hilltime
Well-known
Have been looking for this lens for my Icarex 35S TM and am toatlly astonished by the prices being asked. I remeber many years ago seeing these lens going for $100 or so, as I beleive no one had ever really invested in the Icarex line up from Zeiss Ikon. Today, most I have seen range anywhere from $500-1200 if you can believe that?
My question is, has anyone ever had one and shot images with it? The concave front element is an interesting design and I believe it is a 7 element lens. Just wondering if it might resemble the 50 /F2 Ultron for the Prominent, as I have an adapter and have shot both the Ultron and Nokton on my Contax IIA.
What is making this lens so valuable? Is it the rarity of the quantities manufactured or is it truly that great a lens? My standard is the 50/ F2 Planar for Contarex, which I'll have to say is potentially the finest lens ever manufactured.
Anyone have their favorite 50's of all time they'd like to share?
My question is, has anyone ever had one and shot images with it? The concave front element is an interesting design and I believe it is a 7 element lens. Just wondering if it might resemble the 50 /F2 Ultron for the Prominent, as I have an adapter and have shot both the Ultron and Nokton on my Contax IIA.
What is making this lens so valuable? Is it the rarity of the quantities manufactured or is it truly that great a lens? My standard is the 50/ F2 Planar for Contarex, which I'll have to say is potentially the finest lens ever manufactured.
Anyone have their favorite 50's of all time they'd like to share?
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
It’s the M42/TM versions that are so expensive, and they have been that way for at least the last 5 years or so, which is when I began looking for one. People using them with M42 adapters on digital. The version with the more common Zeiss Icarex bayonet mount (BM) are less expensive. Used to be cheaper to just buy the BM mount version of an Icarex with that lens, than the M42 version by itself, but now even the BM mount versions are expensive.
The version of the lens on the Icarex was the first computer design aided lens done by Zeiss R and D, and had extremely high resolution compared to its competitors at the time, including the 50 Summicron, with something like 160 lpm at /4 in addition to a pleasing, to some, rendering. The later 50/1.8 color ultron was supposedly less good, as definitely was the version Marketed later as the Rollei Planar, all of which had the concave front element, but are different lenses. Even in the good ones there is supposedly significant sample variation due to manufacturing tolerance difficulties.
There are photos from the lens to be found on flickr, and elsewhere, and the rendering is “unique” in its own way. I don’t think it looks much like, or has much in common with the look of the 50/2 Ultron, which is much more normal.
I never bought one, which make it about the only “unusual” 50, I never owned, so no personal experience. For $300 for TM version I would, but not $600, though I do see the appeal.
I am with you on the Contarex 50/2, though I think the 55/1.4 is an even nicer expression of the same kind of look. These two are probably the main reason I never sprung for the Zeiss Icarex Ultron.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Stunning lens, I had an M42 one, heavy though and I did not like the unclicked aperture ring.
Sold it recently for £350. Took a fortnight to get any interest. Ones on Ebay are to be blunt saleproof at current pricing.
Sold it recently for £350. Took a fortnight to get any interest. Ones on Ebay are to be blunt saleproof at current pricing.
notice the Ultron was a Voigtlander trademark -
taken over after Zeiss bought Voigtlander
taken over after Zeiss bought Voigtlander
hilltime
Well-known
Thank you Larry, for the insight about this lens. I never really had an interest in the Icarex system as I loved (if you can believe) the Contarex system from Zeiss Ikon. Started with a Bullseye and 50/2 Planar which I sold after acquiring a 55/1.4, figuring who would need a F2 lens, with this beauty. I found I really did miss the F2, primarily for it's close focusing, as I hardly ever used the 1.4 speed anyway. Now have both again and realistically, beyond F5.6 it is very difficult to tell any difference, although I'd still have to give F/2 a nod for complete sharpness.
I just couldn't imagine that Carl Zeiss could or would make a sharper lens than their flagship lenses for Contarex but I guess in their last hurrah, they felt they needed to do something. Unfortunately for them, the end of the road was near and I'm sure unless you have a keen interest in collectible cameras and lenses, most have never heard or seen an Icarex and their limited array of lenses. My only true lens I have at the moment is the 35/3.4 Skoparex TM, which I'm familiar with, as I do have a some Voigtlander Bessamatics. No doubt in reality, Voigtlander had a hand in all of these, even though the Carl Zeiss name is on the lens.... Ultron, Skoparex, Dynarex,etc.
I just couldn't imagine that Carl Zeiss could or would make a sharper lens than their flagship lenses for Contarex but I guess in their last hurrah, they felt they needed to do something. Unfortunately for them, the end of the road was near and I'm sure unless you have a keen interest in collectible cameras and lenses, most have never heard or seen an Icarex and their limited array of lenses. My only true lens I have at the moment is the 35/3.4 Skoparex TM, which I'm familiar with, as I do have a some Voigtlander Bessamatics. No doubt in reality, Voigtlander had a hand in all of these, even though the Carl Zeiss name is on the lens.... Ultron, Skoparex, Dynarex,etc.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have an Ultron 50/2 in QMB mount for the Voigtlaender Prominent. I use an Amedeo adapter to use this lens with Leica cameras.
See how smooth the water looks like:
See how smooth the water looks like:
markjwyatt
Well-known
Hi hilltime. I have had my CZ 50mm f1.8 lens for lets say a few decades. I bought my dad's Zeiss icarex 35S TM used. when I was pretty young. The shutter has gone out, but I bought another used body, plus use the lens on Praktica, Spotmatic, Fujica 605n, and other bodies (as well as adapt it to my Fujifilm XT-2). I am starting to use the lens again. I have some recent shots in the lab, but here are some shots taken with the Ultron- old and new if you want to take a look. There are a couple pictures of the camera and accessories mixed in.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=157638541@N07&view_all=1&text=Ultron
https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=157638541@N07&view_all=1&text=Ultron
hilltime
Well-known
Mark,
Wow, quite a history of photos. Were all of these done with the Ultron?
Regards,
Wow, quite a history of photos. Were all of these done with the Ultron?
Regards,
hilltime
Well-known
Raid,
A beautiful image as I have used the 50/2 Ultron and the 50/1.5 Nokton with adapters mostly even though I have a beautiful Prominent that takes a bit of fussiness to operate.
It was the only reason I ever did get these lenses though. Smooth and creamy.....
markjwyatt
Well-known
Yes, all but the two or three of the camera/lens itself (and the lens cap). Those just came through on the Flickr search.
Notice the time gap of ~ 30 years...
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Interesting that the Icarex lenses (thread mount anyway) are so expensive, though being able to use them with an adaptor for digital would explain it partially. I'm hoping to find some of the bayonet mount lenses for not too much; all I have is the 50 Tessar.
raid
Dad Photographer
The Nokton is of course also a great lens. The same adapter can be used with both lenses.
It seems there exists also a COLOR-Ultron 50/1.8.
markjwyatt
Well-known
The color Ultron does not have the concave front element.
raid
Dad Photographer
Is the concave front element needed for extra sharp images? The Canon FD 35/2 with the concave front element is claimed to be very special.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Not having any background in optical science I would struggle even to suggest what it does. I have read that it smooths bokeh and my experience is of a stunning lens for its time, designed by Voigtlander's chief designer, using computer technology for the first time. It also has the most spectacular colour rendering.
But but but - it's a transitional lens, the design then continues into the Rollei Zeiss Planar, and then the CY 50mm f1.4 etc. At the price I sold it for I can have the 1.7 Planar and £300 in the bank, and a lighter kit bag. I struggle to find photos with it in my catalogue because I used the 8 element takumar 50 far more - it was just more compact and lighter.
But but but - it's a transitional lens, the design then continues into the Rollei Zeiss Planar, and then the CY 50mm f1.4 etc. At the price I sold it for I can have the 1.7 Planar and £300 in the bank, and a lighter kit bag. I struggle to find photos with it in my catalogue because I used the 8 element takumar 50 far more - it was just more compact and lighter.
Wouter2
Established
The Ultron is a very complicated lens. I lost one trying to clean it ...
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Found one of my photos taken with it. An exquisite lens, well worth buying!
