Yashica 635, The Complete Package

[Dan Deary]

<p>I suspect that people who have used the Rolleikin on their Rolleis, that the use of a pentaprism attachment would greatly improve the use of the 35mm format. I would certainly like to hear from those who may have tried this.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Excellent write up, and pretty well matches my experiences with the 635 and 35mm adapter - I've never seen the auxiliary lenses and probably wouldn't use 'em anyway. I did manage to find the proper lens cap later, but haven't found a hood or filters for the taking lens.</p>

<p>And the handling quirks are just as Daniel described. Surprisingly I've never had an inadvertent double exposure. Just dumb luck. I had more accidental double exposures with my Rolleiflex 2.8C, probably because I'd inadvertently brush the DE doodad. Personally I preferred the arrangement of most controls on the 635, particularly the focus knob. And while the sports finder setup is functional, it's a bit crude compared with the Rollei. Occasionally I have to adjust the tension on the little clamp that holds the hood in the sports finder position.</p>

<p>MY 635 has the triplet and it's remarkably sharp, better at the corners and edges than some reports claimed. There's a bit of distortion at the very far edges - possibly astigmatism and coma - that I didn't see in the Rolleiflex, but it's not enough to worry about with most photos. In most photos I couldn't see any differences between the Yashica 635 and my Rollei 2.8C with S-K Xenotar unless I nitpicked the corners in large prints.</p>

<p>The 35mm adapter is an interesting novelty but I've used it only a couple of times. As Daniel described, the vertical/portrait orientation is very limiting. And the tricks for horizontal holds are a pain in the neck.</p>

<p>What I've found the 35mm adapter most useful for is to help newbies understand the "crop factor" in digital cameras. The 80mm lens doesn't change - it doesn't magically become a short telephoto instead of a normal lens. It just has a larger image circle than a typical 80mm lens designed for a 35mm camera. The information recorded on the 24x36 film is exactly the same as the information recorded on the 6x6cm square of 120 film inside that same 24x36 "crop". And if the camera-to-subject distance is the same, there is no change in DOF or anything else. I used to have a set of illustrations to accompany this stuff, but it was lost in a hard drive crash a few years ago. I need to redo it.</p>

<p>As Daniel described, my 635's fresnel was also mottled. It's very soft plastic and had to be cleaned very gently. The mild solvent also removed the grid lines and 35mm frame lines. I need to redo that some day. I can still see - just barely - the traces of those lines.</p>

<p>Interestingly, I found the Yashica 635 viewfinder much brighter than the stock Rolleiflex 2.8C. The Rollei was so murky at the corners it was impossible to use in most lighting. The 635 is bright enough to use for candid snapshots even in most indoor lighting. If I'd kept the Rollei I'd have sent it off for a brighter screen, but like an idjit I sold the darned thing. One of the few sales I regret.</p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>Daniel, First of all $80 for a 635 with the 35 mm kit is a steal. I got mine, without the kit, for 120 bucks, at least it was/is working condition. I have not seen, nor wanted to really look, results from 635 with 35mm kit mounted. What I find interesting about these three element lenses is that they produce this whirl wide open, kinda as if the universe would about to collapse. Off all my Yashica TLRs, the 635 is my favourite, sure I'm part Magpie, so I love shiny things. Anyways, nice post and some nice results.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Great shots. I'll bet back in the day photographers who used the 35mm attachment and 35mm short ends (for thrift) gladly overcame the inconvenience. However, the wide angle attachment does give a normal view with 35mm. Thanks for posting.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>When I got my 635 one of the parts in the 35mm adapter kit was missing. I later found a complete 35mm adapter kit but by that time I was not as interested in using it. My Yashica TLR collection consists of an A, a 635 and a gray 44. The A is small and light and even with its three element lens can give you a very respectable 8X10 if you stop down a little. In High School and college I had a 124G. As I have written before, the 124G was not impressive mechanically. When the winding mechanism finally stopped working for the second time I got rid of it. The Minolta Autocord which replaced it was much better made but the Yashinon lens on the 124G was a gem. I sometimes shot portraits with it and enlarged to 8X10 from the center of the negative using a 50mm enlarging lens. The results were quite good. As film camera prices have dropped I have accumulated enough medium format SLRs to sink a ship so I do not use the TLRs nearly as often as I used to. When I was in school I loved getting the mounted 6X6 Ektachromes back from Kodak. If I could find a Yashica TLR made before the 124G and with a Yashinon I might be interested. I have a 135W back for my Mamiya ETR series SLRs but I have never succeeded in getting all of the exposures I should from a roll of film. I don't know if I am not using it correctly or if it isn't working properly. The image area with the 135W back is nominally 24X56mm. I recently had the revolving back adapter and 120 back for an RB67 Pro serviced but did not get to use it today. It has the non-metered chimney finder on it. I forgot that the image was reversed just like it was with the 124G. I have a prism finder for when I want to carry something really heavy and also the plain Waist Level finder. The finders are shared with a Pro S body. I am a little younder than Daniel. My picture taking started in 1971 when I was 14. I started out with a Konica Autoreflex T2 and did not have the Yashica until I was about 17. Whlle in High School I did have fun using the Koni-Omegas which were mostly for class pictures. Now I may be on medium format overload but I'm enjoying it. </p>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p>Excellent write up and lovely pictures in both formats. I wonder why you would say that your dream was shattered! Many 35mm cameras would also put one through rigorous exercising; the Exakta VX series were good examples of that kind. But they were also cherished Professional cameras! Thanks for the detailed post. sp.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>BTW, looks like Daniel used the same trick I discovered by accident: the old style Nikon F cable release will work on the Yashica 635 if you remove the threaded collar. I discovered that while tightening up the collar - got curious and found out it was a perfect fit.</p>

<p>And we also seem to have the same, or similar, Safe-Lock tripod. Mine is the PT model, Pneumatic Tripod, with air cushioned legs like a light stand. The center column uses the pneumatic tube too. And the bright blue anodized aluminum legs are a hoot - it's the friendliest looking tripod I've ever seen, like a cliche from the "How to look like a shutterbug!" catalog, along with a khaki vest, naugahyde gadget bag and "girl-watcher" 500mm f/8 preset telephoto lens.</p>

<p>It's a weird tripod but cost me only five bucks at a thrift shop. Mostly I use it for video and occasionally indoors. It's too bulky for toting and can't get low enough for macro. But it's remarkably stable and easy to set up and take down. Locks are at the top of the leg, and the legs are reverse-telescoping, like a Benbo or Uni-Loc, so debris from the ground doesn't get inside the sliding tubes. The main drawback is the tilt/pan head isn't quite level in the default position, so I have to tweak the leg height a bit to level it up. And the head doesn't use conventional 1/4" or 3/8" bolts for mounting to the legs, so there's no practical way to swap heads. But I like it pretty well as-is.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Nothing against this one, and I might even have bought one, but if you really want 35mm film, there are plenty of low cost, high quality 35mm SLRs and rangefinders out there for very reasonable prices.<br>

<br />I have a number of cameras which I try out, mostly, as with other readers here, for the fun of it, and using TLR with 35mm does sound fun. But probably only once. Also, the TLR is a lot bigger than most 35mm SLRs. <br>

I do have some folding cameras that use 120 film, though. Still no TLRs.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Cool post with nice results, Daniel.</p>

[Dan Deary]

<p>Thanks for all of your positive responses.<br>

Les: I could be wrong but I believe the cable release adapter was originally called a "Leica Nipple" used on their screw mount cameras that was adopted by Nikon and others. Yashica in their manual calls it "over-lap type cable release." I actually have two Safe-Lock tripods. I have a PT-3 which must be similar to yours(except mine don't have blue legs. Damn) in my winter home in Florida. It weighs 6 lbs. The one pictured is a lightweight Zoom-Leg at 3 1/2 lbs. I agree they are underrated. In 1972, Consumers Report rated the PT-3 equal to the Tiltall.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Ricoh also offered a TLR that offered 35mm capability. Somewhere in one my late 50's photo magazines there's an ad for it that uses twins (or likely double exposure of same girl) with the camera and the ad copy reads something like: guess which twin is shooting 35mm and the other line says something similar about 120. Same caveat as using the 635, but with the 35mm holder, the 75 to 80 mm lens makes a nice portrait focal length.</p>

[peter_doucette]

<p>Ricoh did offer a few TLRs that could be adapted with an auxiliary "Color Back". I learned about it in John Seaman's post <a href="/classic-cameras-forum/00cQi4">http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00cQi4</a><br>

I ended up finding a Color Back on ebay, and have only been able to run one roll through it so far. <br>

Nice job Daniel, I was wondering what those test postings were leading up to. </p>

[tony_lockerbie]

<p>Very thorough and entertaining write up of the Yashica Daniel. I have never seen the extra lenses in use before, they look fine with that creative vignetting!<br>

As the others have said, a good triplet is often all you need, especially with the greater real estate from 120 film. I own wat to many TLR's, but alas, not one single Yashica. I did own a Yashicamat for a very short time, but sold it to a friend.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Great post, <strong>Daniel</strong>, I appreciate the time and effort you've obviously put into it. Having always been somewhat sceptical about 35mm conversions for TLR cameras, your experiences justify my sentiments, and as for auxiliary lenses, well, you've sort of said it all in words and pictures. Many thanks.</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Just thinking, when the 635 is turned on its side it almost looks "uncameralike" to coin a new word. Might have possibilities for candid shots. Maybe adapt it to a surveyor's tripod and some people might not realize its a camera. Seriously, though, an enjoyable post.</p>

[mrjallen]

One of the most enjoyable posts I've read!

[glen_h]

<p>Pretty soon people will think that cameras look like iPhones and iPods, and not recognize real cameras at all.<br>

But yes, have all the fun you can with all the cameras you can find.</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

Great Write up! Be careful of what you wish for .. you might just get it! Nice presentation and while it was

for the report, I though your results were quite nice.

[peter_naylor1]

<p>Congratulations, Daniel, on a well-presented and informative post. I'm quite a fan of Yashica TLRs too, having bought one just like you at the tender age of 18. It was a Yashicamat, with F3.5 Yashinon glass. Unfortunately in the mad rush of youth I later traded it in on something stupid, but much later on when I got serious about collecting, I managed to score a really early Yashicamat with F3.5 Lumaxar lenses. <br>

I acquired an early Yashica 635 outfit a couple of years ago, complete with even the original leather carry case plus the 35mm adaptor kit with its leather case too, which I wrote up in my Flickr Pages here:<br>

<br>

<p>Unfortunately the otherwise comprehensive kit didn't include an IB, but as you can see from the photo I managed to download a scanned item from the Net. I did have plans to try the 635 out with 35mm film using the adaptor kit, but all the comments about it I could find were quite negative so I've never bothered. (PETE IN PERTH)</p>

[glen_h]

<p>I think you should try the 35mm adaptor, but just once.<br>

Well, I like to try everything just once, so that I know why I don't want to try more. But then again, I have enough bulk 35mm film, even if it isn't very good, and develop them myself. If you aren't doing that, then it probably isn't worth it.<br>

Looks to me that the wide-angle auxiliary lens works best with 35mm, too.<br>

But there are a lot of very good, and very affordable, 35mm cameras out there, waiting to be used. I didn't mean to be too discouraging earlier. </p>

[ashoketewari]

<p>Great write up and pics, Daniel!<br /> I have a 635 too (without the 35mm kit) and after the first few rolls, noticed a similar notch in the right side of my frames ... I was pretty sure that it was one of the aperture blades (lol) ... then one day, absent-mindedly fiddling with the camera, I realized that one of the knobs on the left side could be pulled out, and rotated to stay out - of course, it was the 35mm film release knob!! <br /> No more notches after that - and of course no more absent minded fiddling or that knob could go back in without me noticing!</p><div></div>