Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Isco Gottingen Tele-Iscaron 135mm f/2.8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:16 pm    Post subject: Isco Gottingen Tele-Iscaron 135mm f/2.8 Reply with quote
I am very tempted to buy such a lens but there is hardly anything to be found about it on the internet.

Has anybody got some information about this lens?


PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This site is very comprehensive: https://photobutmore.de/exakta/isco/


PostPosted: Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks, that's indeed a very nice and interesting site.

But I am looking more for some (personal) reviews of this lens.
How good is it? How sharp? How are the colours, the flare..etcetera.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've got an Isconar 135 / 4 from the early 1960's, and it's a nice lens. Certainly a lens 'of its time' so its not as sharp as modern lenses and there's little or no coating, but it's not bad. And nicely made as well.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you look for a sharp lens with good flare resistance, get a modern 135/2.8.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
If you look for a sharp lens with good flare resistance, get a modern 135/2.8.


I have deleted my initial reaction.

Not only are you not able to read my question, but if that really is the best advise that you can give then I should not waist my energy in replying to it.

Last edited by Lucse on Sat Dec 23, 2017 12:22 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
I've got an Isconar 135 / 4 from the early 1960's, and it's a nice lens. Certainly a lens 'of its time' so its not as sharp as modern lenses and there's little or no coating, but it's not bad. And nicely made as well.


Thanks. I guess I should just buy it and find it out for myself.

The construction of the lens looks a lot like a Meyer Optik Gorlitz 135mm f/2.8.
It would be nice if it has the same photo-characteristics as that lens as well.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lucse wrote:
Lloydy wrote:
I've got an Isconar 135 / 4 from the early 1960's, and it's a nice lens. Certainly a lens 'of its time' so its not as sharp as modern lenses and there's little or no coating, but it's not bad. And nicely made as well.


Thanks. I guess I should just buy it and find it out for myself.

The construction of the lens looks a lot like a Meyer Optik Gorlitz 135mm f/2.8.
It would be nice if it has the same photo-characteristics as that lens as well.


2.8/135mm is whole another story then Isconar 4/135mm. It is like comparing Domiplan and Orestor. ISCO 2.8/135mm was one of most expensive lenses offered at the time 460 DM i think the site says. It is also much rarer then Meyer. It is only lately few popped out on Ebay. I had it in my search engine automatic notifications and there was 2-3 years when only one very expensive sample was for sale worldwide.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:

2.8/135mm is whole another story then Isconar 4/135mm. It is like comparing Domiplan and Orestor. ISCO 2.8/135mm was one of most expensive lenses offered at the time 460 DM i think the site says. It is also much rarer then Meyer. It is only lately few popped out on Ebay. I had it in my search engine automatic notifications and there was 2-3 years when only one very expensive sample was for sale worldwide.


Thanks, I hadn't really taken notice of those prices on that site.

I just bought the automatic version of that lens (the one that costed 460 DM at the time).
According to the advertisement it has some light cleaning marks on the front glass but for the rest it looks really good.

Once it has arrived I will test it and share my impressions about it.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lucse wrote:
calvin83 wrote:
If you look for a sharp lens with good flare resistance, get a modern 135/2.8.


I have deleted my initial reaction.

Not only are you not able to read my question, but if that really is the best advise that you can give then I should not waist my energy in replying to it.


Right, you shouldn't waste your energy on that rather on providing more information to get results you might expect. Your response seems nasty. Thanks for deleting your initial reaction. It's impossible to un-see anything, unfortunately.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:


Right, you shouldn't waste your energy on that rather on providing more information to get results you might expect. Your response seems nasty. Thanks for deleting your initial reaction. It's impossible to un-see anything, unfortunately.


So you concider the post that I deleted as being nasty eventhough you never read it. I had to look it up, but the correct English word for that kind of behaviour seems to be "biased".

Which makes your reaction not worth responding to either...

Although...I really wonder how you would have reacted if it would have been the other way around. If Calvin83 had asked the question and if I had given him the reponse he had gave me.
Are you sure you would not have taken it as a rude and stupid reply (of a respectless rooky member) as well... ? As you are doing now?


PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lucse wrote:
visualopsins wrote:


Right, you shouldn't waste your energy on that rather on providing more information to get results you might expect. Your response seems nasty. Thanks for deleting your initial reaction. It's impossible to un-see anything, unfortunately.


So you concider the post that I deleted as being nasty eventhough you never read it. I had to look it up, but the correct English word for that kind of behaviour seems to be "biased".

Which makes your reaction not worth responding to either...

Although...I really wonder how you would have reacted if it would have been the other way around. If Calvin83 had asked the question and if I had given him the reponse he had gave me.
Are you sure you would not have taken it as a rude and stupid reply (of a respectless rooky member)... ?


Actually I referred to your edited post as seeming nasty. You launched a personal attack with your silly accusation that another member could not read. Now, that, my friend, seems elementary school, the lowest of grades.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="visualopsins"]
Lucse wrote:


Actually I referred to your edited post as seeming nasty. You launched a personal attack with your silly accusation that another member could not read. Now, that, my friend, seems elementary school, the lowest of grades.


??? What accusation? What personal attack???

Unbelievable... I have written and deleted that post in a matter of minutes. Nobody read it, not even you. And even if you did, then you know all to wel that there was nothing wrong in it.

But you simply use the fact that I have deleted that post to accuse me of being nasty and having launched personal attacks, because you know all to well that I can impossibly proof otherwise.

... and then you are the one who dears to talk about "lowest of grades".

It makes me totally speechless. How can anybody react (or defend himself) to such kind of.... (I don't even know the word for such low behaviour...).


PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="Lucse"]
visualopsins wrote:
Lucse wrote:


Actually I referred to your edited post as seeming nasty. You launched a personal attack with your silly accusation that another member could not read. Now, that, my friend, seems elementary school, the lowest of grades.


??? What accusation? What personal attack???

Unbelievable... I have written and deleted that post in a matter of minutes. There was nothing wrong in it. And nobody read it, not even you.

But you simply use the fact that I have deleted that post to accuse me of being nasty and having launched personal attacks, because you know all to well that I can impossibly proof otherwise.

... and then you are the one who dears to talk about "lowest of grades".
It makes me speechless.


Not so simple as that.

You wrote:
Quote:
Not only are you not able to read my question, but if that really is the best advise that you can give then I should not waist my energy in replying to it.


There's the nasty and childish accusation and personal attack.

In context, that is "lowest of grades" of "elementary school", I.e., those age kids bad behavior.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Once again:
"I really wonder how you would have reacted if it would have been the other way around. If Calvin83 had asked the question and if I had given him the reponse he gave me.
Are you sure you would not have taken it as a rude and stupid reply (of a respectless rooky member) as well... ? As you are doing now?".

Calvin83 wrote: "If you look for a sharp lens with good flare resistance, get a modern 135/2.8.".

Did I say in any way that I was looking for a sharp lens with good flare resistance? No I didn't. Not at all. Not even remote. I did not even suggest it.
Would he have given that reply to you or to any other long-term member if asked that exact same question? No he would not. Never.

So why did he reply this way towards me then? Did you ask yourself that question while being busy putting me at the stake ?
Have you wondered how such a reply (like his) sounds on a manual lenses forum....to a newcomer on that forum? Obviously you did not.

If you point fingers then be sure your hands are clean, and be even more sure you are pointing in the right direction. OK ?

For me it's all too clear what this (your reaction) really is about... and it's not a nice thing to witness, I can assure you.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lucse wrote:
Once again:
"I really wonder how you would have reacted if it would have been the other way around. If Calvin83 had asked the question and if I had given him the reponse he gave me.
Are you sure you would not have taken it as a rude and stupid reply (of a respectless rooky member) as well... ? As you are doing now?".

Calvin83 wrote: "If you look for a sharp lens with good flare resistance, get a modern 135/2.8.".

Did I say in any way that I was looking for a sharp lens with good flare resistance? No I didn't. Not at all. Not even remote. I did not even suggest it.
Would he have given that reply to you or to any other long-term member if asked that exact same question? No he would not. Never.

So why did he reply this way towards me then? Did you ask yourself that question while being busy putting me at the stake ?
Have you wondered how such a reply (like his) sounds on a manual lenses forum....for a newcomer on that forum? Obviously you did not.

If you point fingers then be sure your hands are clean, and be even more sure you are pointing in the right direction. OK ?

For me it's all too clear what this (your reaction) really is about... ansd it's not a nice thing to witness, I can assure you.


EDIT (deleted, I didn't read the misleading question correctly lol The same, probably. Yes, as a rude reply. Nobody mentioned stupid before, nor any of those other adjectives. Actually I always ask myself that question.)

EDIT To answer the question, there is nothing wrong with a typical response, no matter the source. So, no problem.

Good advice often given here is almost exactly as written by others. Appropriate given only the provided information in the question. I.e. I've heard that reply from others. Sounds fine to me.

I don't think I can put much stock in your behavioral suggestions.

You can not skip over the fact you suggested someone here couldn't read, and, suggested you are somehow superior, replying as some kind of denigrating service.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lucse wrote:

Did I say in any way that I was looking for a sharp lens with good flare resistance? No I didn't. Not at all. Not even remote. I did not even suggest it.
Would he have given that reply to you or to any other long-term member if asked that exact same question? No he would not. Never.

So why did he reply this way towards me then? Did you ask yourself that question while being busy putting me at the stake ?
Have you wondered how such a reply (like his) sounds on a manual lenses forum....to a newcomer on that forum? Obviously you did not.

I wonder why you take so much offence here. Calvin's reply is a factual reflection, not a personal attack. There is even a reservation in it as to what you might have been looking for ("if you are looking for etc"). There is no ill intent, so your quite amplified reaction seems misplaced to me. Also, to you it may seem clear what you were looking for, but others may read your (admittedly brief) first post differently than you intended.

Relax, we're all amateurs of MF-lenses.
Also, keep in mind most write here with a smile on their face, so always consider a post is well intended. Also, not everybody here reads and/or writes perfect English. For me too, English is only my 3rd language out of 6.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sjak wrote:
Lucse wrote:

Did I say in any way that I was looking for a sharp lens with good flare resistance? No I didn't. Not at all. Not even remote. I did not even suggest it.
Would he have given that reply to you or to any other long-term member if asked that exact same question? No he would not. Never.

So why did he reply this way towards me then? Did you ask yourself that question while being busy putting me at the stake ?
Have you wondered how such a reply (like his) sounds on a manual lenses forum....to a newcomer on that forum? Obviously you did not.

I wonder why you take so much offence here. Calvin's reply is a factual reflection, not a personal attack. There is even a reservation in it as to what you might have been looking for ("if you are looking for etc"). There is no ill intent, so your quite amplified reaction seems misplaced to me. Also, to you it may seem clear what you were looking for, but others may read your (admittedly brief) first post differently than you intended.

Relax, we're all amateurs of MF-lenses.
Also, keep in mind most write here with a smile on their face, so always consider a post is well intended. Also, not everybody here reads and/or writes perfect English. For me too, English is only my 3rd language out of 6.


I agree 100%


PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
In defense of the OP's response to Calvins advice. If he wanted a modern lens with good optics and flare resistance I doubt he would choose THIS site to ask questions about it. My first few queries here were met with freindley helpful advice and it turned me into a regular contributor. Had I getten responses to questions like the one Calvin gave I doubt I would have returned. I think you all need to lighten up a bit. I will have to check my bins but I think I DO have the tele-Isconar. If so, I will try to get it out for some shots.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are more than one way to answer the same question. Rather than saying "it is less sharp compare and more prone than other 135/2.8s", I would prefer the one I used.

There is reason why ISCO stopped to product 135/2.8 in a relatively short period. However, this is not in the scope of this thread.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 2:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice case!

http://www.wikishop.xyz/lenses-c-180_235_236/iscogottingen-teleiscaron-128135-lens-p-11485.htm

A pretty lens. Looks coated for flare resistance. Click here to see on Ebay


PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
jamaeolus wrote:
In defense of the OP's response to Calvins advice. If he wanted a modern lens with good optics and flare resistance I doubt he would choose THIS site to ask questions about it. My first few queries here were met with freindley helpful advice and it turned me into a regular contributor. Had I getten responses to questions like the one Calvin gave I doubt I would have returned....


Thank you very much. That's exactly what I was trying to say but nobody seems willing to see.

I have been a passionate collector (and user) of manual lenses for many years now.
But my English is not that good. I am not very good with social contacts either and I always have the feeling, no matter how much I know about these old manual lenses, that I still have most to learn about them. I read a lot on this forum but for all the previous reasons I always felt hesitant towards posting here myself.

Continuing the way I've been walking for so many years will not be hard for me.

So, in contrary to you, I have decided not to return.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Please reconsider.

Especially since meaning and nuance can easily get confused by parties who admit weak skills using the 3rd party language for communicating.

Getting better with social contacts involves staying, not walking away, I think. Besides you can improve your English use, which imho is already excellent and sophisticated.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
Please reconsider.

Especially since meaning and nuance can easily get confused by parties who admit weak skills using the 3rd party language for communicating.

Getting better with social contacts involves staying, not walking away, I think. Besides you can improve your English use, which imho is already excellent and sophisticated.


There is nothing that could be understood wrong in the answer that Calvin gave me.

"If you look for a sharp lens with good flare resistance, get a modern 135/2.8.".

This reply (towards the newcomer that I am) was belittling; derogatory ; haughty ; disparaging ; supercilious ; slighting ; depreciatory ; high-and-mighty ; arrogant proud ; derogatory ; haughty ; disparaging ; supercilious ; slighting ; depreciatory ; high-and-mighty ; arrogant ; superior ; presumptuous ; high-handed ; contemptuous ; scornful ; derisive ; disdainful ; sneering ; contumelious ; sniffy ; stuck up ; uppity ; sanctimonious.

You can pick the right word yourself.

As in "You are a newby who does not belong on this forum".

That's what he says in that reply. And that's what I will do, follow his advise and leave this forum.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lucse wrote:
So, in contrary to you, I have decided not to return.

Nah come on mate, we all had our quarrels here, but skin gets thicker. Just let emotions calm and enjoy future chat with fellow photographers.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2