"Surveillance Only" sticker on Yashica ML 28mm f2.8

A

Archiver

Veteran
Local time
6:09 PM
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
2,892
I just scored a beautiful copy of the Yashica ML 28mm f2.8. Can't wait to get an adapter for it. But there's something strange. It has a gold sticker, same colour as the common Passed sticker on Japanese lenses, but this only says, "Surveillance Only". Anyone know what this is about? Was this lens used on surveillance cameras or something?
 
I remember being told many years ago (1980's), lenses that did not meet the grade for photographic purposes were sold off to the surveillance industry for use on surveillance cameras.
 
Johngwill said:
I remember being told many years ago (1980's), lenses that did not meet the grade for photographic purposes were sold off to the surveillance industry for use on surveillance cameras.
Click to expand...

Oh dear! I hope that this lens is up to scratch. An adapter will arrive fairly soon, so I'll find out.
 
I find difficult to believe that any major photographic manufacturer would allow problematic lenses to reach the market. Lenses were not individually tested (and therefore given a different sticker according to performance) and I don't think yashica had different assembly lines to cater for such a small market (surveillance companies) in the 80s.

What is more likely to me is that your lens was part of an order commissioned for the surveillance industry. I don't think it is any different to standard 28f/2.8. By the way, I used it on a FX-D together with the 50ML - great lenses both. Test yours and update this thread to see how it performs.
 
All lens assembly lines will result in rejects. Finding alternate use for rejected lenses would make perfect sense, but it would pose quite a reputational risk for the lens maker if these lenses somehow entered regular circulation.

If this lens has a regular mount, operates normally on a camera and if it is only a removable sticker that differentiate this from a regular lens, I would be inclined to think it is regular production.

I don't know if there was a cost involved in using the official JCII PASSED sticker - and perhaps it was an unnecessary expense for lenses not intended for regular use?
I am very interested in hearing your experiences after you have used it.
 
That sticker most likely was put on by the owner, such as a government entity that had a photo department which engaged in all sorts of official imaging requests. So, to keep their employees from using gear that was purchased for a specific purpose, they would put these restriction stickers on them. It may also indicate that like lenses that were acquired for US Navy pilots use to take photos from the cockpit, it has been modified to a particular specification, such as having a fixed focus or aperture.

PF
 
It's been a hot minute, but I'm back with some images from the mysterious Surveillance Only Yashica ML 28. It's a very, very sharp lens with distinct 3D pop for midrange subjects and reasonably pleasant bokeh. There is no issue with focus or image quality at all.

S5 - Yashica ML 28 test 1 by Archiver, on Flickr

With a modern native lens on the S5, this would look very saturated and contrasty, but these settings with the S5 and Yashica produce a very pleasant, natural look with some pop.

S5 - Yashica ML 28 test 2 by Archiver, on Flickr

S5 - Yashica ML 28 test 3 by Archiver, on Flickr
 
^ Very nice results.

My initial reaction to a "Surveillance Only" sticker was that it was an internal QA/QC classification and that the lens was not to be released to the market because it did not meet the "Passed" criteria threshold; but I could be wrong.
 
Last edited:
My father worked for Zeiss, who did QA/QC for Yashica’s production of Zeiss lenses at the former Tomioka plant. He went there many times in the 60s and 70s. He is 100% certain that your lens will be slightly decentred, beyond QA/QC. I have noticed that this goes along with ‘pop’ before - perfectly centred lenses, for some reason, don’t fool your eyes as much. I think the slight dropoff in edge mtf for high frequency objects makes our eyes think we’re looking at something that has depth. I am not sure if this is documented.
 
Freakscene said:
My father worked for Zeiss, who did QA/QC for Yashica’s production of Zeiss lenses at the former Tomioka plant. He went there many times in the 60s and 70s. He is 100% certain that your lens will be slightly decentred, beyond QA/QC. I have noticed that this goes along with ‘pop’ before - perfectly centred lenses, for some reason, don’t fool your eyes as much. I think the slight dropoff in edge mtf for high frequency objects makes our eyes think we’re looking at something that has depth. I am not sure if this is documented.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for this information, it is really fascinating. I found this lens at my local secondhand camera dealer and was thrilled to get it for under a hundred AUD. It is mechanically perfect, very smooth and well damped, and seems sharp and produces a very organic look in video. So to learn that it is decentered is intriguing. Please thank your Dad for this information. :)(y)
 
Archiver said:
Thank you so much for this information, it is really fascinating. I found this lens at my local secondhand camera dealer and was thrilled to get it for under a hundred AUD. It is mechanically perfect, very smooth and well damped, and seems sharp and produces a very organic look in video. So to learn that it is decentered is intriguing. Please thank your Dad for this information. :)(y)
Click to expand...
You’re welcome. But my father reneged on the 100%. He is 99% sure, because that was the proportion of lenses rejected from the Yashica production runs because they could not be centred properly. He said about 1% of rejects had other problems. He is happy to have helped, and said you should also try a 28mm f2.8 Distagon, because “that’s a better lens”. Ha ha ahh.

Marty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom