Iscorama Anamophic Lens Test

Rich Lee said:
heres some footage i shot earlier this year in nyc...i had a 50mm fl lens with a century optics anamorphic adaptor...works ok for wide shots...but really sucks when you throw it on a longer lens as focusing at wide aps are impossible...you have to stop it down so much that you might as well just use a regular lens.

http://www.richlee.com/Tests/anatest2_01.mov

isco is way better...
Click to expand...

I just realized that's just the Century Optics one? That actually looks much better than I expected it would.
 
Last edited:
Rich Lee said:
heres some footage i shot earlier this year in nyc...i had a 50mm fl lens with a century optics anamorphic adaptor...works ok for wide shots...but really sucks when you throw it on a longer lens as focusing at wide aps are impossible...you have to stop it down so much that you might as well just use a regular lens.

http://www.richlee.com/Tests/anatest2_01.mov

isco is way better...
Click to expand...

Would a diopter help for focusing in the same way it helps for the Iscorama?
 
Pirata said:
I just realized that's just the Century Optics one? That actually looks much better than I expected it would.
Click to expand...

the less sharp adapters like the century, optex, and panasonic look ok if you stop down a lot.

A diopter will work the same way on all of them but the panny for instance will focus closer than the isco without a diopter. On the isco a 1x diopter lets you focus between about .5 and 1m only.
 
squig said:
the less sharp adapters like the century, optex, and panasonic look ok if you stop down a lot.

A diopter will work the same way on all of them but the panny for instance will focus closer than the isco without a diopter. On the isco a 1x diopter lets you focus between about .5 and 1m only.
Click to expand...


I would say is is even less !! (maybe this is down to what back lens we are using ?).

A standard Isocrama seems to focus 2m to infinity - and not offer a particularly shallow DOF for it's claimed f/2.8 - but stick a +1 diopter on there and . . . . . welcome to razor thin DOF-land !

Anyone know if you can get close-up lenses less than +1 diopter (like a +0.5 for instance) ?
 
I didn't drop my pants to pull out the measuring stick so it could be a bit more or less.

Yeah the DOF does seem deeper but keep in mind it's 1.5x wider, I might test it against a similar focal length lens and see how the DOF compares

yeah I've been looking but haven't come across a +0.5 it would better than a +1 I reckon

My pentax super multicoated takumar 50mm F1.4 8 blade radioactive glass lens just arrived, looks like a very nice piece of glass even has half stops. I'll shoot something if I have enough adapters for it.
 
Last edited:
I can confirm Lee's observation a good quality 50mm prime is sharper @ f/2.8 than the isco back-end. The isco also appears to be a bit slower than the primes.
 
I'm getting a lot of vignetting with the pentax, can you upload a still (photo) from your f/1.8 nikkor @ f/1.8 so I can compare the 2, the vignetting is more visible on stills. I might have to get the nikon, does the f/1.2 vignette more than the f/1.8 @ f/1.8?
 
I just hit a snag with my isco, the front rotates when you focus which is not a great feature when you're shooting with a polarizer. Looks like I'll have to fork out for a mattebox.
 
squig said:
I just hit a snag with my isco, the front rotates when you focus which is not a great feature when you're shooting with a polarizer. Looks like I'll have to fork out for a mattebox.
Click to expand...

Stick a +1 diopter on and there is little point focusing ! Problem solved :thumbup: When I have the +1 on the front it is much easier just to move forward or backward a little to get pin sharp focus - the actual focus ring is largely ornamental at this point.


Otherwise . . . . set polarity, then grab the polarizer with one hand and the focus ring with the other so when you focus the polariser remains in the same position/angle/orientation.

And hold the camera with your third hand . . . .eh . . . . I see a problem here.
 
I've had a thought strange as that may sound, instead of focusing with the isco try focusing with the prime. Just set the isco to infinity and see how it works, the isco is a bastard to focus with it's mega long throw.
 
squig said:
I've had a thought strange as that may sound, instead of focusing with the isco try focusing with the prime. Just set the isco to infinity and see how it works, the isco is a bastard to focus with it's mega long throw.
Click to expand...

I did just this with my Nikon f/1.2 - it seemed to work - need to experiment more.
 
Maybe 'cause there's the use of a diopter. Try to infinity (focus) please!

Go figure if even AF works?... I'd have to change the entire purchase policy and turn again to Canons. LOL

Well, I wouldn't be the only one. Well thought, indeed. I had already meditated on this but my first lens unit has just arrived but to NJ, USA and I am in Europe.

Can anyone test a lens with auto focus, please?
 
I don't have any AF lenses. I'll try another lens but I expect the result will be the same. Looks like a mattebox is the only option for a polarizer and vari-nd.

That's something they need to fix on any new isco either non-rotating front or non focusing altogether. However I'm wondering whether the fact the isco's are focusable and the other anamorphic adapters are not explains why the isco's are sharper.
 
squig said:
Looks like a mattebox is the only option for a polarizer and vari-nd.
Click to expand...
cokin_system.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top