Contax Zeiss and Yashica ML

[david_smith110]

<p>I noticed something recently that I would like some confirmation on. It is in regards to the whole Contax/Yashica lens system. We know that the Zeiss lenses were the 'higher tier' lenses and the Yashcia Ml's, while great lenses in their own right, were seen as a cheaper option. Not as cheap as DS-B or YUS mind you, but definitely not the creme de la creme of the system.</p>

<p>However, I have been doing some comparing recently and have looked at three different Zeiss planar 50/1.7's, actually bringing one home. I finally had in my possession an ML 50/1.7 and Planar 50/1.7 for a possible showdown.</p>

<p>And then I noticed something. The ML lens was a good bit heavier. Not crazily so, but noticeable. I really started comparing the lenses side by side and thats when I noticed...the Zeiss seems to have a plastic aperture and focus ring. Wha?...</p>

<p>The ML on the other hand is all metal, aperture ring and focusing ring. Can anyone confirm this? I mean, it <em>seems</em> to be plastic on the Zeiss. The lens if definitely lighter, the rings just dont feel like metal and when I picked the lens up after sitting in an air conditioned room the barrel was noticeably cool to the touch but not the plastic bits. </p>

<p>Its not that big of a deal really, I just thought Zeiss being the 'premium' choice it would be all metal. Maybe this was a cost cutting measure to keep the price from just being to silly high? I mean, you are getting Zeiss glass, designs and coating, thats the important stuff. Is this echoed thru the whole C/Y Zeiss line? Do the other lenses, Planars and Distagons, have plastic bits on the outside?</p>

<p>Just curious is all. If anyone has some C/Y Zeiss lenses on hand I would appreciate you letting me know. Oh, something else I thought was odd. The Zeiss 50/1.4 planar has 6 aperture blades but the Yashica ML 50/1.4 has 8 blades. Was Yashica just keeping some of the good stuff back for themselves and not letting Zeiss steal the show?</p>

<p>Interesting, all this old gear.</p>

[MTC Photography]

<p>I have Carl Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 and Distagon 28/28 for my Contax 139. Yes the lens barrel of Zeiss lenses for Contax has plastic barrel. I don't have any Yashica lens. The Zeiss lenses for Contax was highly rated by some lens test labs, the Yashica lenses were Yashica's own design, their performace is on on the same level as Zeiss. Since Yashica paid high licensing fees for these Zeiss lens, they have to cut corners in order to be competitive. </p>

[SCL]

<p>I had a Yashica ML 50/1.7 at the same time as the Planar 50/1.7. Didn't pay too much attention to the cosmetics, only to the shooting results. They were very close, but on the bodies I was using at the time (Yashica FX-2 and Contax RX) the Planar slightly outperfomed the ML...so I ended up selling the ML and keeping the Planar. I, likewise have a 28/3.8 Distagon. I can't tell if there is plastic or not in its construction, given some metal composites over the years...you can't just hold a magnet over them and tell. Some space age plastics have the benefit of better resiliancy than metals of the same dimensions, so if some plastic was used, I'm sure there was good reasoning behind its choice other than just cost. The partnership of Yashica & Zeiss appeared to have been mutually beneficial with Zeiss doing most of the design work and Yashica the production. There was once a rumor that the quality control on the Zeiss branded lenses was more stringent than the Yashica equivalents, which would suggest more even performance characteristics of the resultant products...but who knows. As you say...this older gear sure is interesting.</p>

[randy_cooprider1]

David, I have wanted a Zeiss lens (on any type camera body) for some time but never could justify the cost. I have several Yashica lenses and cannot complain about the picture results. Have you reached a conclusion as to how they compare? I think that Panasonic and Leica have a similar arrangement where the lenses are made in Japan and inspected by Leica. I do have an ancient Panasonic DMC FZ20 with a constant F2.8 zoom that has been a good performer.

 

Randyc

[Gus Lazzari]

<blockquote>

<p>"Yes the lens barrel of Zeiss<strong> lenses</strong> for Contax has plastic" <em><strong>Martin T.</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Lenses? </strong><br /> This is true for the Planar 50mm f/1.7, <strong>but not the case</strong> with the far superior Planar 50mm f/1.4. <br /> It's fully metal, has wonderful<em> Bokeh</em>, sharp edge to edge and focuses to a very close .44m. (.6m with the f/1.7) <br /> <br /> The Planar 50mm f/1.7 has plastic components including the: filter ring, name ring, focus tube, DOF tube and aperture ring. <br /> So except for the mount area, everything you can touch (externally) is polycarbonate.</p><div></div>

[david_smith110]

<p>Martin and Stephen, thanks for the responses. I sort of thought the same thing as you Martin that to remain competitive maybe they use a high grade plastic to save a little money and the licensing fees fit that scenario. But then I agree with you as well Stephen, it couldnt just be a cost cutting measure. There had to be <em>some reason </em>for giving the premier stuff plastic and the homegrown stuff metal. Maybe the whole "Its made of metal" thing wasnt as big a deal as it is today. What with 30 years of cheap plastics behind us in every consumer product made today maybe we are jaded and care about metal parts more then somebody in the 70's when plastic was more of a 'new frontier' in space age materials. Guess we will never know.</p>

<p>Randy, I ordered this Zeiss from KEH in Bargain quality for not a lot of cash. I would be keeping it but my Speedbooster is very finicky about mounting the lens. Some are loose, some are tight. Go figure. But the fact of the matter is that I like my ML more. One thing I have noticed with every one of the three Planars I have tested (1 in a camera shop, 1 from a craigslist deal, and this one from KEH) is that is shows more CA then my ML in every single test. Weird huh? Not a lot mind you, but noticeable. I am coming to believe that I have just come up a crazy good version of the ML 50/1.7 and it is a keeper for sure. Plus, its all metal. :)</p>

<p>On a side note, I am trying to sell my Planar before I ship it back to KEH for a refund. I figure I can pass it on to someone locally before I spend money to ship it back. You can see my craigslist ad for it here. You can see why they marked it bargain, the white lettering was rubbed off by someone probably in an attempt to keep it stealthy. <a href="http://sacramento.craigslist.org/pho/3719587305.html">http://sacramento.craigslist.org/pho/3719587305.html</a></p>

<p>Also, check out my flickr page for some recent Yashica shots on my Speedbooster. There are some from an ML 28/2.8, YUS 28/2.8 and several from the ML 50/1.7 and 1.4. The speedbooster by the way simply rocks. <br /> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/</a></p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Gus, thats really good to know. Maybe the 1.7 was seen as the 'budget' Zeiss, if there is such a thing. Hopefully maybe many more of the Zeiss line for Contax is metal. Nice collection there by the way.</p>

[fred_c1]

<p>The 1.7/50 was Zeiss' cheapest lens (its 1.4 brother cost a lot more.) The 2.8/85 was all metal. So was the 2.8/28 ML. (I own all three.)</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

<p>I have found the ML series to be no slouches either. MY first 1.7 ML wys stolen and everytime I look back on older shots done with the that lens I am always pleased and nostalgic and want THAT lens. IT'S the old adage what you don'T hve you want! The Planar always seemed so heavy, glass heavy.. I'm talking about the 1.4 This is the only "Zeiss" lens I have and true to reputation ... great bouquet and very sharp. I have many color slides of my kids that are gorgeous! I never noticed any plastic on 1.4. I think tghe analagy about space age materials and plastics seen today as cheap. It was a different time and other standards were applied! I do wan to see the YASHICA wide angles and how they compare! Everything wide is sooo expensive a 24mm ML I'd like to fuind but "cheap" ..well that's relative!! </p>

 

[photojim]

<p>The ML 24/2.8 is generally reputed to be competitive with the Zeiss 25/2.8 in quality.<br>

I think in general, the Yashica lenses are a notch below the Zeisses but that doesn't mean the yashica ones are bad. They're well worth playing with.</p>

<p>The only ML I ever owned was the 50/1.9 and it was a terrific lens. Then again I was always very happy with my 135/2.8 DSB too.</p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Fred, thanks for the confirmation of an all metal 1.4. I may have to look for one soon. KEH currently has 3 in stock at once. Go figure.</p>

<p>Chuck, I definitely share your appreciation of ML's. They really are some sweet lenses and I have always wondered how they would be viewed today if the whole Contax thing didn't happen and the lenses weren't forever stuck in the Zeiss's shadow. Instead of "Oh yeah, Yashcia ML's are great, but man...those Zeiss lenses..." it would be "Oh yeah, those Yashica ML's are really great lenses."</p>

<p>Jim, I have heard that elsewhere about the ML 24. I am considering picking one up but at that focal length there is the very well regarded Sigma Super Wide 24/2.8 II that has an excellent pseudo macro mode. Decisions, decisions...</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Metal vs plastic.<br>You noticed, because one lens was less heavy.<br>if that is the only thing you noticed, had to look to see why it was, would that alone not be proof enough that there's nothing wrong with judicious use of pastics?

[david_smith110]

<p>QG, I noticed because one lens was less heavy? How incredibly astute of you.</p>

<p>Its nice to see you continuing to bring your arrogance to our little corner of the net. I dont need 'proof' of anything to decide about the judicious use of plastics. <em>I make that determination. </em>When I pick up my tools to create my <em>ART</em> I desire them to be of a certain quality. They must be optically capable and pleasing in many ways, including tactile. Can I pick up any old photographic device and make an awesome photo with it? You bet. Hand me a crappy plastic Holga and I'll come back with something worth framing. But when it's <em>my choice</em> (which it always is) then I choose what I want. Which includes metal lenses. Not another piece of plastic junk like my cell phone, my keyboard, my car, my daughters toys, the tools at my day job...</p>

<p>BTW, do you even <em>take photographs?</em></p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Yet, in your arrogance (<i>"I dont need 'proof' of anything[...]"</i>, <i>"I make that determination"</i>, he says. Nothing can top that.) you decide you need all metal lenses, though the only difference you found was that one of your lenses weighed a bit less.<br>Oh irony...<br><br><i>"Can I pick up any old photographic device and make an awesome photo with it? You bet."</i><br>And how wrong was i when above i said nothing could top that...

[david_smith110]

<p>Arrogance is projecting <em>your </em>idea on how I should judge metal lenses onto me and expecting me to comply.</p>

<p>Arrogance <strong>is not</strong> me determining what is good for myself.</p>

<p>Faith in ones abilities is<strong> not</strong> arrogance.</p>

<p>“Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world.”<br /> ― Arthur Schopenhauer<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/11682.Arthur_Schopenhauer"><br /></a></p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Arrogance (since this is now the topic of this thread):<br><b>Noun</b><br><br>arrogance (usually uncountable; plural arrogances)<br><br>The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or <b>which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption</b>; presumption.<br><br>As in : <i>"I dont need 'proof' of anything[...]", "I make that determination"</i>, and <i>"Can I pick up any old photographic device and make an awesome photo with it? You bet."</i>.<br><br>Something missing in <i>"would that alone not be [...]?"</i>, but again very manifest in <i>"Its nice to see you continuing to bring your arrogance to our little corner of the net. I dont need[...]"</i><br>You're a nice person too, David.

[david_smith110]

<p>QG, you are simply the personification of a <a href="

<p><em><br /></em>cmd:/IGNORE//(user:Q.G. de Bakker)script_:end</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

So there can be a discussion about versions of lenses, some of which do, and some of which don't contain plastic parts, whether they are well worth having or not despite that or not, but pointing out that all the difference you noticed is a difference in weight is a reason for you to get in a fit.<br>Interesting. What could you find about such behaviour on YouTube?<br><br>So back on topic: plastics are materials that are perfectly suited for a lot of uses, better than metals for many parts.<br>That a lens contains plastics could be not to make use of a better material, but simply to safe a penny or two. But (again) if all you notice (no matter whether you <i>"don't need 'proof' of anything"</i> or you <i>"make that decision"</i>) is that the one containing plastics weighs a bit less, there is no reason to dismiss such a lens as not as good as ones that, well..., just weigh a bit more.<br>If i would <i>"make that decision"</i>, and i do, it would be proof of advanced silliness to do so anyway.<br>And i can say so without hurting your feelings, because another thing you imagine is that you ignore me since Apr 05, 2013; 06:16 p.m. :D

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>There are so many more plastic vs. metal differences besides being lighter and less expensive:</p>

<ol>

<li>Plastic main tubes in zoom lenses don't hold on to metal screws very well when subjected to <strong>mild</strong> shock or impact. (Track screws pull out or loosen)</li>

<li>Plastic retainers with their mated tube easily deform and therefore strip with even a small amount of debris in the threads. (As when a tech performs disassembly)</li>

<li>Plastic will sever rather then bend. (i.e. Nikon<strong> FA</strong> AI follower tab)</li>

<li>Painted plastic sheds and/or blisters off the finish more readily than metal. (Especially in temperature extremes)</li>

<li>Plastic helicoid threads once damaged by debris such as sand, <strong>can't</strong> be made smooth again. (Cleaning then lapping metal threads with new grease intro restores new feel)</li>

</ol>

<p>After-all <em><strong>David</strong></em>, consider the source,<br /> <em><strong>Q.G.</strong></em> believes you can keep most any camera or lens charged/cocked, <strong>without any affect</strong> on the "springs"...</p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Valid points Gus, I agree with every single one. To me metal is a much more preferable material to use and work with then plastic.</p>

<p>And who is this Q.G. you speak of?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Gus,<br>If you knew (!) about creep and stress, you too would know (!) that you can. Instead of believing that you can't.<br><br>Back to plastics: again a profession. You can sum up all sorts of things that might possibly go wrong (you forgot to mention the things that can go wrong with metals. Binding. Corrosion. Becoming brittle. Fatigue. Difficulty to hold on to enamel. Deformation. Abrassion. Needing lubrication. Etc.). But if our friend David only noticed that his lens weighed a bit less...<br>Do you understand the distinction between imagination and reality? Between believes and knowledge?