Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Isco -Göttingen Tele-Iscaron 135mm f/2.8 Test
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jan 17, 2018 11:23 am    Post subject: Isco -Göttingen Tele-Iscaron 135mm f/2.8 Test Reply with quote

A few days ago my long awaited Tele-Iscaron arrived.
It's in a superb condition but sadly enough the customs found it necessary to cut open the bubble wrapping, giving the lens a nice long cut along the side while doing so.
Luckily they used a sharp knife which made the damage to be not too severe.

Yesterday the weather was good enough to take the lens outside for a few testshots.
I had rather high expectations, but this lens even surpassed those: not only is it a stunningly good-looking lens it performs according to it's looks as well.
It has a nice long focus-turn of almost 360° and everything about this lens feels solid and quality-made.

The lens came without a hood. As it has a rather uncommon 54mm filter thread I used the hood of a Steinheil tele-quinar 135mm f/2.8.
I wasn't able to really test the lens on flare because the sun hardly came from behind the clouds while I took these pictures.
Or in other words: I couldn't get any flare in my pictures. Which in those conditions doesn't mean a thing.

These test-shots are nowhere pretending to be anything other then that.
They are taken only to have an impression about the picture-quality that this lens delivers.

All shots are JPEG's taken wide-open at f/2.8 .

The camera (A7II) was set on Vivid without further adjustments (color, sharpness, contrast..were all on zero-setting).
All pictures came straight out of the camera, no post-editing was done on them beside cropping, except for that one 'leaf'-crop.
The un-cropped pictures have been sized-down. The cropped ones are straight 100% crops.

I think the pictures say enough.






100% crop of the picture above:



100% crop of the picture above:



100% crop of the picture above:

The same crop but with some more contrast and slightly sharpened (you can hardly tell it's a 100% crop).





100% crop

100%crop (according to me the focus is not totally spot-on in this picture)

And a 100% crop to show the purple fringing. Look at the side of the stake, how far the purple spreads out.
And this is just a puddle of water in the background. It's not even a picture with a super-high contrast:


I hope these testshots can be of some help to people (especially newcomers) who are looking for something more then a disdainfull and useless cliché-answer like "If you look for a sharp lens with good flare resistance, get a modern 135/2.8." when looking for some info about the image quality of this lens on this (MFlenses)-forum.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Is this a crack perhaps?


PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sharp!

You should ask for compensation for the damage!


PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Congrats Whoo Turtle

You got it! Nice examples!

@Pancolart that looks like a compact florescent bulb to me...


PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pancolart wrote:
Is this a crack perhaps?


The pictures were taken by the seller, he used them in his ebay-advertisment of this lens, that I bought.
So I guess it's just a reflection.

But maybe a lot of people thought the same as you and that was the reason why nobody but me was interested in buying this lens Wink.


Last edited by Lucse on Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:32 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

blotafton wrote:
You should ask for compensation for the damage!


The seller can't be blamed for the damage because the lens was perfectly packed.
It's the customs who did the damage so I guess I have to adress them for that compensation.

But according to me it's not worth the trouble to try that.
I assume it willl involve a lot of (paper)-work to get only a small compensation, at best.
After all we are not talking about a huge sum that I payed for this lens.
I got it for a good price, but even the real/average market value (that probaby has to be proven if I ask for a compensation-claim) is not that high either.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like with another old lenses, the pale reflections of the coated tell us the normal to low contrast of the images taken with that beauty.

The gold time of the lens was in the B&W pics.

So, the CA is present and can be something strong, as occur with the Minolta MC lenses, especially MC-I.

Good lens to me.

Nice pics.

Well done.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
Like with another old lenses, the pale reflections of the coated tell us the normal to low contrast of the images taken with that beauty.

The gold time of the lens was in the B&W pics...


To be honest I do not really understand that sentence.
Do you mean one can tell how good the contrast of a lens is just by looking at the coatings (or at the "pale reflections" of them, as you put it) ?
I have many modern lenses that look as if they don't even have any coatings (which of course they do have). This lens on the other hand is clearly coated.
So I really don't get it what you are saying. According to me the appearance/looks of the coatings on a lens tells us nothing about the IQ the lens delivers.
I sure can not tell, only by looking at the glass of a lens, if it will have high/moderate/low contrast (or flare resistance).
The age and overall looks of the lens can suggest a whole lot more in this regard, but this is besides the matter here.

As a matter of fact the rather high contrast in these pictures was what surprised me the most in this lens, even more than the high sharpness.