Isco Gottingen Anamorphot 1.5x (not to be confused with Iscormorphot 1.5x)

[QuickHitRecord]

I have not been able to find much written about this lens, and I happen to have acquired the very same one in the photographs. It has unique, acrylic painting-like bokeh but I'm trying to figure out if there is a trick to focusing it properly -- it is not as simple as I thought it would be. Could this lens possibly have a fixed focus distance? Does anyone here have one like it? It would be great to compare notes.

[richg101]

is this not the same (or similar design) as the moller 19/8/1.5 ?  Remember seeing one come up and missed the auction.  apparently a very short minimum focus

[QuickHitRecord]

From doing a little research, I believe that it's similar.  Like the Moller 8mm 1.5x (or at least one version of it), the Isco Gottingen Anamorphot that I have appears to be fixed focus. I had high hopes for being able to rack focus with it, but I haven't been able to make it work yet. I have to stop down to about f5.6 and be at least 2 meters away from the subject to get a sharp focus. With a +1 diopter, I am able to get a sharp image wide open at 1 meter (but only at 1 meter) when the taking lens is focused to infinity.

I have never actually seen a photo of the Moller 8mm 1.5x. Is this a lens that you have?

[tony wilson]

it is a fixed focus design for 8mm cine film.
it came with various close up lens of different magification
remember standard 8 format is tiny film format so loads of depth of field.

it is not as good as iscomorphot because of fixed focus.
you can use it with digital but have to stop down.
you need a +0.5....+1 and maybe +2 close up..
you will then use your camera lens to focus.
over 12 feet should be just with camera lens.
for focus closer try different close up lens in front of anamorphic and adjust camera lens.

baby anamorphic lens bits






all these tiny anamorphics suffer a little because of tiny back optic..so choice of spherical taking lens needs experimentation otherwise you will get bad smear and double imaging.
even the nicer iscomorphot 8 focus lens smears a lot and is a little soft

[QuickHitRecord]

Thanks for sharing, Tony. You are right, the Isco did come with two of its own diopters (20cm and 40cm). They are true macro filters -- neat, but not very useful for the kind of shooting that I do. I can get a sharp image with the use of regular diopters at certain distances, but I haven't been able to rack focus successfully yet because it's either in focus on a set point (and only on that set point), or not in focus at all. Hence the fixed focus, I suppose.

Do you have any recommendations for a taking lens to use with the Isco?

Thanks for posting the pictures. I also have a Baby Hypergonar (in my signature as 'Berthiot Cinemascope'), but I am still waiting on the hardware that I've ordered to attach it to the lens. How do you like using that one so far?

[tony wilson]

the baby hypergonar as i describe on flikr shows what a great man chretien the designer was.
it is superior to the  isco 1.5x

it has to do with the focal length of each optic i am sure they are different in hypergonar and in small isco.
also glass materials will be different.
isco probably used 2 of the same glass types only in this model.

baby hypergonar uses different materials that give a more usable result.
you could call it an air spaced achromat.
as stated they will both suffer because of tiny back element.

the isco has nothing to do with moller.
remember these are all companies all using patent systems.
different glass materials are being used in every lens to avoid patent conflict

when you get to the 1970s it becomes much more of a free for all companies are copying and patent cases do not show up much.
apart from whem kowa tried to make a focus lens like the iscorama


my close up doublet does a great job on all of these wacky lens the low magnification power is the key.
if i was selling an anamorphic with the doublet i would keep the doublet because it is so good and flexible.
using a single element close up you are adding more chromatic aberration in.
sometimes in footage i see what appears out of focus is terrible ca and coma.
dp's  in hollywood in the 20s,30s and 40s understood the difference between depth of field,point of focus and bokeh.

when early bausch and lomb cinemascope arrived they where horrified at the mess and poor quality.
chretien sold the concept and the americans believed they could do a better job they did not.
chretiens original lens for the mitchell camera was similar in size to the iscorama 36.
but a square box design.
hollywood made them much bigger.
chretien could control the quality with small optics so less error.

hollywood wanted big

chromatic aberation is optical error and nasty looking.
bokeh is romance and natural.
i have a couple of old hollywood optics one from the 50s and one from the 60s proper camera lens not projection.
and to my horror when i got them one needs f8 the other f8.5 that is why hollywood loved big lights in the 50s

[QuickHitRecord]

Thanks for a very informative reply.

chretiens original lens for the mitchell camera was similar in size to the iscorama 36.

but a square box design.

hollywood made them much bigger.

I am curious about this lens. Do you have a picture?  I am interested in the evolution of these lenses (I also have the HiFi-2).

[QuickHitRecord]

I grabbed a handful of shots this past weekend with the Isco Gottingen Anamorphot on a Canon FD f1.8 to get an idea of how this lens does when the taking lens is stopped down to F11 and F22:

In true non-scientific form, I could not resist color-correcting.

The edges are a bit soft and there is some vignetting (fixable by putting attaching it to my Helios 44 58mm f2). I don't dislike the look, though I much prefer the ultra-distorted bokeh when the camera is at f2.8 (or less). The Isco is mounted to the taking lens by a single step ring, which is very convenient, but I am curious to see if I can find a way to reduce the flange distance and in doing so, perhaps I will be able to achieve a more predictable result.

[QuickHitRecord]

After some more experimentation, I have reached the conclusion that this lens is actually capable of producing a nice cinematic image after all. Here's clip that I shot with a Canon FD 50mm f1.8 and a +1 diopter:

[tony wilson]

bravo : )
best clip i have seen with that little thing.
really nice
imagine some of these lickle things probably slipped down the backs of chairs or thrown in the bin.

[QuickHitRecord]

Thanks, Tony!

[septemberdawn]

Here is another good comparison of two baby anamorphots.
https://vimeo.com/41352674

[njthomps65]

I'm quite new to the anamorphic world (not an owner yet). Is it accurate to say that the 1.5x Anamorphot and 1.5 Iscomorphot are manufactured by the same company? Isco Gottingen? I'm a little confused here. Have seen great footage from each lens. But I understand that the Baby Isco (Iscomorphot) allows for rack focusing.

[QuickHitRecord]

Isco is the company, and Gottingen is the city in Germany where the company is based. Some of their big 2x projection anamorphics also carry the 'Gottingen' inscription. I am not sure if it means anything beyond that.

 

This is a tricky lens to use. I really fought with it to shoot the little chess vignette above. The Iscomorphot is much simpler to use, but be prepared to stop down quite a bit to minimize the veiling flare.

[Mentis]

Hello Nick,

 

this is my first hour here at eoshd. A link brought me to your discussion about the Isco Gottingen back in 2012. I also own that lens for a few hours now (just bought via ebay, waiting to arrive). Your demo looks really great so i thought about asking you for some tips and the thread sizes in the front and back. As i understand it is both 30.5mm and you only put an step down ring between the anamorphic and the taking lens, right? Will that result in the best focus? I also own a Rectimascope 80/2, but that thing is heavy. The smaller such a lens is, the more trouble it makes regarding dof, focus and aberation, so i also want to trie out a GoPro, because of the small sensor size. Do you still own the lens, or is it too complicated with an apsc or full frame?

 

Best Regards and Thx

 

Bjoern

[christrad]

On 07/06/2012 at 5:04 PM, tony wilson said:

the baby hypergonar as i describe on flikr shows what a great man chretien the designer was.
it is superior to the  isco 1.5x

it has to do with the focal length of each optic i am sure they are different in hypergonar and in small isco.
also glass materials will be different.
isco probably used 2 of the same glass types only in this model.

baby hypergonar uses different materials that give a more usable result.
you could call it an air spaced achromat.
as stated they will both suffer because of tiny back element.

the isco has nothing to do with moller.
remember these are all companies all using patent systems.
different glass materials are being used in every lens to avoid patent conflict

when you get to the 1970s it becomes much more of a free for all companies are copying and patent cases do not show up much.
apart from whem kowa tried to make a focus lens like the iscorama


my close up doublet does a great job on all of these wacky lens the low magnification power is the key.
if i was selling an anamorphic with the doublet i would keep the doublet because it is so good and flexible.
using a single element close up you are adding more chromatic aberration in.
sometimes in footage i see what appears out of focus is terrible ca and coma.
dp's  in hollywood in the 20s,30s and 40s understood the difference between depth of field,point of focus and bokeh.

when early bausch and lomb cinemascope arrived they where horrified at the mess and poor quality.
chretien sold the concept and the americans believed they could do a better job they did not.
chretiens original lens for the mitchell camera was similar in size to the iscorama 36.
but a square box design.
hollywood made them much bigger.
chretien could control the quality with small optics so less error.

hollywood wanted big

chromatic aberation is optical error and nasty looking.
bokeh is romance and natural.
i have a couple of old hollywood optics one from the 50s and one from the 60s proper camera lens not projection.
and to my horror when i got them one needs f8 the other f8.5 that is why hollywood loved big lights in the 50s

So good to have you back Tony with all your knowldge!

BTW, for those who are new here, Tony is "Redstan" who do the best clamp and also sell awsome diopters for anamorphic.

But mainly he is THE anamorphic encyclodia man! (and a great poet too lol)

[tweak]

^That post is from 2012... Tony's back to the future man. He's probably buried in a pile of clamps that got "lost in the mail" .

[Tito Ferradans]

 

On 6/11/2016 at 5:49 AM, Mentis said:

Hello Nick,

 

this is my first hour here at eoshd. A link brought me to your discussion about the Isco Gottingen back in 2012. I also own that lens for a few hours now (just bought via ebay, waiting to arrive). Your demo looks really great so i thought about asking you for some tips and the thread sizes in the front and back. As i understand it is both 30.5mm and you only put an step down ring between the anamorphic and the taking lens, right? Will that result in the best focus? I also own a Rectimascope 80/2, but that thing is heavy. The smaller such a lens is, the more trouble it makes regarding dof, focus and aberation, so i also want to trie out a GoPro, because of the small sensor size. Do you still own the lens, or is it too complicated with an apsc or full frame?

 

Best Regards and Thx

 

Bjoern

I just posted a review about this same lens, if you wanna check it out!
http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8997