I know that there is a big size difference between the ISCO II and ISCO III lenses. ISCO III can therefor accommodate shorter throw or a projector with a bigger lens/light beam.
My question is whether the ISCO II and ISCO III have equal optical qualities (purity of the glass, CA, etc.)? Will you get the same picture quality with both lenses as long as you use a long throw setup (factor of 2.0+)?
Have any of you tested both lenses in the same setup?
My question is whether the ISCO II and ISCO III have equal optical qualities (purity of the glass, CA, etc.)? Will you get the same picture quality with both lenses as long as you use a long throw setup (factor of 2.0+)?
Have any of you tested both lenses in the same setup?
, but seriously it was not an easy decision mentally or financially to get the ISCOIII trust me my approach was one of taking the guess work out of an area that im not very familiar with, let the better components do all the heavy lifting, the last thing I need to do is start wondering if there is a weak link in the chain or if im just doing something wrong and my approach will just leave me and my implementation of the components as the culprit not the necessarily the components themselves but I do agree its a very expensive approach and one that I hope will pay dividends for years to come, best of luck with your decision it can be a real gut twister I know, its taken me almost a year to come to this decision, maybe look at the UH380 panamorph?
. The Isco III is substantially better than the II. The II is not as well corrected for astigmatism (ie image not as sharp). At 1080p this will be fairly noticeable at the pixel level. And yes, the II is not a complete expansion lens as Mark says. Remember that if you buy a really good (and reasonably large) lens you probably won't need to buy another one as you upgrade your system.
