QuickHitRecord

I feel like there is some interesting psychology surrounding "Iscorama Fever". I should mention that I went to school for graphic design and have worked in multimedia for more than five years now. Obsessing over images is my whole life, so I like think that I have a trained eye. But in many cases, [b]I cannot tell the difference between the Iscorama footage and regular spherical footage[/b]. There. I said it. But I can't believe that I am the only one who feels this way. Sometimes I wonder if this is a modern example of [i]The Emporer's New Clothes[/i]. The funny thing is that I can't help but get excited every time I see one of these lenses on eBay. In fact, whenever there is a new Iscorama listing, I am powerless to stop myself as I autopilot over to Vimeo and watch as many Iscorama videos as I can. For some reason, a part of me desperately wants to fall in love with this lens -- and then drop the equivalent of a couple paychecks to have one. Maybe it's the sleek design, or the idea of owning something coveted so much by others. Maybe it's a magical spell cast by Redstan to sell more adapters. But even though EVERY Iscorama-shot video is showered in praise by commenters, I just can't get on board. The Iscoramas are missing that plethora of softness, that interest-rich distortion, that melting/cascading/swirling bokeh that I have found on so many of my ever-expanding collection of non-Iscorama lenses. I have found that these characteristics are so understated in the Iscorama lenses that often they are barely noticeable. And so I never bid, and the world just keeps on turning.

I grabbed a handful of shots this past weekend with the Isco Gottingen Anamorphot on a Canon FD f1.8 to get an idea of how this lens does when the taking lens is stopped down to F11 and F22: In true non-scientific form, I could not resist color-correcting. The edges are a bit soft and there is some vignetting (fixable by putting attaching it to my Helios 44 58mm f2). I don't dislike the look, though I much prefer the ultra-distorted bokeh when the camera is at f2.8 (or less). The Isco is mounted to the taking lens by a single step ring, which is very convenient, but I am curious to see if I can find a way to reduce the flange distance and in doing so, perhaps I will be able to achieve a more predictable result.

[b]Quick update:[/b] I have acquired the necessary hardware but all attempts to focus on anything (near or far) have been unsuccessful. However, I think that it may be worthwhile to try limiting the amount of light because as far as I know there is no such thing as an F0.0 lens. My next step is to borrow my friend's EF to MFT adapter, which has a built-in aperture. I will post about the results.

Thanks for a very informative reply. I am curious about this lens. Do you have a picture? I am interested in the evolution of these lenses (I also have the HiFi-2).

Thanks for sharing, Tony. You are right, the Isco did come with two of its own diopters (20cm and 40cm). They are true macro filters -- neat, but not very useful for the kind of shooting that I do. I can get a sharp image with the use of regular diopters at certain distances, but I haven't been able to rack focus successfully yet because it's either in focus on a set point (and only on that set point), or not in focus at all. Hence the fixed focus, I suppose. Do you have any recommendations for a taking lens to use with the Isco? Thanks for posting the pictures. I also have a Baby Hypergonar (in my signature as 'Berthiot Cinemascope'), but I am still waiting on the hardware that I've ordered to attach it to the lens. How do you like using that one so far?

Andrew's anamorphic guide is helpful, and so is this: http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Anamorphic_Lenses If you are trying to stick to that price point, you're looking at the big, 35mm film projector lens adapters and perhaps some obscure smaller adapters. If you are willing to spend a couple hundred Euros, there are many lenses in the size and price range of the Kowa Prominar 8z (or 16H; same lens). They are smaller, more manageable adapters with many of the same qualities as the big 35s. I'd recommend trying to find footage shot with any lens that you are considering so that you can decide if you like the visual characteristics that it offers. If you can't find any footage, it's possible that no one has really tested it yet with a modern camera and you might have an opportunity to be the first (or one of the first) to "discover" a new lens -- this is one of my favorite things about using antique glass.

[quote author=Mirrorkisser link=topic=815.msg5860#msg5860 date=1338906023] I can get it relatively cheap.[/quote] How much do they want for it? A quick search shows that another one just like it sold on eBay last year for US$61, which is not the price of a lens that is in demand. That's not to say that you can't have some fun with it, but it looks like a big antique projector lens designed for projecting 35mm film. Minimum focusing distance will probably not be very good without the use of diopters and if you really want to attach it to a camera properly, you'll have to get something like a Velbon SPT-1 and a lens support (you probably will not know the diameter until you can measure it yourself), a 35mm anamorphic clamp, as well as some step rings. That is going to be an investment of time and money in itself. I took these steps to breathe some life into my Hypergonar (also a 35mm projection lens), and it creates a wonderful image BUT it's not easy to use (dual-focusing is required, and often difficult to achieve). I am glad that I did it but I don't think that I will go to the trouble of doing it again. So it all depends on what you are looking for!

From doing a little research, I believe that it's similar. Like the Moller 8mm 1.5x (or at least one version of it), the Isco Gottingen Anamorphot that I have appears to be fixed focus. I had high hopes for being able to rack focus with it, but I haven't been able to make it work yet. I have to stop down to about f5.6 and be at least 2 meters away from the subject to get a sharp focus. With a +1 diopter, I am able to get a sharp image wide open at 1 meter (but only at 1 meter) when the taking lens is focused to infinity. I have never actually seen a photo of the Moller 8mm 1.5x. Is this a lens that you have?

I have not been able to find much written about this lens, and I happen to have acquired the very same one in the photographs. It has unique, acrylic painting-like bokeh but I'm trying to figure out if there is a trick to focusing it properly -- it is not as simple as I thought it would be. Could this lens possibly have a fixed focus distance? Does anyone here have one like it? It would be great to compare notes.

Thanks for the link! I was looking on eBay for something like this but could only find one that went to Four Thirds (not Micro), so this may open up some possibilities. I have a feeling that I am going to be swapping in and out extension tubes, mount adapters and step rings quite a bit to see if I can get a usable or good image out of it. I am going to be travelling for work this week, but I am hoping that the Canon reverse adapter ring that I ordered will be here waiting for me when I get back. I'll post tests as soon as I have them.

[quote author=pask74 link=topic=792.msg5744#msg5744 date=1338387275] Actually, I'd like to know if the adapter itself is used to focus (is there any mechanism mounted inside it ?) or if it's "just" a "passive" metal tube. If the latter, it means that the lens' focus mechanism is used instead... which is the tricky part, as far as I understand. [/quote] The Ceicio7 OCT18 adapter (the expensive one) works well. It does not move and is not part of the focusing mechanism. It's like any other adapter you have ever used, except that it has a small metal tab that sticks out. When you attach the Lomo lens, you just make sure to line the adapter's tab up with the notch in the lens housing (as far as I know, they all have them) and once engaged, the tab holds the lens housing in place and stops it from spinning freely. I haven't shot with my Lomo spherical very extensively yet, but during the handful of tests that I have done, focusing has not been an issue at all. It's smooth. I didn't do any elaborate racking shots but if the adapter tab is able to lock properly, I see no reason why it would be any more problematic than, say, a Canon FD.

[quote author=DaveC link=topic=790.msg5763#msg5763 date=1338487966] hmm maybe something like this? [url=http://www.rocksphoto.com/category.php?id=159]http://www.rocksphoto.com/category.php?id=159[/url] [/quote] So... GH2  =>  MFT extension tube  =>  MFT to EF mount adapter  =>  PIXCO Macro Reverse Ring  =>  49mm to 55mm step ring  =>  Redstan clamp  =>  Bell & Howell / Kowa My friend, I think that you may have just cracked the code. Minus the step ring and the PIXCO ring, I have all of these things. I feel an experiment coming on!

I was thinking the same thing, but without paying $300 for the metal tube on eBay, the obstacle for a homemade solution remains being able to find an extension tube that terminates in a filter thread (instead of a camera mount). I've been looking without success, but perhaps I have been missing something.

I agree. However, it may have been a result of improper focusing and/or aperture settings and/or editing. Or it could just be that a diopter is needed. The concept is still interesting to me. I'd really like to try it out but a quick look around the internet has not turned up an adapter or extension tube with filter threading on the front. Know of anything?

Take a look at this eBay listing: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Anamorphic-Direct-Adapters-for-M-4-3-or-Sony-Nex-Mounts-3-Sold-/110887283359?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19d165aa9f#ht_500wt_1413 Anamorphic projection lenses were designed to throw an image on a wall fifty, one hundred, sometimes a couple hundred feet away. As I understand it, this product supposedly works by increasing the flange distance to decrease the minimum focus distance (much like an extension tube) to make it usable with your camera. But without a taking lens, you only adjust focus with the anamorphic adapter. If it works, it could turn your Kowa lens into an Iscorama killer (though it seems pricey for what is essentially a hollow tube). This got me thinking that perhaps an unwanted lens with the glass removed may be a more cost-effective way to achieve the same result. This way you would still have access to the full range of aperture stops. Of course this is all speculation and I am wondering if anyone else has tried this before.

With five different FD lenses already available to you, you may never NEED to buy another lens for the GH2! I have a couple of them (though not as many as you do) and they work wonderfully for video. Pick up a few adapters from Ciecio7 on eBay and start shooting!

Good luck!

[quote author=DaveC link=topic=778.msg5639#msg5639 date=1337943773]Having some kind of Iscorama lens which could be easily swapped between lenses, is reasonably sharp and allows to focus up to 1m would be an amazing option for low budget films. [/quote] I don't know about Redstan's modded Iscorama's (since there are so few, you can expect to pay a hefty price), but have you considered a Panasonic LA7200 with a diopter? You can focus down to around 1m, and you only focus the taking lens through the anamorphic element. You can use much wider angle lenses than on any other anamorphic adapter that I know of. It's only 1.33x crop (as opposed to Iscorama's 1.5), but it's very functional as long as you can rig a diopter to sit in front of it. They run between about $900 and $1350 on eBay. If you're curious, I shot some test footage with this adapter and a 25mm Voigtlander Nokton that you can view here: https://vimeo.com/42505123

That's very innovative. And I can tell from the video that you work has paid off. But it seems like it takes a lot of innovation to make these anamorphic adapters work to their fullest potential... The LA7200 seemed to be working well with the Nokton 25mm all the way down to f0.95! There was slight vignetting but I am convinced that it was because I didn't have a proper way of attaching the diopter (it was just a Cokin-P filter holder from Cinetactics jammed into the lens hood). I am the process of of trying to rig something a little more elegant based on this idea: https://vimeo.com/28186244 I am crossing my fingers that I'll be able to get both my achromatic doublet AND a fader ND screwed into the front on there without vignetting. That would really be something!

Does anyone have one? I need it for parts. Please PM me. Thanks.

I am now the proud owner of my own square front 50mm f2.5 in OCT18 mount. Turning the focus ring by hand jars the lens slightly (might be better with a proper follow focus) and I can see how this would be less of a problem with the four contact points found on the OCT19 mount. And from what I understand the OCT18 will only mount on mirrorless cameras, which I have. But is this what all of the fuss is about or is there more to it? I'm still hoping that someone out there in anamorphic-land knows the answer.

Thanks. I am very fortunate to have someone in my life who is not self-conscious around cameras! I agree with you about the LA7200. It's the only one of my anamorphic adapters that I would even attempt to take on a professional job (at this point anyway. The ability to rack focus is just huge. AND it's compatible with the Nokton, which in my opinion is a fantastic combination (but only with diopters). Thanks for sharing your work. I am continuously impressed by the footage I have seen coming from the Century. Is there threading on the front? If not, how were you able to attach the diopter?

I have a 50mm squarefront on the way (for real, this time). I'll let you know when it comes in.

Also, it appears that the construction of the lens is different between the OCT 18 and 19 versions. I have heard that the OCT18 breathes heavily during focusing but is does the OCT19 breathe any less?

Thanks for the feedback! The only light source was the sun through the trees. For many shots, it's directly behind her but like you I was surprised by the vertical flaring of the LA7200. I think that when there is enough light hitting the sensor, it floods the image and creates the impression that it is in front of her. It's not easy to control but that is something that I like about these lenses. I was certain that I would have a favorite after doing these tests, but I don't -- they are each so unique.