Isco Westar and Westanar 2.8/50 lenses

[Mos6502]

I decided to do a little informal comparison between these two Isco lenses. It struck me when I first received the Westanar that it was not very good - but no matter it was for display on a Praktica FX. I also have two Westar lenses, one which I've used on an Exa and another in M42 that I haven't really used. The Exa one produces good results, noticeably better than what I got out of the Westanar.

Since the Westanar has four elements and is supposed to be better than the Westar I was curious about this. As it happens my particular Westanar is not in mint optical condition - suffering from some light polishing marks on the front element. But my M42 Westar suffers from the same problem so I figure fair enough to compare them. I shot both at f/2.8 where the difference should be most noticeable.

First up the Westanar:

Then the Westar:


My eyes may be deceiving me but the Westar appears sharper at first glance. Neither though is particularly good, at least not in this condition.

[Gardener]

That's a shame - Westanar is such a pretty lens.

[iangreenhalgh1]

It might be condition, as contemporary East German triplets like the Meritar, Trioplan, Domiplan etc. are much better and ISCO would have been competing in roughly the same price bracket.

ISCO are part of Schneider and Schneider lenses are top level. I thought that ISCO basically made Schneider designs but with cheaper materials. I have several Schneider Radionars and they are excellent, among the very finest of triplets. Certainly ISCO made some top level projection lenses.

[Mos6502]

[sergtum]

first shots with Westar 50/2.8 (+ Hood from film camera Лада-Ломо)







many Thank to Klaus for this lens.

[sergtum]

second shots with Westar 50\2.8