Isco 16:9 Video Attachment I - Questions and Answers.

[Tito Ferradans]

Long time no see, guys!

 

I've moved to Vancouver six months ago to attend a VFX intensive course (which isn't over, by the way), and got the lens in a stroke of luck for a decent price, about the same time I moved here.

 

Problem was I had sold my Isco 54 a while back and had no clamp or step rings to make it work. Believe me or not, took me six months to dig some time and go out hunting a decent priced step ring (a guy tried to sell me a 49-67mm for 36 bucks!). The relevant part is I'm able to run tests with it on the following weeks, I believe.

 

I also got a regular Isco 54, and a 36 VD for comparisons. At a first glance, the 16:9 Attachment felt sharper than the 54 and, when shooting 16:9, you go straight to 2.4:1 cinemascope which is a more familiar aspect ratio for a lot of people.

 

More on the lens body, it weights about the same as the 54, but has nice rubber rings for better grip and focus feels more natural than the 54 too (for me, the 54 focus ring is too light, almost sliding out of control). The size is exactly the same as the 54, rear thread is 72mm and front is 95mm. Minimum focus is a tad closer than the default 2m, even though the closest focus mark on the ring says 2m.

 

I'm using a 5D3 for testing, and the lens is free of any vignetting when paired with an Helios 44 (58mm), which unfortunately doesn't happen for the Mir 1B (37mm), that shows a lot of vignette (I wouldn't even call it vignetting, actually, because it takes almost half the frame).

 

It's not a common lens and there isn't much (almost none) information about it on the web, so lets fill this gap. Are there any specific tests or questions you guys want me to try and answer?

[Cosimo murgolo]

welcome back Tito, we missed you! Nice to hear you again.

[enny]

welcome back Tito

[dahlfors]

Welcome back Tito!

 

Never heard of this anamorphic. You call it "16:9" - is this something that was made for shooting 16:9 on 4:3 cameras, meaning it's a 1.3x adapter?

 

Sounds like a real rarity!

[Tito Ferradans]

Thanks guys, it's good to be back! hahaha :)

 

Found this video, by Kostas

 

He sold this lens about 18 months for something near EUR 6k, which, IMO, is a total ripoff, like those $6k Iscoramas.

 

This lens is originally a projector lens. It's a 16:9 video attachment for watching widescreen movies on 4:3 systems, almost like you said, dahlfors. It is a 1.3x adapter.

 

The good version (the one I have here) is the Mark I. Later ISCO released a Mk II and III, which are waaay bigger and heavier (bulkier, I'd say), so they're no good for most of us, even though every once in a while they pop on ebay for huge amounts of money. (here's a look at Mk III, or >Mk II here on EOSHD)

[au8ust]

I owned a similar version with a slightly different squeezing ratio at 1.42x. Felt disappointed so I sold it after awhile.

 

IMO, The Iscorama 36 and the Cingeon are the best so far.

[Cineman1]

I also have the 1.5x version (1.42 in the real world) and it's razor sharp with silky smooth focusing.  It has the same configuration as the 54...just newer.  It's an amazing piece of glass!  

[ken]

IMO, all the anamorphic lenses have correct ratio at relative infinity, such as more than 5~10m, depends of FL.  I used 1.33x, 1.5x and tons of 2x lenses.  If the anamorphic lens mounted is not close the taking lens, it will show less ratio.  The best mount size is not equal size of the taking lens filter thread and rear mount of the anamorphic lens.  In equal size, you never get closest of two lenses.  The best is the anamorphic lens rear mount is 1 or 2 step down size in my experience.   Step up mount will not get closer too.  My mounting way always makes the air gap between two lenses' glasses within 1mm or less, almost touch each other.

[Cineman1]

IMO, all the anamorphic lenses have correct ratio at relative infinity, such as more than 5~10m, depends of FL.  I used 1.33x, 1.5x and tons of 2x lenses.  If the anamorphic lens mounted is not close the taking lens, it will show less ratio.  The best mount size is not equal size of the taking lens filter thread and rear mount of the anamorphic lens.  In equal size, you never get closest of two lenses.  The best is the anamorphic lens rear mount is 1 or 2 step down size in my experience.   Step up mount will not get closer too.  My mounting way always makes the air gap between two lenses' glasses within 1mm or less, almost touch each other.

Have you ever accidentally scratched the front element of your lens by butting the rear anamorphic element up to it?  Or do you have a way of being certain the two won't touch?  Fine tuning the distance always makes me nervous.  

[ken]

Have you ever accidentally scratched the front element of your lens by butting the rear anamorphic element up to it?  Or do you have a way of being certain the two won't touch?  Fine tuning the distance always makes me nervous.

Usually, I use adhesive tape to cover the anamorphic lens rear edge first.  So it is possible to let it touch the front glass of the taking lens without scratching the front glass.  The glasses between two lenses would not touch, we can estimate that.