yashinon slr, tlr, rf comparability

[steve_10170]

Recently helping a friend sort and sell some classic camera bits from his father's estate. It's been fun going through some of them. I

noticed a Yashinon screwmount 50mm and it occurred to me that I now have in my home a yashinon named lens from a yashica g rf,

yashica mat 124, and now this m42 mount. I really enjoy the yashinon character on the rf yasica g and the medium format tlr lens is razor

sharp and contrasty. my question is: other than the name, what do these lenses have in common? are the designs all the same? and if

so, is it reasonable to expect images to be comparable despite the different bodies and even formats? what are your thoughts? cheers!

[dan_fromm2]

<p>The M42 lens and the RF lens are probably both 6/4 double Gauss types -- probably but not certainly to different prescriptions -- if their maximum apertures are no smaller than f/2. The TLR lens is a tessar type. </p>

<p>I don't know what a lens' character is so can't comment on that. Since I can't grasp the concept I think that talking about it is silly and having expectations about it is unreasonable. </p>

<p>Many people who post here and elsewhere on the Internet disagree strongly with me about the existence, visibility, and significance of lenses' characters. I can't decide whether the emperor's wardrobe is fantastic or I'm just an ignorant barbarian. Not that being an ignorant barbarian guarantees that I'm wrong, or that there's any doubt at all that I am one.</p>

 

[fred_c1]

<blockquote>

<p>is it reasonable to expect images to be comparable despite the different bodies and even formats?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd think it's easy enough to find out. </p>

<p>Personally I worry more about the lab and my technique than lens characters.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p><strong>Steve</strong>, I'm leaning a little towards <strong>Dan</strong>s' Barbarian camp on this. In total, I guess I must have about 50 lenses bearing the name "Yashinon", spread over a range of camera from P&S to Rangefinders, SLR's and TLR's. It would be unreasonable to expect any common characteristic to run through such a range. Certain series, such as the DS and DX M42 lenses, are of similiar build and prescription, but I'd have trouble finding any particular "character". Overall, I find Yashinon lenses to be consistently good performers in their price-range, much as I find Rokkors or Hexanons, but I'm comparing measurable qualities such as resolving power, contrast or lack of distortion rather than "character". An then of course, there's the Yashikors...</p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>Dan, the emperor is naked. Accept it.</p>

[steve_10170]

nice to hear from you all. thanks. by lens character i meant reolution, contrast, and even flare as addressed by coatings. i've heard others

refer to sonnar designs as well as leica lenses in much the same way enlisting such obscure qualities as 'glow' for example. but certainly

as rick points out a huge variety certainly cant provide any particular qualities. sorting through the lenses has been fun. i mounted a

mamiya sekor, super takumar, yashica dx, and fuji screwmont to a dslr for quck comparisons before i boxed some up. cheers.

[chuck_foreman1]

<p>All "words" aside it seems as if you're doing the proper thing and comparing them! Beauty is n the eye of the beholder! </p>