Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Icarex lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 said:

"The Color-Pantar for the Icarex is probably not related to the Contaflex/Contina Pantars and is probably the Color-Lanthar design of Voigtlander.

On the Icarex Tessar, not only Orio says it is the best 'Tessar' 50mm but others do too, and it is said by some that it is in fact, not a Zeiss Tessar, but instead is a Voigtlander Color-Skopar. "

1-Well. I assume that you refering to the color lanthar for the SRL voigtlanders.

I don't think so. The lanthar SRL lens is better than the pantar. By far. The lanthar is a 4 element lens (the RF version has only three).

The lanthanum were expensive to make the "cheaper" normal lens. The voigtlander stoped to make that lens a time before the bessamatic/ultramatic line dead

2-It's something difficult to think that Zeiss should get off the tessar and did with that name a change putting in this place another lens (skopar).

Does not forget that Skopar had his own name and fame. No needed another name to be sold.

3- The Dynarex 3,4/90 never was a very good `performer lens. Was overpassed in IQ by the 4,8/100 (almost enable to work without a flash). The last between F/8 and F/11 was razor sharp.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Thanks Orio, that is what I needed. The Pantar is thought to be the Color-Lanthar from the Bessamatic/Ultramatic range, but info is sketchy, it is a triplet, but is it the same as the Color-Lanthar? The Pantar 50 on the Contaflex and Contina is a triplet and is supposed to be made by Rodenstock for ZI (along with the 30mm and 80mm add-on Pantars).

I'm a little confused about the Ultron, I had read it was by Tronnier, but if you say it was computed with a Zuse by Zeiss, I will take your word for it.

I did find this info on taunusreiter.de:

Quote:
ULTRON f/2 50mm
Gauss (Planar) type lens type for Rangefinder (Prominent) camera, started in production 1950 as 6 elements/ 5 groups lens. The Ultron was also build for small 35mm cameras like Vito/ Vitomatic/ Vitessa as the top-of-line lens. A few were made in Leica screwmount. In the early 1950's this lens had a reputation superior to Leica Summitar f/2 and Summicron f/2 first generation.
Contemporary academic sources wrote about the Ultron as double the resolving power than a Tessar type . The 50mm f/2 Ultron gave "the highest performance yet recorded for a lens of this aperture... at all stops... the resolution given by this lens would be only limited by the resolving power of the film" (Amateur Photographer, 13 February, 1952) If this is true, undoubtly it would be in the league of the ten best standard lenses ever.

1. Generation: Voigtlander Ultron 2/50mm




Ultron 2/50mm first version (1950)
250g, 52mm Filter, close distance 0,9m

2. Generation : Zeiss-Ikon Ultron 1.8/50




Carl Zeiss Ultron 1.8/50 : available for Zeiss-Icon/ Voigtlander Icarex (BM and TM) and SL-706 (1968-1972) - here with adaptor at a Rolleiflex SL35

3. Generation: Color-Ultron 1.8/50mm




Back to a (slightly curved) convex front element - Color-Ultron 1.8/50 - 1970-1995 (sold as Rollei Planar for QBM as well)


So, I'm wondering, is the 2nd generation Ultron calculated by Tronnier at Voigtlander and it is the 3rd generation that was calculated by Zeiss with the Zuse?


Ian, this now is another obvious copyright violation of yours. Taunusreiter clearly states on his site that he reserves the copyright on all his works and words and DOES NOT ALLOW IT TO BE USED WITHOUT HIS PRIOR PERMISSION. I honestly doubt that you have that. Do you??

I'll pass this on to the admins/moderators as this behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. I advise you as a moderator to refrain from such continued copyright violations.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
wow geeees its not as if he was claiming credit. Surely in an information age a proper reference (which he pointed too) would be enough to calm everyone down.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
Ian, this now is another obvious copyright violation of yours. Taunusreiter clearly states on his site that he reserves the copyright on all his works and words and DOES NOT ALLOW IT TO BE USED WITHOUT HIS PRIOR PERMISSION. I honestly doubt that you have that. Do you??

I'll pass this on to the admins/moderators as this behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. I advise you as a moderator to refrain from such continued copyright violations.


This would have probably been better contained to a PM. I also find it a bit amusing since the site in question contains a rather large amount of content that was obviously not created by the site owner. But I digress, this is not a thread about copyright and I'll take my own advice and not drag it into the thread any further.

On topic again, I would imagine the Color Pantar is probably similar to the Pantar lenses used on the Contaflex cameras. Considering it comes from Zeiss Ikon, I'd think that'd make sense. I very much doubt it is anything more complicated than a triplet, as it would be redundant to have the Tessar, and then another four element lens, and the Pantar was the cheaper, so it probably would be a triplet.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:
kds315* wrote:
Ian, this now is another obvious copyright violation of yours. Taunusreiter clearly states on his site that he reserves the copyright on all his works and words and DOES NOT ALLOW IT TO BE USED WITHOUT HIS PRIOR PERMISSION. I honestly doubt that you have that. Do you??

I'll pass this on to the admins/moderators as this behavior cannot and will not be tolerated. I advise you as a moderator to refrain from such continued copyright violations.


This would have probably been better contained to a PM. I also find it a bit amusing since the site in question contains a rather large amount of content that was obviously not created by the site owner. But I digress, this is not a thread about copyright and I'll take my own advice and not drag it into the thread any further.


Its not the question of how taunusreiter collected his information. Especially you do nothing know about if he has the permission to publish the old material. So its not a question if he is the creator of some content-parts or not, but rather if he is willing to give permissions for copying parts of it to other Forums.

Important question is if the MFlenses forum is willing to accept a copyright violation.. not more and not less.

Each photographer and publisher has to respect the rights of another people who is willing to give information and material on his own website. Or what would you think if anybody will use your pictures and illustrations or content as he like?

In modern "Facebook - Time" we have, it could not often enough remind if such copyright violetions take place all over the world.

Doing copyright violations in a forum is dangerous thing for Attila as the forum owner.. so its correct from Klaus as a moderator, to give this official warning in public and not only in a pm.. so everybody knows, that this is a serious warning to all.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I not agree, Henry , Klaus.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Perhaps I should write an official letter to the Zeiss Stiftung or whoever is the holder of the Voigtlander intellectual property these days and formally request their permission to reproduce line drawings of decades old optical schema? Rolling Eyes

Honestly, what else can I say? Plenty of other people do exactly as I did and posted info taken from other internet sources without it causing any disruption. One might be inclined to take it personally, but honestly, I'm not going to let it bother me for more than a moment and just get on with productive things rather than getting into an argument or any unpleasantness which are counter-productive.

On a happier note, I'm now the happy owner of a Skoparex and looking forward to trying it out as soon as there's some sunlight. I just have to figure out a temporary adapter for my NEX as it's in BM mount.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Perhaps I should write an official letter to the Zeiss Stiftung or whoever is the holder of the Voigtlander intellectual property these days and formally request their permission to reproduce line drawings of decades old optical schema? Rolling Eyes

That would be extremely helpful if forum users did email each of the companies when reposting lens diagrams. We could keep a list of permissions here and avoid any of these confrontations as well as any legal action against us.

Oh and just because, `everyone else does it', doesn't make it right.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I not agree, Henry , Klaus.

Huh?


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Perhaps I should write an official letter to the Zeiss Stiftung or whoever is the holder of the Voigtlander intellectual property these days and formally request their permission to reproduce line drawings of decades old optical schema? Rolling Eyes

That would be extremely helpful if forum users did email each of the companies when reposting lens diagrams. We could keep a list of permissions here and avoid any of these confrontations as well as any legal action against us.

Oh and just because, `everyone else does it', doesn't make it right.


Why don't you do it, seeing as you seem to be concerned about it? Think of it as a community service.

I honestly doubt the lens companies care, they print the optical schema on the boxes the lenses come in, they are hardly trade secrets and in most cases we are talking about decades old designs that have been superceded anyways.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
martinsmith99 wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Perhaps I should write an official letter to the Zeiss Stiftung or whoever is the holder of the Voigtlander intellectual property these days and formally request their permission to reproduce line drawings of decades old optical schema? Rolling Eyes

That would be extremely helpful if forum users did email each of the companies when reposting lens diagrams. We could keep a list of permissions here and avoid any of these confrontations as well as any legal action against us.

Oh and just because, `everyone else does it', doesn't make it right.


Why don't you do it, seeing as you seem to be concerned about it? Think of it as a community service.

I honestly doubt the lens companies care, they print the optical schema on the boxes the lenses come in, they are hardly trade secrets and in most cases we are talking about decades old designs that have been superceded anyways.


Ian - I think you're right that lens companies won't care. I'm happy to write out and ask permission if I wish to reproduce something.

I'm not sure I want to be responsible for collecting permissions for all the reproduced images on MF Lenses to date. It would be a career in itself. Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Folks, there is a fair use clause in any copyright law, IMHO the usage such as this is obviously covered by it.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
Folks, there is a fair use clause in any copyright law, IMHO the usage such as this is obviously covered by it.


I think with this sentence is really done, if you wish you can talk more , but I think better to back to Icarex lenses and talk about them.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
Folks, there is a fair use clause in any copyright law, IMHO the usage such as this is obviously covered by it.


Absolutely !

Copyright Law fact sheet P-09 : Understanding Fair Use
Issued: 5th July 2004
Last amended: 5th July 2004
What is fair use?
In copyright law, there is a concept of fair use, also known as; free use, fair dealing, or fair practice.
Fair use sets out certain actions that may be carried out, but would not normally be regarded as an infringement of the work.
The idea behind this is that if copyright laws are too restrictive, it may stifle free speech, news reporting, or result in disproportionate penalties for inconsequential or accidental inclusion.
What does fair use allow?
Under fair use rules, it may be possible to use quotations or excerpts, where the work has been made available to the public, (i.e. published). Provided that:
The use is deemed acceptable under the terms of fair dealing.
That the quoted material is justified, and no more than is necessary is included.
That the source of the quoted material is mentioned, along with the name of the author.
Typical free uses of work include:
Inclusion for the purpose of news reporting.
Incidental inclusion.
National laws typically allow limited private and educational use.
What is incidental inclusion?
This is where part of a work is unintentionally included. A typical examples of this would be a case where holiday movie inadvertently captured part of a copyright work, such as some background music, or a poster that just happened to on a wall in the background.
Points to keep in mind...
The actual specifics of what is acceptable will be governed by national laws, and although broadly similar, actual provision will vary from country to country.
Cases dealing with fair dealing can be complex, as decisions are based on individual circumstances and judgements. This can be a very difficult area of copyright law.
To avoid problems, if you are in any doubt, you are advised to always get the permission of the owner, prior to use.
UK fair dealing legislation
For specific details on fair dealing under UK law please refer to our factsheet P-27: Using the work of others.

This fact sheet is Copyright © The UK Copyright Service and protected under UK and international law.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thankyou David, you can always be relied on to bring a sensible viewpoint, I always appreciate your input.

Maybe it would be good to split the copyright info into a separate thread so this one can be just about Icarex lenses?


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hahahahahaha.......


I've just noticed that the bloody copyright fact sheet is copyrighted ! Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
hahahahahaha.......


I've just noticed that the bloody copyright fact sheet is copyrighted ! Laughing


Now we are all doomed Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
hahahahahaha.......


I've just noticed that the bloody copyright fact sheet is copyrighted ! Laughing


lol

I have never worried about copyright since my early days at university when they told us that as long as it was non-profit and proper credit and attribution was given, we didn't have to worry about it. As it was a media degree, I felt they knew what they were talking about. Of course, that was 1994-5 and the internet has changed things, but I still think, as a rule of thumb, what they told me is still okay really.

BTW David, should you happen to see a bayonet mount Icarex in any of your local shops, I need one Wink


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I spent many years running the web site and all online operations for a large international charity and we went through the copyright debate there, and 'fair use' is exactly what it says. I spent many happy hours emailing and phoning people in the USA, Canada, London and Brussels to get an answer, which of course they wouldn't give 'definitively' as it would ultimately depend on a court of law to decide upon the infringement, if any.
It basically comes down to "is the person re-publishing making a buck from it? or publishing the whole damn works?" If the answer is "no" then I think it's "fair use". That's my take on it anyway, your mileage may vary as they say.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
I spent many years running the web site and all online operations for a large international charity and we went through the copyright debate there, and 'fair use' is exactly what it says. I spent many happy hours emailing and phoning people in the USA, Canada, London and Brussels to get an answer, which of course they wouldn't give 'definitively' as it would ultimately depend on a court of law to decide upon the infringement, if any.
It basically comes down to "is the person re-publishing making a buck from it? or publishing the whole damn works?" If the answer is "no" then I think it's "fair use". That's my take on it anyway, your mileage may vary as they say.


That was my take on it too and what we were told at uni.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2