ISCO Vs. Schneider (and Schacht and Yashinon).

[Mos6502]

I often see people (particularly people who want to sell ISCO lenses...) write that ISCO lenses are basically the same as Schneider lenses. Since ISCO was a division of Schneider, ISCO lenses were just relabeled Schneider lenses sold at a lower price (presumably because Schneider wanted lower profit margins???).

For some reason it never dawned on me to compare my ISCO Westromat 1.9/50 with my Schneider Xenon 1.9/50. Side by side it is obvious that the lenses are not the same. Neither in style, construction, or optical design. The front element of the ISCO is a smaller diameter and the lens coatings are different colors. This of course won't stop ebay sellers from saying they're the same, but still - it must be a good lens anyway because of the Schneider connection.

For fun I decided to throw a Schacht Travelon 1.8/50 and Yashinon 2/50 into the equation. All images were taken using a tripod and self timer. The results were interesting... and yet perfectly boring. There really are no bad 50mm lenses in these speeds. And even the worst one here is not very bad in any practical sense if you're actually outside taking pictures instead of comparing lenses on a tripod.

First all four lenses, wide open, showing that basically for normal web-sized photos, they all perform well enough. Interesting to note the very subtle differences in boke' qualities.



Clockwise from top left: Xenon, Westromat, Yashinon, Travelon.

The Yashinon gives the roundest OOF highlights, and the overall smoothest boke'.

Now to the results:

The Xenon at f/1.9 and f/5.6:




The Westromat at f/1.9 and f/5.6:




The Yashinon at f/2 and f/5.6:




The Travelon at f/1.8 and f/5.6:





From this limited test some things are pretty obvious: The Xenon outperforms all of the others wide open, though the Westromat is closer than the others to measuring up. The Yashinon which looks rather bad wide open sharpens up considerably, and at f/5.6 it is giving the famous Schneider Xenon a run for its money - reminds me why I like this lens so much. I might have to do a more precise test in the future.

Of course all of these lenses perform very very closely to each other at middle/average apertures, and even wide open there's not really a big enough of a difference between them to fret over unless you plan on making very large prints. So far as my own particular examples are concerned, the Schneider wins for sharpness. But I prefer the smoother rendering of the Yashinon.

As for the ISCO vs. Schneider legends, the lenses perform so closely to each other, that even though the glass is obviously not the same, I could believe there is some "family" connection. What my particular ISCO lacks could very well just be sample variation as the results are very close indeed. Still though my copy of the Schneider is sharper.

[luisalegria]

Interesting useful comparison, thanks.

I don't think there are any bad 50/1.8-2 either.

[jamaeolus]

Of course Schneider and ISCO each made multiple versions of most of their lenses so matching time frames would be a factor as well but I think ISCO products were trailing edge and Schneider were cutting edge. I have a fond spot for ISCO lenses as some of my first manual lenses in the digital age. If I understand correctly ISCO were more marketed to lower end camera manufacturers. The relabelled brand product is certainly a thing though. I work in pharmacy and it is not unusual to have generic drug products that are exactly that. eg Protonix brand tablets (They have the product name ON the tablet itself) in a Rugby pharmaceuticals bottle labelled pantoprazole.

[Marek]

A well shared knowhow, thank you

[Oldhand]

Thank you for taking the trouble to perform this test.
It is valued.
Best
T

[Mos6502]

Thank you for the comments.

At some point I'll do a comparison outdoors on film. This post was just the result of a bored evening at home on a stormy night.

I do not believe that ISCO ever inherited old Schneider designs. Of all the lenses the 1.9/50 lenses are the most similar between the two brands, the rest aren't even close. It would not surprise me however if I learned that both companies shared engineers and formulas, as although their equivalent lenses are optically different, they all render color, contrast, OOF, etc. very similarly.