Yashikor 80mm f3.5

[dazedgonebye]

Any comments on the quality of the lens found on the Yashica 635?

 

[VictorM.]

A few years ago, I had a Yashica D with the Yashikor. It was OK stopped down, but overall it wasn't really very good.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Maybe I need to go to flickr for examples too.

I've got my eye on really nice looking 635 at a local shop.

 

[joachim]

Maybe I need to go to flickr for examples too.

I've got my eye on really nice looking 635 at a local shop.

What are you going to learn from a 1000x1000 pixel flickr image about the performance of medium format lens? If it sucks at this size, it really sucks. I think 5000x5000 or there about (2400 dpi scan) is where it starts to get interesting, but typically you will not get this at flickr. For a proper lens test I would ask more than 2400 dpi. Is that just me?

No rudeness of any sort intended. More a feeling of being lost.

 

[Pherdinand]

I's a so-so triplet lens, technically. you can see it getting soft quickly in the corners of the frame.
Not if you use it on f/11, though.
And, sharpness is not everything. I ged very good shots with my triplet equipped super ikonta.

 

[Windscale]

I have had a 635 for many years. The 3-element Yashicor is all right, though not quite as good as the 4-element Yashinon. The camera is worth more if it comes with the 6-piece 135 film adaptor set which could be interesting to use and turn the lens into a very adequate portrait lens. The lens has another characteristic, and no offence is intended, darker coloured skin tones tend to shine out. Therefore, it is well loved by many of my friends of the Indian origin for this high contrast effect, making their smile more apparent on film! The same cannot be achieved with Rolleiflexes. All in all, the 635 is a more than adequate camera provided it does not cost too much.

 

[dazedgonebye]

What are you going to learn from a 1000x1000 pixel flickr image about the performance of medium format lens? If it sucks at this size, it really sucks. I think 5000x5000 or there about (2400 dpi scan) is where it starts to get interesting, but typically you will not get this at flickr. For a proper lens test I would ask more than 2400 dpi. Is that just me?

No rudeness of any sort intended. More a feeling of being lost.

No offence taken of course.
I know the limitations of flickr images...no help for resolution, but you can get a decent feel for the look of the lens.

I had not realized the lens was a triplet. I've shot enough of those to know I won't be happy for this application.