Is the Iscorama worth it? Dispelling the myth... or "Let's Shoot it out!"

fates

fates

Active member
Ok so here is the idea. For those of us cowboys lucky enough of what has become the 'sweet precious' Isco, I propose a little test of is it really worth it?


Rest easy out there. The Isco is much like the ring, Smeagol. It is powerful. But at a price. So let's explore. I'll start with a real crappy video after 2 hours of ownership:
http://vimeo.com/6662854
(i thought we could embed vimeo here? oh well, you can watch it larger at http://nortega.com/?p=400 if you don't feel like downloading the full res version)

So to play along, post in a video of some Iscorama footage then a non-Isco wide lens (20-28mm) cropped to match. This way we can study the bokeh, flares, focusing ability, sharpness, etc. Lay out the pro's and con's.

So can you spot the 18 dollar Nikon 28/2.8? I'm sure you can, but really, is it worth it?

devils_advocate.jpg
 
Last edited:
As everything in life, an outcome depends on a lot of distinct variables.

f/1.8 @ FF matches something somewhere under the most rental's fastest speed available nowadays T1.3 (when not T1.9) @ S35...

With the DSLR advent, we've seen a lot of people using as fast glass as they can in as fast f stop as they set up (but) @ FF...
Is it really the desirable and an expectable setting in order to the sharpest picture...in casual low light, really?


Here's another example (not exactly a lot of flares too, but also no casual cinematography ;-) where the Iscorama shines:

http://www.vimeo.com/6439644
 
D: If you're signed up for vimeo, you can download the 1920x1080 quicktime. Link is on the lower portion of the vimeo page.

E: It was just a "casual" shoot, sure I mean, hell... I got the lens and then shot two hours later at 3am... not like there was anyway to go but "casual" :grin:. The Iscorama matches up well with the other lenses in that example. Bokeh and OOF areas are unique on the Isco so it can be easy to spot.

This thread's designed to open a visual dialogue about the current madcap desire for these adapters. They're costing more than squaremount LOMO's now. It's nuts. So yes the bokeh is unique, and yes, there is a planar style to the rendering, and more.... but is it worth it?

The biggest issue to me, is the lack of ability to pull focus with the Iscorama. There is a noticeable scew to the anamorphic element when torque is not evenly applied. The long throw and deep DOF make it very tricky to operate well. Typically I think everyone is moving the camera to achieve focus... right now.

Another issue is the +1 diopter will give you a shallow DOF, but we need to find a +0.5 diopter in 72mm (or larger) to have a varied range with the adapter. Has anyone sourced one yet?
 
I will post a comparison between the Isco 36 and Kowa 8Z at some stage.

And I agree about the +0.5 diopter. The only one I came across was a B&W 49mm.
 
Even if you have to pay like US$ 800 or more, which seems to be the price if you can find one at all, this is the best bargain. You will not get anything close to it without spending a fortune, any idea what a real anamorphic cine lens costs? Better don't check because you just might faint.
 
So maybe you can send me a link or something if you don't wanna explain, but... well can you explain all this to me? Not all of it. I know that it creates a wider aspect ratio by squeezing the image horizontally and then you stretch it back out in post right? And that it creates special lens flares that we like and no one else notices or cares about...

So anything else? As far as the image I mean? How would you even try to spot it in the clips that have no flare? I looked through (the standard def vimeo one) and I honestly can't tell at all for clips without flares. What other aspects of the images from these lenses is desirable?

Thanks.
 
Close focus is an area where anamorphic lenses are challenged. Testing lenses with facial close ups is important since distortion is a factor. The Singer/Kowa/Sankors are 2x, and the isco is 1.5x, as are some lenses that were designed to make 4:3 into 16:9. like the panasonic. Viewing and composing issues are important but dont show up on screen as a comparison - just as a pain in the arse on set.

I'm curious why some say you cant follow focus / rack focus with the Isco. Why not? With the sankor type you have to focus both lenses at say, 8 feet. But the isco works with the other lens set on infinity. What gives?

The laundrymat footage is nice. I haven't looked at it enough to make an educated guess which is which but it is good to note that it all cuts together well enough. Dd you do any color correction? Is some of it spherical and cropped or is it all anamorphic? I guess I better look at it in full res.
 
Last edited:
Jean Dodge said:
Close focus is an area where anamorphic lenses are challenged. Testing lenses with facial close ups is important since distortion is a factor. The Singer/Kowa/Sankors are 2x, and the isco is 1.5x, as are some lenses that were designed to make 4:3 into 16:9. like the panasonic....
Click to expand...

Make that 1.33x, not 1.5x.
Any lens/anamorphic adapter combination where you have to focus both of them makes follow focus useless/pointless.
 
My mistake yeah. Say Fates... what are those lenses you posted the pics of? Blurry, cant see the markings.... trade secret? The one on the left looks like a 35mm projector lens. I see the Isco on the right... and I'm guessing thats a panasonic in the back.... ?

If you are planning on shooting some tests, it would be cool if you could determine close focus without diopter, and also compare performance at various f stops, and of course see which if any of them are acceptably sharp in comparison to spherical lenses that might be cropped to the same field of view... just my 2 cents.

Thanks for posting what you have done so far.... fascinating stuff.
 
Yeah, I'm trying not to reveal everything yet. So the pic is purposely focused on the Isco... love the 5D's limited focus ability :grin:

I sent back the Kowa x2 with the 54mm rear thread and deleted most of the footage I show with it... it was un-focusable. I think the unit had become misaligned. So that won't be part of the testing. And is not pictured. As for the others, I've been trying to come up with a cheap solution over the isco...

As you know squig, I was dismissive of the panny too, but I'm rethinking that now. You can throw focus with it at least.

I'll try and be a little more scientific in the next shoot, but no promises, I don't have a lot of time these days, and should be working on the two films I'm on, more than this... but this is interesting to me right now. Plus as Emanuel pointed out, I'm more of a casual shooter so the quick tests I can do. fstop breakdowns and the like... idunno. That said, I'll try.
 
My panny is pretty trashed so it's possible that others are sharper, I have to stop down to at least f/8 to get an ok picture.
 
oh wow f8??!!? I didn't know that... No, by f4-f5 it's pretty good on my end. How many rings do you have to adapt it? How much distance?
 
fates said:
l
So can you spot the 18 dollar Nikon 28/2.8[/B]? I'm sure you can, but really, is it worth it?
Click to expand...

Yeah, one can easily spot it. And I think the Isco is absolute worth it - totally different look and feel in my book.

Frank
 
fates said:
oh wow f8??!!? I didn't know that... No, by f4-f5 it's pretty good on my end. How many rings do you have to adapt it? How much distance?
Click to expand...

I think I had just a 52-72mm ring on it but like I said it's pretty beaten up.
 
Just got a Kowa 16-D for $30, hopefully the 7D 1.6 crop will avoid vignette issues (43mm rear thread) and I can join these tests too. Question for focus though.. Perhaps a DIY follow focus for the double lens? Zip Ties marked for infinity focus on each lens? Connect via some sort of wire or thin metal pipe? Would this work if you could offset the two focal ranges properly?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top