Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Q on Ultron lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 2:39 pm    Post subject: Q on Ultron lenses Reply with quote

Hi,
apart from the famous Carl Zeiss Ultron 50mm f1.8 there are other two lenses from Voigtländer lenses with the same name. Is this a coincidence? Or does that define a specific lens design?

Thank you.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it is similar to the name "Planar". Wink


PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The peculiarity of the CZ Ultron is that it has a concave front element. But not sure about the Voigtländer lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wolan wrote:
The peculiarity of the CZ Ultron is that it has a concave front element. But not sure about the Voigtländer lenses.


Maybe change subject to: "Q on Voigtländer Ultron lenses", ask do they have concave front element? Or ask for formula diagram...


PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The original Ultron was developed by A.W. Tronnier 1950 for Voigtlaender and was a 50mm/F2 lens with 6l/5g for the Voigtlaender Prominent RF camera. It was basically a modified Xenon lens which has been also designed by Tronnier for Schneider/Kreuznach already in 1937. As Zeiss took over Voigtlaender in the late 1950's they also made some of these lenses under Zeiss branding. The original design didn't have the concave front element. However, the lens design with the concave front element came also from Tronnier. It was introduced 1968 and built by Voigtlaender/Braunschweig but labelled as Carl Zeiss Ultron 50mm/F1.8 (7l/6g) for the Zeiss-Icon/Voigtlaender Icarex camera.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 7:38 pm    Post subject: icarex Reply with quote

Quite some time bfore the Zeiss Ikon camera company debacle, the foundation had bought the Vogtländer shares. Later they merged their sales efforts and finally merged the production companies with Voigtländer to become ZIV.

The Icarex was made by Voigtländer from july 1968 to december 1971 (first in bayonet mount, a bit over a year later in thread mount.) As a more expensive option than the Tessar, it came equipped with the concave front element, 7 lens element Ultron 50mm. Bayonet fit filter, sunshade. and lid.

Mr. Ottos thorough book lists all Zeiss camera versions. Mr. Thieles excellent lists of Zeiss prototypes will enlighten you on when the Ultrons were designed.

The later 50mms reverted to a more symmetrical "double Gauss" Planar type convex front element.

Names sell things, diagrams do not. Hence the ghost of this excellent 50mm lives on.

p.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Probably not really relevant to the original enquiry but the Leica screw mount Cosina-Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron lens also has a concave front element. Plus an aspheric surface as well.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
The original Ultron was developed by A.W. Tronnier 1950 for Voigtlaender and was a 50mm/F2 lens with 6l/5g for the Voigtlaender Prominent RF camera. It was basically a modified Xenon lens which has been also designed by Tronnier for Schneider/Kreuznach already in 1937. As Zeiss took over Voigtlaender in the late 1950's they also made some of these lenses under Zeiss branding. The original design didn't have the concave front element. However, the lens design with the concave front element came also from Tronnier. It was introduced 1968 and built by Voigtlaender/Braunschweig but labelled as Carl Zeiss Ultron 50mm/F1.8 (7l/6g) for the Zeiss-Icon/Voigtlaender Icarex camera.

The Zeiss Ultron is an exception in terms of branding . I have read that the Icarex itself was designed by Voigtlnder.
The next generation of bodies Zeiss Voigtlnder was equiped with a 50mm 1.8 . The Zeiss (then Rollei) version was called Planar and the Voigtlnder was called Color Ultron . As the Icarex's Zeiss Ultron it has 7 elements ( 7/6) which is very unusual for a 50 mm f1.8 but the front element is not anymore concave but slightly convexe.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as I know (and this is about the "Q" mark) It was used for grading lenses. Lenses intended for Western markets were subjected to high quality control standards. All lenses that passed the inspection where entitled to a special engraving. An intertwined 1- and -Q mark, known as a primarqualitat. Items with a slightly less quality were given a symbol of a triangle with a 1 or 2 in the center. This started in the 50's and lasted 2 decades.

As far as Voigtlander and Zeiss having a 50mm named the same really doesn't strike me as odd.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

scsambrook wrote:
Probably not really relevant to the original enquiry but the Leica screw mount Cosina-Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 Ultron lens also has a concave front element. Plus an aspheric surface as well.


Well, the 35mm Ultron has a double concave front element instead and the naming convention has nothing to do any more with the original design of the Ultrons:



Here is the Voigtlaender's Icarex version of the 50mm/F1.8 with Zeiss branding in comparison:



PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

memetph wrote:
The Zeiss (then Rollei) version was called Planar and the Voigtlaender was called Color Ultron . As the Icarex's Zeiss Ultron it has 7 elements ( 7/6) which is very unusual for a 50 mm f1.8 but the front element is not anymore concave but slightly convexe.


That's right. This Planar was designed by Glatzel 1970 for Zeiss and only for the Voigtlaender branded version of the Rolleiflex 35 it was named "Color-Ultron" instead. The Rollei version was labelled as Zeiss Planar and later as Rollei Planar:



In other words: The Icarex version of the Ultron was the last "real" Ultron from Tronnier.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking at the optical schemes , the Planar/Color Ultron seems to be a descendant of the Zeiss Ultron.
The current Ultron 35 1.7 seems not to be a double gauss. The other Ultron of the VC range, the SL 40mm f2 is a double gauss ( 6/5) .


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

memetph wrote:
Looking at the optical schemes , the Planar/Color Ultron seems to be a descendant of the Zeiss Ultron.


That's also my impression.

Here is the optical construction of the original Ultron from 1950 (just to show all of them):



This version had the sensational optical resolution of 165lp/mm in the center which is till date among the best ever and made the Voigtlaender Prominent so famous and legendary as not even Leitz had something comparable to offer in the early 1950's. There was no film available to record the resolution of this lens. That was truly Tronnier's masterpiece.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Where did you get that 165lp/mm figure? Sounds like nonsense, 165 lines per mm would be more likely, which is 82.5 line pairs per mm, still extremely high.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Where did you get that 165lp/mm figure? Sounds like nonsense, 165 lines per mm would be more likely, which is 82.5 line pairs per mm, still extremely high.


http://www.klassik-cameras.de/Bessa_RF_histo_dt.html#Ultron


PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I bet that site got it wrong as I have a hard time believing the Ultron can resolve anything like 165lp/mm, that would make it higher resolution than the very best lenses available today:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/07/experiments-for-ultra-high-resolution-camera-sensors/


PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Well, I bet that site got it wrong as I have a hard time believing the Ultron can resolve anything like 165lp/mm, that would make it higher resolution than the very best lenses available today:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/07/experiments-for-ultra-high-resolution-camera-sensors/


Not all you don't understand is wrong.... Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Well, I bet that site got it wrong as I have a hard time believing the Ultron can resolve anything like 165lp/mm, that would make it higher resolution than the very best lenses available today:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/07/experiments-for-ultra-high-resolution-camera-sensors/


Not all you don't understand is wrong.... Twisted Evil


Well, instead of being your usual, arrogant and obnoxious self, why don't you actually say something useful?

Oh, that's right, you're far too conceited to bother.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't see any reason why at their best aperture and in the center the best lenses of the past would not match or approach the optical performances of the modern ones especially not measured using a digital sensor. Sensor's reflections are a problem for old lenses.
There are still some old designs in today's production and. stopped down. they can compete .

The purpose of those modern designed monsters is to achieve the best performance at wide aperture and all over the frame. They want also no CA in the corners and no LoCA at wide aperture ( APO). They need to use aspherical elements and want nevertheless a nice bokeh without onion rings . They need complex schemes but want good Tstop etc...


PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

At what MTF value was the 165lp/mm measurement taken? I really do not think it was at a MTF of 1.0, which is where most measurements of resolution are made.

The old Color-Skopar was closer to being apochromatic than many lenses that are labelled 'APO' today, so yes, old lenses could be very highly corrected.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:18 am    Post subject: old v\s new Reply with quote

Some features of newer optics, such as internal compensation for closer focus, obviously makes for greater flexibility, but not necessarily for better results if the intended use is for distant subjects (Leica R180\3.4) or for 1:10 (Zeiss 60\2,Cool.

Some sacrifices may also have been made in order to make newer designs and groups of elements light enough for the motors of autofocus and internally stabilised devices to react fast.

Sample variation and robustness over time will of course also play a role.

As always, comparisons between old and new are most useful when done considering their actual use.

It would be interesting from a historical pont of view if Lensrentals ran measurements on older optics, but would perhaps not lead to much change in old lens usage, since some of the characteristics have pictorial value beyond lpmms.

p.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kds315* wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Well, I bet that site got it wrong as I have a hard time believing the Ultron can resolve anything like 165lp/mm, that would make it higher resolution than the very best lenses available today:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/07/experiments-for-ultra-high-resolution-camera-sensors/


Not all you don't understand is wrong.... Twisted Evil


Laughing

Not all you do understand is right....

I think Ian has got somethings right....


PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
At what MTF value was the 165lp/mm measurement taken? I really do not think it was at a MTF of 1.0, which is where most measurements of resolution are made.


"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."

We'll probably never know how that figure was arrived at - assuming it is actually a correct report and not a typographical error made somewhere between the mid-1950s and the present time.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, I think there has probably been an error at some point over time, that was my original point as the 165lp/mm figure just sounds wrong, how would you even measure such a resolution? If I remember rightly, Tech Pan tops out at about 150lp/mm.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Yes, I think there has probably been an error at some point over time, that was my original point as the 165lp/mm figure just sounds wrong, how would you even measure such a resolution? If I remember rightly, Tech Pan tops out at about 150lp/mm.


Look through microscope at test chart projection? Wink