they are not actually Zeiss under the hood it would be nice to know which might be and which not. If none of them are then as you say they should be considered on their own merits. It seemed reasonable some might be the same. I still wonder if some essentially are or not.</p>

<p>"I think you are going the wrong way on this. If you want Zeiss glass but cheap and that isn't being converted for digital use by everybody else then try the old Rollei 35mm SLRs. If you don't like that, try the older East German stuff from the '50s or '60s when they were still labeling things with the Zeiss logos."</p>

<p>I haven't looked at the Rolleis but I do have a few CZ Jena glass in Pentacon 6 and also a Jupiter 12 and Industar 61. I have thought of going after a Helios 44.</p>

<p>"I would check the lenses on the site MFLenses where they provide pictures taken with each lens of a particular make, such as, Carl Zeiss, Carl Zeiss Jena, Yashica, NiKon, Canon, Pentax etc. IMHO each lens, even of the same manufacturer exhibits a different set of characteristics in regard to sharpness, tonal range and the like."<br>

I try but it is hard on the web. I guess that is why one looks for a concensus; difficult to do.</p>

<p>"Choosing one made in Germany over one made in Japan is for someone whose priorities are not photographic and not optical"</p>

<p>That's good news as well if it keeps the price down, I do not have Zeiss envy per se.</p>

<p>"I too bought my first Yashica because of a dealer recommendation that it was a cheap way to get in to Zeiss. There isn't a cheap way to get in to Zeiss"</p>

<p>Maybe the thing would have been to get into Yashica.<br>

That is good news for me as is "The Yashica ML lenses are very good indeed."</p>

<p>This might be worth looking into. However if there is nothing standout vs some of the better recognized Nikkors I mentioned, Micro-Nikkor 55 2.8 AI, 105 2.5 AI, Nikkor 35 F2 AI, Nikkor which I shoot it may be a wasted effort. The Yashica 55mm 2.8 macro looks suspiciously like the Micro Nikkor 55. Probably the better lenses of any ake are all good as said above and it would be hard to slot the brand as a whole into a top slot.</p>

 

<p>I too bought into C/Y mainly for the Zeiss lenses, yet for a long time, the 50/1.7 "kit" lens that came with my 159 was the only Zeiss I owned. I have, however, begun acquiring more of them as my resources converge with their prices. In the meantime Yashica lenses served me very well indeed. From what I know, similar to the info reported above, Yashica lenses are not Zeiss lenses in design, coating, QC, or anything else. They are just real good lenses. Well worth using until you can afford a Zeiss, or permanently if there are focal lengths you don't use enough to justify a Zeiss.</p>

<p>I'll disagree with Alex on digital conversion not being the reason they've held their value, and with his statement that "The telephotos hold their values rather well." The current going rate for a near-mint 300/4 Tele-Tessar is about $300. That is obscenely cheap. Whereas the wide Distagons go for a couple thousand. Digital is driving all this. EOS users spurn the 300 because Canon makes fine long lenses; they spoon out the big bucks for the wides because it is so tough to get a decent wide for digital.</p>

<p>Some folks have mentioned older Zeisses from the 50s and 60s. But really, those lenses have less in common with modern CZ lenses than modern CZs do with Yashicas. The glass and coatings of German lenses of that period produced a distinctive look, and the Zeisses were among the highest quality of that era. But if you want a high quality lens that produces the Japanese look that we are all used to today, you are better off with a Yashica ML with its more modern design and coating technology.</p>

<p>I have far too high a regard for August's experience and views to disagree with him lightly (or often, for that matter). My experience however - and it's anecdotal, being limited to my experience and observation - is a little different. Here in the UK at least, the 300/4 TT retails new at around GBP 750, and second-hand (top condition) at around GBP 450. I paid about GBP 400 for my 300 TT, in well used cosmetic but optically and mechanically perfect condition. The 300/4 is a good optic, but it is closer to average than the rest of the CZ range (average for CZ that is). The new price for the 180/2.8 Sonnar here is about GBP 650, the S/H is about GBP 350 - 400, which is what I paid. These are the ratios I'd expect. The only wide that's really stratospheric is the D21, which when I last saw it new (about two months ago) retailed at a few pounds short of GBP 3000. I've not seen any S/H for a long time, and the only one I see currently is a buy-it-now on eBay at around $1900 (GBP 1300). The 21 wasn't a cheap glass new. I can't remember exactly the new price of a D28, but I think it was just over GBP 300, and my S/H 28 was about GBP 200. I don't doubt that there's an element of market forces in pricing in a lens range like CZ where the register of the lens is pretty darned ideal for connecting to an EOS body, as it is for CY, I simply don't think it explains all the current market prices for CZ/CY. Quality, as August himself remarks, is a considerable component. The widest range I've seen is for the D18, which has gone for anywhere between GBP 320 and 600.<br /> <br /> I can't find any new prices on the new CZ dedicated mount lenses for EOS, but the 21/2.8 Distagon in Nikon fit is retailing new here at around GBP 1300, and the EOS should be the same. It will be interesting to see what effect this has on the C/Y mount prices.<br /> <br /> As an aside, although I don't have a CZ 21/2.8, I do have its lesser-spec'd cousin, the 21/3.5 ML. I paid about GBP 180 for it. My Flek 20/2.8 was GBP 86, though I've seen the Flek occasionally go for twice that. It would be interesting to hear a view from any digital users who've adapted these for EOS.<br /> <br /> As to ML lenses in general, I can only repeat what August says : their are great lenses in their own right, and should be bought and used for that reason, and not because of the pedigree of their cousins.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Just to say, I have been using, buying & selling most of the Yashica and Contax C/Y lenses for the last 8 years or so. There are some posts with incorrect info here, so to correct...</p>

<p>When the Contax RTS system first appeared, almost all the first range of lenses were made in West Germany...only slightly later did Zeiss start out sourcing SOME of the Zeiss lenses to the Yashica factory in Japan. After a fairly short time, most of the lesser Contax lenses were made solely in Japan, with the more exotic lenses still made in Germany. But there are lenses which 'buck the trend' so to speak.</p>

<p>Some people seem to think all the earlier AE lenses were made in Germany and all the later MM lenses made in Japan...this is also incorrect. Many AE ones were also made in Japan and also many of the later MM lenses made in Germany.</p>

<p>Examples:</p>

<p>50/1.4: very early AE ones were German made, slightly later AE and all MM were Japan made.</p>

<p>25/2.8: early AE were German, later MM were both Japan & German.</p>

<p>18/4: early AE were German whilst later MM were both Japan & German.</p>

<p>28/2: All AE & MM only made in Germany.</p>

<p>28/2.8: Small run of very early AE German, almost all AE & all MM Japan only.</p>

<p>35/2.8: All AE & MM seem to be Japan only...I am not aware of any German ones.</p>

<p>45/2.8: Some very early AE German, almost all AE & all MM are Japan.</p>

<p>85/1.4: Early AE German, later MM both Germany & Japan.</p>

<p>85/2.8: AE are both German & Japan, MM are German only..never come across a Japan MM one.</p>

<p>135/2.8: All AE and MM seem to be Japan only.</p>

<p>15/3.5: Only ever made in Germany and only in AE.</p>

<p>21/2.8: Only ever made in MM and all were Japan made.</p>

<p>So, there is no real pattern...I have a complete list of all the Contax AE & MM lenses and where they were made...from much research.</p>

<p>Of the Yashica lenses, I would say they are excellent and often superb and are possibly one of the all time over looked lens makers. If you want DIRT CHEAP and excellent, try ML 28/2.8, 35/2.8, 50/1.7, 50/2, 135/2.8C, 200/4C. Slightly more expensive but also well worth buying are 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 55/2.8 macro, 100/3.5 macro (superb lens).</p>

<p>cheers Steve.M. (UK)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here is the whole Contax lens list for those interested:</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Useful listing from Steve, and my CZ lenses conform to it. I'd just add the S100/3.5, my MM is Japan, and the S180/2.8, my MM is Germany.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Alex, here in the USA we generally use KEH as the benchmark for pricing used gear, so just to take a few prices from that site (grades "BGN" and above), with most of the variation accounted for by condition and whether it is MM:</p>

<p>Distagon 18/4, $484-800<br>

Distagon 21/2.8, $1950<br>

Distagon 25/2.8, $310-400<br>

Distagon 28/2.8, $235-265<br>

Distagon 35/2.8, $235-339<br>

Tessar 45/2.8, $189-215<br>

Planar 50/1.4, $179<br>

Planar 85/1.4, $449-499<br>

Makro Planar 100/2.8, $616-819<br>

Sonnar 135/2.8, $119-189<br>

Sonnar 180/2.5, $310<br>

Tele Tessar 200/3.5, $179-245<br>

Tele Tessar 200/4, $205-339<br>

Tele Tessar 300/4, $449<br>

Mirotar 500/8, $889</p>

<p>I don't know if there's a pattern there or not. The 300/4 price is up considerably from six months ago when I bought one from KEH at around $300. I can't remember the condition grade but there was not a mark on it except for the scratch that I put on the telescoping hood when opening the package too enthusiastically (@#$%&!!). I guess really that all of these prices except for the 21 and maybe the 500 are super bargains compared to the prices we remember when new. I sometimes wish that I had kept a price list from the late 1980s, when as a college student I pored over Contax catalogs like porn, because even with my limited funds I'm sure I would have spooned out for a 200 or 300 if they were anywhere near those prices, especially the equivalent in 1987 dollars. I used teles a lot at airshows then and my primary lens was a Yashica 200/4, usually with a 3rd-party telextender, which I got used for $99 around 1983 I think. Never had any reason to regret the purchase, even with the doubler it gave me good results and I am still using it. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fascinating. Some of these prices are pretty good, even allowing for exchange rate shifts in recent months. There are a few dealers here of some repute, such as ffordes in Scotland and Aperture Photographic in London. Aperture's pricings seem a little on the higher side to me, and they can be a trifle optimistic on gradings, but I've never had a dud or something I didn't think worth the price paid. I've had a look at ffordes, whom I've dealt with a lot, and marked their current prices (rounding up to the nearest sensible pound) against your KEH list for comparison. I think a notional exchange rate would be around 1.45 $ to GBP for quick calculation purposes. Some of the prices show dollar-pound parity.</p>

<p>Distagon 18/4, $484-800 ffordes GBP 600<br /> Distagon 21/2.8, $1950 ffordes new was GBP 3000<br /> Distagon 25/2.8, $310-400 ffordes GBP 350<br /> Distagon 28/2.8, $235-265 ffordes GBP 240<br /> Distagon 35/2.8, $235-339 ffordes GBP 130 <br /> Tessar 45/2.8, $189-215 ffordes GBP 150 <br /> Planar 50/1.4, $179<br /> Planar 85/1.4, $449-499 ffordes GBP 350 Aperture Photo 450-550<br /> Makro Planar 100/2.8, $616-819<br /> Sonnar 135/2.8, $119-189 ffordes GBP 100-150<br /> Sonnar 180/2.5, $310 ffordes GBP 330-500, 650 new<br /> Tele Tessar 200/3.5, $179-245 ffordes GBP 170-245<br /> Tele Tessar 200/4, $205-339 ffordes GBP 200<br /> Tele Tessar 300/4, $449 ffordes GBP 380(AE)-450(MM), 750 new<br /> Mirotar 500/8, $889 ffordes GBP 650 new<br /> <br /> When I bought my 135/2.8 about ten years ago, it cost me (S/H) about GBP 180, and the D28/2.8 was GBP 200, about six years ago. The D35/2.8, at GBP 80, was sheer luck. My pancake Tessar was GBP 100.</p>

<p>I had to grin at the description of "Contax porn'. I do remember seeing, several years ago, the 300mm Apo-Tessar listed at GBP 14,000. That's more than my first house cost. My wife would have said 'no', with a breadknife.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Zeiss lenses made in Japan are surpervised by German optical engineers, and according to Zeiss, are supposed to be of the same quality as those made in Germany. For the greater number of lenses for certain cameras made in Japan, local manufacture is benefitial in not only reducing costs to the end consumer, but even higher quality of lenses since they are manufactured near the site of their final assembly (in the case of non-removable lenses) or site of where they are to be attached to their respective camera (in the case of removable lenses).</p>

<p>Disclaimer: At this time, I have no connections to Zeiss, except for the several lenses that I own manufactured by them. The above information was given to me by Zeiss in the form of a letter from an inquiry that I had several years ago.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Since we are off topic...I have bought many, many items from all the main UK dealers across the last 8 years and would make the following observations:</p>

<p>1. Ffordes: I use these as my price guide since they have the largest UK choice (because most of their items are commision sales) They used to be the most reasonable price wise, but this changed from about 18 months ago. Their prices are often now slightly on the high side and the more exotic lenses like 21/2.8, 55/1.2 etc are over-priced IMO. They do have good service; however they do send out duds from time to time, not properly inspected. I have had to send about 3 lenses back.</p>

<p>2. Aperture: They are expensive usually...simply because they are in London and have London rent prices to pay. They have the occasional bargain. You can also pop in the back of the shop for some nice noodles and some internet use. They are now stocking much more Contax than they used to.</p>

<p>3. Caplans (London): Also usually expensive (London prices), but also the odd bargain to be had. Very old fashioned one to one service and Mr Caplan is old school and very helpful.</p>

<p>4. LCE: Not much Contax. but they do miss price sometimes when they get some, so I found it worth while watching their website. I got a CZ 70-210/3.5 from them for 279 GBP in mint cond. Sold it to a yank for 980 GBP.</p>

<p>5. Mifsuds (Devon): Well worth trying. Always some Contax and ok prices and service.</p>

<p>6. Nicholas (Camden London): Avoid like the plague....</p>

<p>7. Jacobs (London): Very high prices and items stored in poor conditions. Did often have a box of accessories though behind the counter and last time I was there they had a BRAND new RX boxed...old un-sold stock.</p>

<p>8. MXV: My most used along with Ffordes. Most of their items are also commision sales (like Ffordes)Often lower prices and good service...but also sometimes misses marks on lenses..so get to check over the phone first.</p>

<p>9. Jonathan Harris: Used to have quite a lot of Contax but seems to not anymore. Good prices, exc service from a one man band operation.</p>

<p>10. Peter Walnes: Very good indeed to deal with. Prices vary from ok to quite cheap. Another one man band well worth checking out.</p>

<p>11. The ebay place: My most used and with careful choices many bargains.</p>

<p>12. R G Lewis (London): Another old school dealer. Although London, often has cheaper prices on both Contax & Leica than other London shops. When I went about two years ago they had a very rare Brand new 55/1.2.</p>

<p>cheers to all Steve.M.</p>

<p>It is wonderful to have the above listings, very helpful.</p>

<p>I found this on camerapedia.org;</p>

<p>While not to Zeiss standards, <a title="Yashica" href="../wiki/Yashica">Yashica</a> ML and MC multi-coated lenses for the C/Y bayonet mount have also earned a reputation for high quality. Yashica already had a reputation for fine optics dating from the early 1960s with its optics supplier (later subsidiary), <a title="Tomioka" href="../wiki/Tomioka">Tomioka</a> Optical, and is also believed to have benefited from its licensing and manufacturing relationship with <a title="Carl Zeiss" href="../wiki/Carl_Zeiss">Carl Zeiss</a>.</p>

 

 

Ok so we have an independent line of Yashica ML lenses from mostly referenced to as "great".

 

 

What about the DSB versions and Yashinons? Apparently Yashinon is not just old rangefinder or TLR but there were Yashinon C/Y mounts concurrent with ML. Are there more hidden jewles in Yashinon and are DSBs really inferior?

Going foward I am have a few questions.

First are Contax lenses just marked Zeiss and never Contax?

Second is regarding the AE or MM types. Are these just Zeiss/Contax or did Yashica make a AE or MM version?

Would AE, MM and T be equal optically or does the buck stop at T for superior coating?