Rcorrell

Here are a bunch of randoms...  First 2 are Lomo, the rest are all iscorama pre36.







 

Here are a bunch of randoms...  First 2 are Lomo, the rest are all iscorama pre36.







 

Here are a bunch of randoms...  First 2 are Lomo, the rest are all iscorama pre36.







 

Here are a bunch of randoms...  First 2 are Lomo, the rest are all iscorama pre36.







 

Here are a bunch of randoms...  First 2 are Lomo, the rest are all iscorama pre36.







 

Here are a bunch of randoms...  First 2 are Lomo, the rest are all iscorama pre36.







 

I've finally received my lens today! The package arrived in not so good condition. A lot of scratches and tears but the contents inside was packed carefully.
 
The lens and rod support work good. I feel the rod support could work better if it does not rotate easily because the screws aren't so secured.
  The Iscorama itself has some stiff focus movements around 1.6m - 3m not sure why he didn't fix that. Also he somehow made some scratches on the Iscorama label on the front part of the lens but that's okay.   Even though it is a nice modification, if I would have a chance to choose again I wouldn't send my Iscorama to get modded!  

Lucian a few months ago PM'ed be about the VD mod and vignetting questions..  I never posted my response publicly, but now I can see that many people are wondering the same questions / solutions, so I thought my 2 cents might be helpful for some readers... So here it is...
 
Sooo, yes...  VD mod does create more vignetting than the original pre36 isco does on its own.  It does this no question.   However there is a way to work around it.  
 
At first i was surprised to see the difference in many of my taking lenses i had used before i got the mod done, however it was only effecting picture on a 50mm-60mm scale on full frame sensor.  Now a few elements are what makes this problem occur...  
 
VD does build the mod with the screw-on portion of the rear element flush to the actual lens rear element.
Pro : protects the rear lens element more so from scratches dings dents etc, also no use now for multiple stepup rings, filter rings etc.
Con: As everyone has been talking about lately, it does create a vignette on the widest taking lenses because of extended rear thread. also the bigger and deeper your wide angle taking lenses are, the more vignette you will get.  Diopters will also add to this problem, just making the lens longer in front.
 
FIX: pancake lenses!!.  the smaller the better.  I use a 50mm nikkor f1.8 pancake at my widest on full frame 5Dmkiii, and its fine.  no more vignette.  it's something thats a pain at first but once you get setup, no going back from VD version, its a real lens now.  Invest in some pancake lenses, they solve this problem and are very cheap usually.  
 
I've also done some experimenting with it using my mamiya 645 medium format camera lenses.  Because they are made for a 6x4.5 coverage, they are rated at 35mm full frame sizes but are actually "wider" on medium format then full frame.  The glass elements in the lenses tend to be bigger than 35mm lenses and they made really nice longer pairing lenses for my Isco.  my favorite being the 210mm f4 mamiya seckor C that becomes a really nice 140mm when in anamorphic, and is tack sharp.
 
Now in the APS-C size world, i think it's great.  I've played with it a lot on that size and haven't ran into a problem yet.  So depending on what lens and camera combination you are using with VD Isco, you might not have problems at all, or if it's full frame, you have to rethink your taking lens collection  ;)

Lucian a few months ago PM'ed be about the VD mod and vignetting questions..  I never posted my response publicly, but now I can see that many people are wondering the same questions / solutions, so I thought my 2 cents might be helpful for some readers... So here it is...
 
Sooo, yes...  VD mod does create more vignetting than the original pre36 isco does on its own.  It does this no question.   However there is a way to work around it.  
 
At first i was surprised to see the difference in many of my taking lenses i had used before i got the mod done, however it was only effecting picture on a 50mm-60mm scale on full frame sensor.  Now a few elements are what makes this problem occur...  
 
VD does build the mod with the screw-on portion of the rear element flush to the actual lens rear element.
Pro : protects the rear lens element more so from scratches dings dents etc, also no use now for multiple stepup rings, filter rings etc.
Con: As everyone has been talking about lately, it does create a vignette on the widest taking lenses because of extended rear thread. also the bigger and deeper your wide angle taking lenses are, the more vignette you will get.  Diopters will also add to this problem, just making the lens longer in front.
 
FIX: pancake lenses!!.  the smaller the better.  I use a 50mm nikkor f1.8 pancake at my widest on full frame 5Dmkiii, and its fine.  no more vignette.  it's something thats a pain at first but once you get setup, no going back from VD version, its a real lens now.  Invest in some pancake lenses, they solve this problem and are very cheap usually.  
 
I've also done some experimenting with it using my mamiya 645 medium format camera lenses.  Because they are made for a 6x4.5 coverage, they are rated at 35mm full frame sizes but are actually "wider" on medium format then full frame.  The glass elements in the lenses tend to be bigger than 35mm lenses and they made really nice longer pairing lenses for my Isco.  my favorite being the 210mm f4 mamiya seckor C that becomes a really nice 140mm when in anamorphic, and is tack sharp.
 
Now in the APS-C size world, i think it's great.  I've played with it a lot on that size and haven't ran into a problem yet.  So depending on what lens and camera combination you are using with VD Isco, you might not have problems at all, or if it's full frame, you have to rethink your taking lens collection  ;)

A lot has been questioned about this subject since it first showed up in >a> couple pictures uploaded to Redstan's flickr, or (four days later) in Andrew's first post about them, in late July, 2011. Almost three years have passed and still we don't have enough objective reviews and facts about this mod. I'm gonna try to achieve this goal here. I'm starting with a bit of history (which involves some guessing), but feel free to skip it. :)

At first, it seemed that Alan (Redstan) was the one responsible for the whole thing, but now I believe he was the one who presented the the job to Van Diemen, and made a whole bunch of them at a huge cost and time. I don't think he sold any of these from the first batch, since we never heard of anyone reselling them, or using anything like that, but I might be wrong (Tony, feel free to chime in and correct me if this is wrong information). Then, time passed and a year and a half later comes Andrew Wonder, who was also featured on another EOSHD post involving a tuned iscorama, he called his "Wonderscope" and explained how he linked the pictures to Christopher Smith's machining job at Van Diemen.
 
I come to believe it was only after this "indirect" advertising and lots of emails and questions from anamorphic shooters over the world that Van Diemen realised this "thing" could be a regular service they were the only ones able to provide. Partly thanks to Tony's many inputs on the original design and partly thanks to the sudden interest in the subject. If I'm not mistaken, early 2013 was the moment when other shooters from this forum started sending their lenses over, and we had all the fuss regarding HUGE delays in delivery and processing orders. People had their lenses trapped there for over six months, etc. Just search the forum for "Van Diemen" and some of these will be listed, followed by multiple users asking various questions about the mod. Mainly "is it worthy?", which is a VERY subjective question.
 
I've sent my pre-36 Iscorama lens from Brazil in early December, 2013, after extensive emails with Christopher, at Van Diemen. My main concern was the time it would take to complete the job. He assured me I would have the lens back in 90 days. Recently, other forum members have reported they're >speeding the process to only a week, which is amazing (of course, this doesn't take into account the time spent during shipping).
 
The mod is listed on Van Diemen's website, and costs £850.00 + shipping (and another £95.00 if you want special engraving). That rounds to about US$1500, which, we all should agree, is a big amount of cash. It's important to remember that not all Iscoramas are eligible for the conversion as well. Tony has pointed out that the inner workings of the anamorphot are kept intact, so if you have defective glass or bad internal mechanisms, these will be passed onto the mod. Christopher confirmed this by informing that all lenses are verified once arriving at VD's, and every single defect is reported back to the owner, as you're asked if you want to proceed with the conversion (mine has some faint markings on the rear glass). 
 
Now, what does the mod do, EXACTLY?
 
The original Iscorama 36 weighs about 400g, has a fully plastic housing (which is pretty fragile) and focuses down to 2m without diopters (or >closer, through a hardcore mod). Rear thread is 49mm and you need some spacers to avoid hitting its rear glass onto the taking lens' front glass. Goes as wide as 50mm on a full-frame sensor and has a simple button feature for alignment. Focus throw is long (around 8mm), and if you modded yours for close focus, you need special attention so you don't drop the front element to the ground.
 
The VD conversion weighs 680g (220g lighter than an Iscorama 54, and still much smaller than the 54 beast), because the housing is solid metal. Also, it has standard 0.8 pitch focus gears. At some point during assembly, Christopher sends you an email, confirming if focus engravings should be in feet or meters, and it focuses down to 1.1m (or 3' 7") without diopters (it's twists a little over 360 degrees, and that impresses me every time I do it), even though the closest focus engraving is 1.2m (the 1.1m mark would overlap with the infinity mark). Focus throw is 1cm long, beating the close focus mod and making your life really hard if you want a follow focus that is able to spin from infinity focus down to 1.1m.
 
Rear threads are 58mm, and it does increase vignetting a little. It shows very slight vignetting on a Helios 44 (58mm) if stopped down, on a full-frame sensor. Aligning is still very simple, much like 1.33x lenses, where you have a rotating part with a small screw that locks the lens into position. Mine had the alignment buttons in really bad shape, so this new housing made aligning really simple, and I don't have to worry about breaking the lens apart in the process. They're also kind enough to include front and rear lens caps for safer transport.
 
I also read - after my conversion was done - that Van Diemen redesigned the rear (clamp-like) part of the housing to avoid this extra vignetting. I couldn't find the link pointing to where I read that. If someone knows what I'm talking about, please comment below and I'll update the post! Also, if you want to improve it even more, you can follow >jaquet's tips and stuck it into a lens support so you don't even need to align it ever again.
 
There's a recurring comparison between VD and a 54, and they are, indeed, different lenses. First of all, VD isn't necessarily multicoated, like all 54's, it's still a "medium" lens (not as small as the original 36 nor as big as the 54), but it doesn't draw so much attention, so you still have the stealth factor. Front thread is 72mm, which is a blessing for finding and using diopters, quite the opposite of the 95mm filter threads on the Isco 54. Please consider that I've owned (and used) an Isco 54 for over a year, so these aspects aren't guesses at all.
 
The full metal body is very nice too, since many Iscoramas have had rough times since they left Isco's factory, 30-40 years ago. Mine had its filter thread broken to smaller chunks of plastic and was held together by an empty UV ring. This, added to the almost-stuck alignment mechanism, and close-focus mod made sure that I could not EVER rent the lens as it was. Damn, it's a $4000 lens, it would be nice to make some money out of it, right? VD's conversion lets you rest assured that your Iscorama will work like any regular professional lens should work: without any special information required (specially regarding quirks).
 
Also, some other useful information not entirely related to the conversion: You should check in your country's customs office if there's a special form or procedure for items that are being sent out for servicing abroad and will return later. This will avoid paying extra taxes over the conversion costs. I know Brazil offers this option, and it's particularly useful, since I would pay a 60% tax over the declared value + shipping cost if it wasn't through this method. Plus Christopher is a really nice guy, who replies all messages and addresses every question you might have about the service. A good seller makes a hell of a difference for me.

Hi guys,
 
We just shot this video with the BMCC, Metabones Speedbooster, Nikon Lenses and Iscorama 54MC.
RAW files were developped in After Effects CS6 (with Camera Raw) to Prores444 2400/1350. Color grading was done in AE.
 

 
Please let us know what you think, we'd love to get some feedback.
 
Cheers,
Mihnea

The design condition for an anamorphic lens is always at the infinity focus state (afocal rule). So if a lens is stated at 1.5x it means this is true only for an object focused at infinity. 
 
Objects focused at close range will exhibit lower stretch, perhaps as low as 70% of the rated stretch at say 0.5m. This is the reason behind the mumps phenomenon in projected films.

I have tested mine at 58mm and 85mm and the results were pretty much the same at 1.41 stretch factor - at least with my lenses and setup - that would be a 70.9% squeeze. I have found several other reports online that confirm this as well. Unfortunately that gives you an akward 2.5 aspect ratio that I have been cropping down to 2.4 or 2.35, taking advantage of the extra resolution for slight reframing. Sometimes you can get away with using 1.5 but I noticed that 1.5 didn't look right when shooting people which is why I tested to begin with. I find that 1.41 looks way better in those situations and I can't bring my self to use 1.5 anymore since I know it is wrong. 

So updating everyone here as I said I would.  Got my lens back from vandiemen, and she's a beauty!!  And I have to say, as much criticism as VD has got on their turn-around time, they not only did a great job on the build but also did exactly in the time frame they promised me.  Couldn't recommend this upgrade enough for any Isco 36 or pre 36 owners.  Takes a great lens and makes it the BEST!
 
 

"Tony wilson" could answer that. My understanding is they were not cheap when they came out due to complexity of building them, thus why no one can make a comparable modern anamorphic at a reasonable price.
 
You don't want to know the price from a decade ago, or even 3 years ago, it will make you weep :)

LOL Rudolf. I love that vintage Iscorama advertisement you attached with your post! Very cheesy :) Never seen that one before.

This is interesting and very true about lots of the equipment we "professionals" use.  Want to see something really scary?? (my best Dan Akroid voice from the twilight zone) No, but seriously??  Take that geiger reader and put next to / up to a wireless follow focus system such as the Bartech....   Get ready to run away very fast in the other direction. It's seriously scary how much unhealthy radiation that thing puts out, and any of the microwave based wireless devices.  You can go through "your healthy amount of radiation in a year"  in a matter of hours using a Bartech..  But seriously, all you AC's out there, at least know what you're willingly putting your brain next to for days/ weeks at a time.  
 
And thats my PSA for the day.
 
******************************************

Use the Helios 58mm and most of the older nikkor AiS primes with a 52mm front thread. they only telescope ever so slightly back and forth throughout the focus throw, but you wont be using that part to focus anyways.  Pancakes also work really well, and small size ;)

Its become a real shame that this has happened, but if you are fool enough to pay that amount for something that isn't an Iscorama then good luck to you!

it was one of my ex nasa lens i had 5 or 6 isco 54s 4 of them where from white sands missile test range in new mexico.
the lens i sold ages ago was very sharp mint condition lens all gone now but here is a foto
 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34211301@N00/5096919478/

I have the full badass glidecam package.  monitors, dual arms, vest, car mounts, etc...   Everything depends on what shot / aesthetic your trying to achieve.  For  5d3 I would use a 2x anamorphic with a 50mm, which = basically a 25mm.  unless your shooting a skate video or going for a fisheye look, which doesn't even quite make sense with anamorphic, that should cover you.  With an iscorama the 50mm will end up being close to a 33mm lens.
 
That video you posted is another perfect example of someone that has no idea how to balance their glidecam correctly, and it is the biggest contributing factor to getting good results with these systems..
 
PM me dude, be glad to let you test out the rig, and show you how to properly balance these things.  The pelican is currently sitting in my closet, I rather see someone get some use out of it.  
 
I'll try and post a video later if i have some time today..

My vote would go to the baby Hypergonar 2x scope.
 
Search this forum to read the many posts on this optic

I was lucky in that mine was very easy to unscrew, but seems to just depend on the lens.  As far as the stopper goes, after performing the surgery, I also could not see a way of implementing that without doing a whole redesign of the plastic housing as a whole.  This, and the fact that the whole front element can unscrew and pop off, made me not think twice about having the vandiemen mod done.   I've waited almost 4 years to get my hands on this bitch so waiting a couple more months doesn't really phase me..  

lens alignment issue in the anamorphic attachment i would think. the petrascope i have illustrates pretty clearly how misalignment between cylindrical optics renders everything unfocusable. i imagine anyone with any apefoscope could say the same thing (i.e. get something in perfect focus - rotate one of the elements as little as you possible can (( <1 degree)) = everything soft)

Well many comparisons can be drawn, but you have to consider certain factors in when comparing a consumer product from the late 1960's to modern day professional cine lenses.
 
For what the Iscorama is:
 
By itself, its a gem of an anamorphic lens, no question.  It's tack sharp, good edges, great optics and saturation, beautiful flares (if you have a single coated version), an of course, out of all the old lenses, the best patented focus system..
 
For what the Iscorama is not :
 
It was made in 1968 as a high end projection attachment, so in part it's really not a stand-alone lens, it is an attachment.  We keep comparing it to actual lenses.  The housing of the lens in complete plastic, is to say the least, it's very dangerous and doesn't protect the optics at all, and if the lens was to encounter any kind of harsh weather conditions etc. it would completely fail.  And as far as the focus goes, although one of the best for what it is, it's still a projection lens so close focus becomes somewhat of a process that you just would not encounter on any proper cine lens.  And ultimately, because it is still an attachment, you will run into only being able to use a set amount of focal length primes, which depending on the cinematographer or certain shot, is a no go..
 
In General Comparison :
 
The Isco has GREAT optics. I've managed to pull images from that lens that look better than some of the most expensive lenses I've ever used.  But like I said above, price tag means nothing.  Great example of that is the helios 58mms.  They are one of the sharpest lens I've ever used, and dirt cheap.  The big expensive lenses are kind of like buying a rare sports car.  Beautiful to look at as far as engineering and build, but more or less afraid to use it. Afraid to "take it out of the garage" and put millage on it if you will..  Personally, when I'm using Arri's or Cooke's, anything thats over 50k in glass, I get a $1,000,000 issuance policy when shooting with them.  Too risky if not, if so much as a nat lands on the lens, I start to worry, so thats my personal way around dealing with stress of rentals and or price tags.  BE SMART!  
 
Conclusion:
 
I think for what most of us are here to do : Get the best image possible with tools we've researched and perfected, but for a personally attainable price.
 
It is a fantastic option, and no doubt ONE of the best, if not THE best, for the price.  I currently don't have 40K to throw down on a set of OCT-19 square or spherical anamorphic sets, but if I did I would go that route.  They are built like tanks, and the optics have so much character.  BUT they are big, heavy, and expensive cine lenses.  They are not fit for lightweight run-and-gun situations.  I still to this day see many top notch lens companies copying the Lomo system for anamorphics, so that usually means they we doing something right if 50 years later the top dogs or still trying to produce their design and look.
 
At the end of the day there are so many factors that go into getting "a good image".  A lens ultimately is just a tool to help achieve the look you are going for, nothing more.  Storytelling, lighting, good characters, and proper operation of the camera are the KEY components of filmmaking.  I don't care how much your lens costs, or how rare it is...  If you just make another cool-looking vimeo lens test, your not a filmmaker, nobody really cares.  No story=no substance  
 
You could shoot a short film with your iphone about a bird you found on the street that is dying, and if it's emotional enough and people care about that bird at the end of your video, then it's good.  No lens can do that.  Thats filmmaking.