Arriscope lenses

[zerocool22]

Hello,

Has anybody here used a arriscope anamorphic lens? Do you think they are better then a iscorama imagewise? I am having problems finding any usefull information on them. Not sure what a good price would be for a single arriscope anamorphic lens. But if a iscorama beats it, I might hunt for a iscorama instead.

 

Thanks 

[tony wilson]

arriscope are movie lens

iscorama is not

arriflex  and zeiss where pretty crap at anamorphics  for years zeiss  used moller for making anamorphic projection optics

 arrii used a famous super talented designer from denmark jan jacobson for ultrascope system using fast zeiss optics ultrascope where designed as  movie optics

later arri used a couple of folks from zeiss and isco for the arriscope

arri is a massive rental house and maker of millions of metal  parts plus thousands of cameras  they had to work faster than say leica or zeiss.

a movie might be starting in 6 months 10 months sometimes 3 months

so they had to cut corners because of  time issues

isco understand bent glass many issues where engineering related

but like the todays crummy iomo systems modern rebuilds can transform everything

the arri isco  glass is  designed movie glass vintage used on many cinema releases

iscorama maybe amazing and unmatched even today in the sub 10 thousand dollar realm but is was never designed as a  proper movie lens.

it was used on movies like the battle of britain for crash cams and aerial work but kowa 8z was used on crash cameras on many movies in the 1980s even movies like rambo  where he takes on the russians. better blowing up a kowa than a panavision,jdc or technovision 40 thousand dollar optic.

 

iscorama was not used or improved for movie  productions because the movie industry is a tight nit thing probably isco did not think to bribe the correct rabbi in hollyweird at this stage panavision dominated

arriscope ultascope have expensive 1.4 or 1.7 movie optics inside which are worth money alone.

you could use a proskar on a movie today it would not make it a movie lens.

 iscorama is such an abused term now every turd is iscorama

 

vintage anamorphics suffer from imperfect engineering assemblies and even more so, bad strip down and reassembly over the years

arri isco and zeiss the weak link will be arri engineering  instead of leaving that to moller or isco arri built  assembled themselves.

arri camera engineering is superb but you cannot rush  without losing something

as i said arri had very little experience in anamorphot area even though they made test  lens with zeiss isco in the 1950s  always sub contract

arriscope is rare ish as is ultrascope

isco getting a little with all the hipsters dropping them on the floor

 

some of the arriscope ended up in india then faded away rarely rebuilt  the glass is good that is what matters.

a man wanting an easy life will look for an iscorama or the cheaper options

a man with spunk will grab some movie arri optics

 

the new zeiss anamorphics are probably the bigeest leap forward in design since chretien as close to state of the art as it gets  today

vantage hawk are hiring out sets of fake vintage optics which is the opposite of what zeiss is doing hawk are building in the error from the past and charging serious big bucks for a rental

 

 

 

zeiss

arriscope is worth a lot  more than iscorama

i would think a little finger for iscorama

a kidney for the arri

 

 

[zerocool22]

THANKS,

 

So you would recommend me to buy the arriscope instead of an iscorama then. A 50mm arriscope at 5000€ would that be a good deal? (Its just so hard to find any reviews/pricings on those lenses). And before dropping that amount of cash, it would be good to know if it is worth it, and I can still resell it in some years without losing too much money on them.

[tony wilson]

if you have to ask the question you should

get a kowa 8z or an iscorama 

 

movie optics where mede in sets the historical and filmaking value is in the set

complex assemblies need old men to repair or improve just because google is shit with a lack of information  means nothing.

just means some hipster blogger has played with some old beat up lens and he says that it was not good.

rushed past engineering bad past repair or patch up can be sorted today

jan jacobson did not mess about if he was around today he would be working with christopher nolan

the later arriscope used similar designs to the earlier ultrascope but with more help from zeiss and isco

 

without testing the optic who knows what it is worth  is it pl,bncr arri bayonet some russian mount does the optic have chips rainbow compression

 

the focus helicoid  may be good now for gentle  landscape work but not for aggresive  movie use   but will never be great without a big expensive rebuild

that is why the rental companies buy them up cos they can throw big money  at a  modern rebuild.

if these things are turds why have vantage hawk spent a million dollars reverse engineering back in all the bloody past optical error

the past stuff is good cos those old farts cared and did not cut costs it cost whatever it cost  they tried to out do each other  they where proud

today it is all idea theft and trading on the past and undercutting

 

if the optic is local test an iscorama test a kowa then go and test the 3.5 kg heavy beast arri arm flex

 

[HockeyFan12]

I would try out the Arriscope before buying. I think optically it shares a basic design with the Iscoramas but it lacks a lot of the "look" people want with anamorphic lenses. It's low distortion, low flare, etc. Since these lenses are about look, not performance, I would DEFINITELY try before buying.