PepperJay

Thanks for the info--very nice contribution again!

Great compilation! I like the Singer/Sankor for over-the-top sci-fi applications, and (surprisingly) the Cinelux for the subtle ones. Was the lack of contrast due to the Helios? Does the Lens Turbo II have any affect on the same?

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Very good summary Bioskop

This bit in particular

If they had played on this a bit more and made it emotionally impacting, I think it could have helped the story no end. Instead it was so obtuse and unaffecting, I doubt half the audience even knew about her ulterior plot.

Crap, I know this is an odd choice of forum for this nerd-level of dissection, but this thread may just turn out to have life-altering consequences... :D

I'm a little confused, and maybe that's the genius--or simply a plot hole, depending--of the 1st's ground rules. My impression was that "Rachel is an experiment" and that the memories implanted in her were at least claimed as a one-off (besides her life-span--won't even get into Deckard's), a confession only motivated by Tyrell himself after the VK test.

In 2049, what I was able to discern was that the daughter was basically a contractor paid for unique memories. Not sure if she did all replicants' memories or just the higher-end stuff, but the point is when she looked into K's, she acted as if this was something she hadn't seen in years, literally. Obviously we understand where it comes from, but two opposing theories arise:

1. Implanted memories wouldn't go far if there were a high propagation of commonalities amongst replicants. One wrong conversation with a fellow skin-job and God knows how much therapy your android will need before punching back in. I think the writers were trying to address the issue that the original never had to by creating a super character that solved that problem, but ended up raising more questions, like "Wait a minute, does she literally do every replicant's memories?" Wow, full-time gig, eh? No, seriously, all replicants? Again, maybe I missed that part in all the mumbling.

2. If this were a unique memory for just K (as her reaction suggested), well, that's one hell of a shot in the dark. Unless she somehow manipulated K's visit to Bautista, thus setting off the entire plot, it's a little too unlikely to happen out of pure chance and coincidence. And if you subscribe to the theory that she had something to do with the initiation of K's investigation, then the question of "why" comes up? Just so she can meet her father? After all he did to keep some distance between them, in retrospect it seems a little selfish. Personally, I'd sleep better at night believing she was just having an crappy day when she was working on K's memories, maybe dipped her beak in a little too much red before wrapping up and just phoned it in with some of her own memories before clicking the Send button. Years later she finds K with that memory and almost loses her sh*t, thinking, "Damn, I feel a Nolan Brothers kind of plot twist in the making..."

All too often movies have little or no plot to motivate action sequences and set pieces. Conversely, others have plots that feel reverse engineered to answer questions we never really needed answering, e.g. the original BR. This movie feels like the latter, but I give it credit for at least not being the former.

8 hours ago, Justin Bacle said:

I went to see the movie on a small local theatre, which I know doesn't put the sound levels too high. And I didn't find it that loud and enjoyed it.
That said, I do not want to endure these kinds of sound levels you only get in big theaters/Cineplexes.

I really don't get why they have to put the sound output that loud :s

I have two theaters, both local ones,

my favorite:

(great little doc on it here, albeit missing Victor the Super Manager...):

https://la.curbed.com/2015/5/26/9956894/watch-a-brief-history-of-the-1923-vista-theatre-in-los-feliz

and since I moved:

I love both venues, but even they've been increasing the decibel levels of their exhibitions like inflation. I guess I just find it hard to believe that my ears are actually getting more sensitive in my 40's. One of my first sh*t jobs was in a theater, and never once had I heard anyone complain that the volume was too low. Anyway, Blade Runner I saw at the Vista and now my wife will never come with me again.

I wish I could be of more help, but I've seen the tide bring in several models of this projector display, all looking like a paint bucket. In terms of covering wider lenses with this bad boy, it seems that if you can't get it done with this, you're probably asking for too much (in which case the school of thought seems to be to just go spherical anyway, since you'd be losing most of the characteristics of anamorphics). As for mounting, I'm sure that if there's a will, there's a way, even if you have to ghetto-rig it until the inspiration for something more stable materializes. Best of luck--I'm particularly interested in the edge performance. And to hell with how silly it looks mounted to a prosumer cam--only the captured image matters!

5 hours ago, Tito Ferradans said:

Hahaha, it's a valid question I think!

I would still stick with Pre-36 or original Iscorama - since that's what they were, by coming attached to an infinity-fixed 50mm (various mounts) -, the anamorphic attachment was labeled purely "Iscorama", and the differences between the original one and the 36 are tiny.

I would love to hear other people's opinions as well, though! :D

Fair enough, Tito. At this point, I guess it's bordering on pure semantics. If VD can successfully mod mine, maybe I'll (privately) refer to it as my OG Iscorama. Sounds more street. Thanks for your take!

This is probably a dumb question, but it seems like for lack of a more concise name, why aren't we just calling the Pre-36 a 30? Van Diemen identifies it as such and given Iscorama never called it anything other than an Iscorama, I think it would clear up some confusion and help with searches. Iscorama 30 -- is it sacrilege? Did I miss something?

SF is my favorite genre, and perhaps not surprisingly, Blade Runner my favorite movie, but this one never connected with me. That said, my hopes weren't high to begin with. Of the director's previous work, I much prefer Prisoners over The Arrival, the latter which--unlike apparently most critics on rottentomatos--I felt insulted by. Not Elysium insulted, and certainly not Signs violated, but the air of condescension was a bit thick as the credits rolled. But back to this new work. First off, however, I need to send out a message to the film mixers and/or theater owners in this country:

PLEASE STOP TRYING TO BLOW OUR F*CKING EARDRUMS OUT!!!

What's the thinking here? Rattle our bones with Zimmer horns every 20 minutes just to wake us up? Film scores are supposed to help guide us emotionally through scenes, not jar our goddamned teeth loose. My wife was measuring the decibels (from inside her bag--no ambient light a-holes here) in the back row and it was averaging over 126 dBs whenever there was a scene transition. She had earplugs and still had to sit the last 45 minutes in the lobby of the theater. Such a gentleman she's got, I know...

Actually, that's really all I had to say for now. In my youth, I could talk all night about a new movie, but these last few years consuming Diet Coke, I have to watch it at least a second time before I can even approach forming a concise and fair opinion worth the time it takes to listen/read. I do, however, agree with at least one other contributor before me saying the plot was pretty convoluted. To be fair, I think half the plot was already lost on me, because despite the volume set to "sphincter-puckering," all the women not named Robin Wright mumbled their way through half their lines. Not that it would have mattered, because I think the main point for now is that after watching the original at least 200 times, the entire point of the movie was never intended to be that complex: A robot hunts other robots and discovers what it means to be human. Ridley, God bless his heart, was just old school enough to let you figure that last part out for yourself. Wasn't even a twist by then, really. Too subtle for some, never accepted by others, painfully clear to the ones that would go on to subject themselves to a 2nd viewing...and maybe a few more after. The reason I love the original was actually because the story was thin, the theme was heavy, but the visuals made me feel like I was looking into a window into the future. Dystopianland. Yeah, screw it, I'd go.

Anyway, one last detail before I sign off: This film, for all its visual competence, fell sadly short on one movie staple that really would have gone a long way: who exactly is the baddie? Rutger Hauer might not have been a traditional villain, but he was a perfectly compelling foil to Ford, particularly when Ford wasn't onscreen. Luv was a tool, Leto was embarrassingly lame, and as bad as his acting is, I would have preferred keeping Bautista around for at least some degree of physical menace on the hunt. Also, the android physics were wildly inconsistent. Like stupid inconsistent. But nothing that a little Zimmer-induced aneurysm shouldn't be able to take care of.

Despite my critique of the movie, I really don't hate it--I just don't feel much for it. Oh, my God, was that the intent all along..?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Non-MC-Iscorama-36-1-5x-anamorphot-anamorphic-lens-adapter-in-rare-NOS-condition-/253204521615?hash=item3af42a628f:g:rQMAAOSwrohZ3ycA

Listing photo. Looks non-MC (single coated) like the Pre-36.

Seems to be the best of both lenses, rear element size and Non-MC.

This may be an extreme opposite, but it serves:

Related video of 36 MC vs. Pre-36:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG2jee5UScE

And a thread:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjG0Mbg1e3WAhUJrlQKHalmAhsQFggoMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eoshd.com%2Fcomments%2Ftopic%2F3829-who-else-has-a-single-coated-iscorama-36%2F&usg=AOvVaw1pP9ZnvIJ1WELm5BBeL7PH

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bolex-Moller-16-32-1-5x-Anamorphic-Lens-Anamorphot-Extremely-Rare-Exc-Condition-/182815093590?hash=item2a90a0f356%3Ag%3AKDYAAOSwwrtZ2bIO&nma=true&si=TRsUz%2BbBkvY%2B4y%2FB2zlc4XgAm3g%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

2K???

Wow.

17 hours ago, redimp said:

Thanks for mentioning me, actually @PepperJay already contacted me about this one. Seeing bugs inside this lens gave me chills, poor 'rama

Hey, @redimp, I'm sorry for not getting back to you directly. When my lens came back and just twisted open, I figured it probably needed a complete housing to keep it together. As it is, I still wouldn't be surprised if Christopher at VD sends it back due to hopeless optics (that chalky looking fungus between the inner elements). But the good news is I was able to wipe the bugs off of the back of the focusing glass. Yay.

While I have you on the horn, I hope you've given some serious consideration towards a custom rear half that attaches to the front you've already developed. The weight and price point you're offering thus far has tantalizing potential and would serve as a great alternative to the limited housing choices out there. Speaking purely out of ignorance for the task, I guess the reverse engineering part wouldn't be nearly as complicated as designing anything from a functioning outer housing to full replacement of all the plastic parts. But one can dream. Anyway, thanks again for your help and encouragement earlier!

9 hours ago, dhessel said:

You could also send it to Bernie ant Super16 Inc if you are in the US. He services these and will look at it for free and let you know how much it costs to fix if it can be fixed.

This iscorama is basically like a normal anamorphic projector lens set to infinity focus with a variable strength diopter in front. The rounded front element on the main optical block can be removed without messsing up the alignment, if that gets you far enough in to clean it then you maybe able to to that yourselft depending on what is actually on the lens. I believe the next element back after that one is the front anamorphic element, the alignment of this elment to the rear element is critical and very sensitive. If you remove it it has to go back exectly how it was before otherwise the lens will loose sharpness.Once removed you should be as far in as you would ever need to clean out as much as you can. The focus of the anamorphic block is probably set by the rear element, it is my own policy to never remove or even loosen the rear element of any lens. Without a collimator you will never get it set right again.

Having not opened one of these before I cannot say for sure but I have serviced an Iscorama 54 years ago and I suspect they are very similar.

Yes, dhessel, based upon all the praise I've read across these forums about Bernie, he was natural first choice to try and save what I hoped was a perfectly salvageable lens in need of a little expertise and/or love. From what I heard, unfortunately, after hours of negotiating with it and even damaging the the ring in the process of unscrewing it, he just wasn't able to get the front focusing element loose, and decided to send it back rather than risk damaging any other parts of the lens. However, before packing it up, he flushed the inner workings (including the main elements in the rear) with liberal amounts of oil. A few days later I received it back, and before I knew it, the lens opened up where the main cylinders overlap. I immediately told him about it and he figured the oil did its job, offering to continue on the work if I wanted to send it back should I be worried about attempting to myself. I told him I might do so, along with a couple of other lenses that could use some help.

So that's where I left it with Bernie. From my (albeit limited) experience thus far over email and phone, they are responsive, fair and very nice people. Not at all regretting sending it to them in the first place. Which brings me to...

6 hours ago, Tito Ferradans said:

 

wasn't that what he just implied?

Yeah, Tito, I was worried it was a little too on-the-nose, but I also don't want to be coy and just PM inquiries. I feel that as a noob, despite our lack experience in this field, our experiences can still be of use to all. Anyway, regarding Bernie, I certainly don't wish to be the one to tarnish his reputation; God knows how little hope there is left in the world, particularly in people. Since starting this thread, though, I've written to Van Diemen and inquired about what their housing job entails, and I was immediately responded to and told that should my unit pass muster (optics & mechanics), they'd be happy to include any cleaning and aligning in the process. Considering I was expecting to pay about 25% of that just for the cleaning, I'm inclined to pay the full amount and insure that not only does my lens not spontaneously pop apart at the center, but that it'll be well-housed and modded adequately for real-world use (granted, not as well as the VII, but NASA I certainly ain't). And it's mainly because of how easily the two halves are easily disassembled now that...

5 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

@PepperJay If it indeed was the lovable Irish man then it sounds like he tried everything to get that lens open (and technically succeeded) - must have been seized really bad to resort to those methods. He sure knows what he’s doing, probably the best/most experienced lens tech still around for such work. Now you have the lens opened, he will properly be able to do his magic (if the optics are not a total right-off that is). If you unsure about going any further yourself, he’s the guy to call again IMHO.

Once optics are cleaned and alignment all ship-shape, you could then invest in the really impressive ‘proxiscope’ front rehousing mod that @redimp has devised...a metal replacement front for your pre-36 with integrated gear that has close focus hard stops built in. It is non-destructive and requires no permanent modification to your lens. Advantage is that is a heck of a lot lighter than the VD full rehousing and since it is an easy DIY kit - it won’t require you to send your lens away and wait hundreds of days for it’s return.

I hesitate to contact Max again about the Proxiscope at this stage. I like his design and particularly his price point, but that and the cleaning would already run me 2/3rd's of the VD job.

Thanks, Hans and Tony, for your votes of confidence in Bernie. As per my phone conversation with him, his main consideration at the time was trying his best to open the lens for repair with as little damage as possible, and I don't hold the ring damage at all against him. If I ever had to sell it, fair or not, cosmetically it's a mess, but for now it's not that big of a deal that I can't give Bernie another go should he still be accepting requests. In fact, the best compromise I've come up with is to ship him my pair of Bolex-Möllers (19 & 32) on the same day I send the Isco to VD. Everyone gets their beak wet and I'd be the proud parent of some very nice glass. Any opinions to the contrary?

Tony, I'm honored that you'd reply to my post considering your standing in the community, but I hope you understand that whatever falling out you seem to have had with the Van Diemen company, they only real complaint I've been able to research has to do with working time frames, and not with actual quality of work, despite the high price. Maybe I have to learn this lesson myself (wouldn't be the first--definitely not the last), but with all the considerations (cleaning, functionality, stability) regarding this particular lens, it seems like VD might be the best route to go. Naturally, I'll bitch to high heaven should it prove to be a bad choice, at which point you are more than welcome to rub it in ;). And as I said above, I'd still love to give Bernie my business, but if any vintage anamorphic deserves the silver tuna treatment, I think something like this Isco is right there. You and a handful of other members are an awesome wealth of experience, ingenuity, and inspiration, and maybe it's none of my business, but I can only hope that one day I'll see the fruits of whatever work you've already put in towards a working optic in the marketplace. The clamps are awesome, but it sounds like you've got some old scores to settle. I'd just love to be there when you do!

I greatly appreciate all the input so far, and any other opinions are still most welcome. For any future developers out there, there's still a big hole to be filled in terms of an update to the Iscorama design, and considering the patent doesn't sound like an issue any more, I wouldn't be surprised to one day see a Kickstarter campaign with an oddly familiar profile...

-Jason

Hey, Hans, I don't want to Bern the guy because he was very nice and sent it back with only my shipping cost (and albeit cosmetically scarred lens). That said, I'm hesitant to send him any of my other gems, despite his reputation, but probably will as I'm really not set up for lens servicing. I can't even apply a a screen protector on my cell without botching it up with dust.

Thanks, bzpop--that's one vote for VD. Not sure if I'll score another opinion anytime soon, and I appreciate it.

Greetings, Anamorphic Community,

I've been working on trying to restore an "as is" 36 purchase I made in a foggy haze of ebay madness earlier this year. See original listing pic below: (Those are dead bugs under the front element. Yep, dead bugs. The inner elements have what was believed to be either fungus or deteriorated glue.)

After sending it out to a well-known specialist for servicing, it was returned to me with regret that it couldn't be worked on because the front focusing element was not accessible due to tightness in the threads (after the four front screws were removed). Also, the plastic ring w/ label took a little beating in the process, but I'll get to that later.

However, it seems that before sending it back to me, lubricating oil was generously applied inside in the hopes of loosening up the parts, and by the time I was able to inspect it again, the lens was able to open up this far without any tools.

At this point, I have only to attempt to unscrew the inner element housing (2nd from the left) in order to clean the lenses, although I'm a little nervous about alignment after the work. It's very possible I've already set myself up for some extra trial & error work because I pretty much accidentally opened up before I even realized what I was doing, let alone set some markers (or, yes, even some masking tape to protect the glass--will be rectified immediately, I promise).

Anyway, I'm a sort of crossroads here. I could use my spanner wrench to get in there and do the deed myself, or send it back to the service shop to clean, lube and align for several hundred dollars. The other option, however, is to send it to Van Diemen for the $1,100 VI housing (assuming the optics are up to snuff, naturally). What hurts, though, is knowing that the VII exists for more than twice the price. If they ever sold the (what seems to be vastly improved upon) updated version for around $1,500 USD (or even via another batch purchase like Andrew Wonder's in 2014--any takers?) , I'd be in, but right now it'll come in over $2,600--a bit too rich for my blood.

Another option is to go with a half-mod, at an appropriately lower price, but given the age of the current plastic housing (and the unsightliness of the damaged ring--a merely cosmetic, but still costly hit in the hypothetical future of selling my stash for recreational drugs), I'd really like to explore a full-metal body design, despite the weight increase. Also, the improved minimum focus and the shorter focus throw are a given if I'm spending anything more. I know I could file the stopper myself, but the anxiety of either worrying about it separating on me by rotating it too far on a shoot or even popping a hole and screw in the lens just seems too stress-inducing and/or ghetto for what I've already paid. BTW, no offense to anyone ghetto-rigging anything--I just have a knee-jerk reaction to this particular op on this particular class of lens.

Any suggestions/comments/news on the housing front? I heard Rich was developing something a few years ago, but it seems viable options are fairly limited in this understandably niche market. The perfect scenario would be if someone could just 3-D scan the shit out of the current plastic housing parts and simply recreate it out of a far more durable material. Note: I say "simply" because I probably don't know what hell I'm talking about. :D

Best to all, and thanks to everyone for your contributions past, present and future.

-Jason

2 hours ago, Ian Edward Weir said:

Thanks Rudolf! Can't wait for 6k GH5. It takes 15mins just to dump out a 7 sec shot at 4K.  Please watch on big screen. 

It's a blessing and a curse. I'm in debt and my relationships suffer and can never make up my mind which one to use. 

Use the lenses, definitely--they cost less in the long run!

Thanks for passing that valuable info along, racer5! My initial impression is that he's made the best trade-off, as I'd find more run & gun subjects within the 15m range, and wouldn't find it a problem stopping down for infinity shots at wider focal lengths anyway. In terms of my own conversion plans, I guess I'll simply have to test the limitations of what I have without screwing with the optics (aside from removing the 1" rear barrel housing the two rear elements--see above grab if interested) and see what it yields. Given what's currently online to reference, the only "mod" I can fathom done to the one for sale is altering the rear element position (within main lens body), which I'm not presently set up to replicate. In any event, much gratitude again for the post--a very informative starting point for understanding the potential of this little gem.

* 1060 pic grabbed from Kostas' old sale--retro thanks.

4 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Here Here! Goes without saying...

Think I've said it all in my previous posts, but lets be clear about this once & for all - this is NOT an Iscorama, not by a long shot! It's a focus through & NOT a single focus anamorphic attachment like a true Iscorama, which will focus from 2m to Infinity.

If it works like the Isco Widescreen 2000, then it does produce really nice images but it's a PITA to use.

I came on this thread initially to warn people about this lens - there's a lot of bad info about these sorts of lenses. So, lets be clear about it - the 2000 will not focus to infinity, not now, not ever. It's blurred & not in focus. The 2000 is fixed at 5m & it's focus through range is from 4m-6m, at best. When you're filming with it things will kinda look in focus, but if you zoom in it's soft/blurry. Project your footage on a big screen & you'll have a fit/curse the day you ever believed this was a good purchase.

However, if you get some diopters & stick to the 5m mark on your taking lens, then you can change it's focus range - you can also use different lens for close-ups & wides etc... At 5m it's stunning, everything else is meeeeeeh!

Ha, thanks, Bioskop.Inc, I'll take that as fair warning. I actually interested in converting the 1100 down to 1060, but I didn't understand where the focus through range suddenly went from the fixed 5m to 2m-Infinity. Like, wow, that's a hell of a mod! Granted, it's very possible that it could perform as claimed, (after all, the dealer and their stock seems reputable enough), but unless someone else chimes in with first-hand experience with the glass in question, I'll consider it a long-term research project and just sit by the river. Much appreciated, as always.

On 12/6/2016 at 4:11 PM, Bioskop.Inc said:

Just in case anyone still has any questions (or doubts my experience with this lens), here's the Widescreen 2000 in test mode. It's a run'n'gun situation at a concert, which is a good test for any lens & how it will work under extreme/fast working conditions. You'll notice the picture can look soft & that's down to the fact that if you're not @ 5M on the taking lens, then it will not produce it's optimum sharpness. You can, of course, get a false/fake sharpness by stopping down the taking lens, but it'll never be a true depiction of it's sharpness.

Focus range, when you have a +0.25 diopter on the front (good luck finding one, especially a cheap one - but it is the best strength for this anamorphic for focusing through), will only really be between 4-6M (the reading on the taking lens, not the true focal range) - so too narrow to rack effectively (there is a rack in the footage below, but kinda hard to spot because it doesn't perform well in this department). Again if you stop down then you can get a false longer focus range (infinity if you want to fool yourself), but then the deep depth of field can make it difficult to tell what is exactly in focus.

Only the second time I used this Anamorphic in a paid situation & I have never used it again as a focus through. However, stick to the 5M optimum distance, then add various diopters to reduce this focal length, in order to get closer focus and/or change lenses & this is when this lens is at its best. As a focus through, there are better ones out there, but they are all x1.3. So £1k? No way!

 

Hello, Bioskop or Tony (or anyone else with experience along these lines), I've been looking up what's available online regarding the differences between the some of the later Iscoramas, particularly the 2000 series, and from the two 1100 MC's currently for sale ($1,129-1,236) on ebay, it looks like there's a way to physically shorten the focal length on the lens, i.e. that protruding rear barrel, as opposed to the much more compact 1060 MC. I'd like to assume this mod is not only feasible, but almost a no-brainer to turn it into a practical filmmaking tool. Here's the product quote (for the better one):

"Small, light, super sharp, no dual focusing!!

- this is an x1,5 focusthrough anamorphic lens, light and extremely sharp, focusthrough means only the taking lens must be focused, no dual focusing here anymore! The Iscorama 1100 MC x1.5 delivers an above average sharp anamorphic image, ideal for run & gun and super easy to use, thanks to focussability! Smaller, lighter, sharper and easier to use ..... there is no alternative! This anamorphic is screwed directly onto a lens, anamorphic lens can be adapted to after purchase to any thread diameter the seller want -

- he Iscorama 1100 MC is originally a fixed unit together with a fixed 100mm focal length and the focus is fixed to 5m. The unit was dissected, the anamorphic separated and the fixed 5m focus modified. "True" focusthrough of approximately 2m - infinity already from F2, from F2.8-4 approx 1.2m - infinity (depending on lens and focal length, tested with Canon nFD 28mm F2 and Canon nFD 35mm F2) The focussing works thanks to modification very well and much more accurate than with other x1.33 Ffcusthrough anamorphics -"

Okay, so I guess my main questions are, does this sound too good to be true, particularly the focus through at 2m? Is it really just a matter of rear element placement, or am I grossly simplifying the engineering involved? What I've read so far was that the only difference between the 1100 and the 1060 was the focal length, which I took as ultimately translating into the field of vision and/or minimum focal distance, but from the ads, it sounds like they have full Iscorama functionality (lens diameter shortcomings aside) at 1/3 the price. Any thoughts would be welcome, because I'm feeling downright reckless this holiday season and wouldn't want to go down that road if it's a nasty one. Thanks in advance!

Very nice!

Yes, I saw that one (or one like it) sold last week and was curious myself. I assumed it was like the S8/2 version and primarily designed for projecting, but I'd love to hear anything about it.

FYI: B&H (and thus Adorama and Amazon) just dropped their G7's by $300. However, B&H is also tossing in a $50 gift card to boot. Paired with no state tax, we're looking at $498 total. Not sure how you all feel about this camera, but I figure it'll hold me over on the MFT front until I can save up for the new GH5 coming down the pipe. (which may be never, but I'm still a dreamer...)

Crap, I'm feeling for you, Aitor. Hopefully someone here has solved this mystery and can share. I ended up eating the cost of the return shipping (I think about $35), but saved myself even more hours of frustration down the line. And it wasn't until I finally picked up a true Iscorama Iscomorphot 1.5x a few weeks ago that I've been able to let the disappointment with this one go. The one that I have now reeked of cigarette smoke upon unpacking (and could use a little inner cleaning when time permits), but focuses just fine. Anyway, my only theory for the lens you have now is that when it was serviced last (and there were definite signs that it was opened up), it's possible they unknowingly flipped one of the elements upon reassembly. It may not be a great theory, but I can't imagine why the focus would be so off through otherwise clean glass. I would have tried to fix it myself, but didn't want to scratch something and void the return option back then. Also, I probably would have bought another of the same kind (but working, of course) to reference, then sell either one when both were put back together. But that's obviously a bit of a commitment.

One last piece of advice: maybe start a new thread so everyone can see the fresh topic. I think this one only notifies the people who've commented. Best of luck.

Congrats on selling this one!

I agree with Timotheus. I bought one for less than half that a few months ago (mostly plastic parts) from Germany; rebadge of Sankor/Singer 16D or Bolex 16F. Seems like a decent enough starter lens, but $300 is a bit steep, unless it holds some mind-blowing secret...