Icarex lenses

[iangreenhalgh1]

I'm just interested in feedback from people who have used the Icarex lenses. My understanding is they are made by Voigtlander and are updated versions of their Bessamatic DKL mount designs. The Tessar for Icarex is actually a Color-Skopar I believe.

How do they compare to the contemporary Zeiss and Schneider lenses?

[Orio]

I have the following Icarex lenses:

- Ultron 1.8/50 bayonet
- Tessar 2.8/50 thread mount
- Skoparex 3.4/35 bayonet
- Super-Dynarex 4/135 bayonet

The Ultron 1.8/50 is branded Carl Zeiss, computed by Zeiss engineers in Oberkochen, and probably built in Braunschweig's Voigtländer's facility
(it is worth remembering that at the time, Zeiss had just acquired Voigtländer, so a direct control of Zeiss technicians in the Braunschweig productions - if not even direct intervention of Zeiss' personnel- was highly likely)
It was the first Carl Zeiss lens to be optically calculated on a computer (Zuse). It was the refresh of the famous 1940's 2/50 Ultron design by Dr. Albrecht Tronnier
who was an engineer working for Voigtländer at that time. The Zeiss' refresh maintains the negative curvature of the front element that characterized Tronnier's 2/50 original.
The lens is very sharp from wide open. At wide open, however, some residual spherical aberration causes some very moderate glow.
Stopped down, glow disappears. The single coating of the lens (not marked T, same as all other Icarex lenses) is however comparable to contemporary Contarex lenses (where coating is marked T),
and it is considerably less efficient than Contax/Yashica's T* coating. This means that the lens requires a hood and that backlight photos must be taken cautiously.
The bokeh of the lens is delicious (by my personal taste). Distortion is nearly non-existent, which makes this lens an excellent candidate for reproduction of medium-large original flat subjects such as paintings.
Saturation is low, due to the single coating and large aperture.
Given the high used value of the lens, it can not be said to be a bargain purchase. A Contax 1.4/50 Planar would be probably cheaper
and surely more performing in many real world situations (where you can't control the lighting).
It remains the desire (destined to never be fulfilled) in all lovers of this lens, to see how it would perform with a T* coating on it's elements...

The Tessar 2.8/50 is branded Carl Zeiss and uncertain if built in Oberkochen or Braunschweig. It is (in my opinion) the best of the many incarnations of the 2.8/50 Tessar that succeeded over the years since 1931.
Thanks to the slower aperture, the lens suffers less than the Ultron from the single coating. Even the flaring is less evident thanks to
the receded front element (which protects from parasite rays).
The lens is more than sufficiently sharp from wide open and -as all Tessars- shines at aperture f/8
The bokeh is one of the best bokehs available in any western Carl Zeiss lens.
If you like the rendering of Tessars, it can be a wise buy. However, the lens value on the used market is not inferior to the value of,
say, Contax Planar 1.7/50, which is a superior lens under many respects (not for bokeh though).

The 3.4/35 Skoparex is branded Carl Zeiss but it's a Voigtländer design and it was built in Braunschweig.
It is quite a good lens, if you consider that it's a single coated lens, which, for a wide angle lens, is more of a shortcoming than for a normal lens.
The colour saturation is quite good (the best of all Icarex lenses that I tried), the sharpness, although not outstanding, is comparable
to that of the slower Distagon lenses of the same time (end of 60s).
The lens of course flares when shot in backlight, but if you care to use a hood, or to keep the sun out of the lens'angle, the produced
image is well contrasted and satisfactory (although not as contrasted as comparable Distagons).

The 4/135 Super-Dynarex is branded Carl Zeiss but it's a Voigtländer design built in Braunschweig.
It is basically a Tele-Tessar scheme, and as such (Tele-Tessar 4/135) it was re-issued by Zeiss a few years later in their line of lenses for Rollei SL cameras.
The Rollei version, however, was built in Oberkochen (when it bears the Carl Zeiss name - versions branded Rollei were built in Rollei's German facility - also in Braunschweig - or in Mamiya's facility in Singapore).
Rollei's Tele-Tessar features HFT coating (which is T* under disguise, when the lens is produced in Oberkochen) and for this reason - but also possibly for better optical materials - performs better than Icarex's Super-Dynarex,
which suffers from visible flaring when used in backlight, and has lower contrast in all outdoors situations.

[Mos6502]

What about the color-pantar?

[Orio]

[iangreenhalgh1]

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:

[hinnerker]

And there are 2 more lenses for Icarex..

a 200mm Tele Dynarex lens (havent got one) and a 3.4/90mm, shown in the center right position.. its an old Voigtländer Ultramatic design.


After selling a set to ORIO i found a way to connect the BM Mount version to Canon EF ... and an new set of lenses for cheap..



Here the Dynarex 90mm.. later i will show some pictures..





And here the conversion of BM - Mount to EOS... reversible, only 3 small holes are necessary on the screwring-part off the lens mount.. so you cant see any screw in this old adapterplate i did use. they are screwed in the opposite side of the black screwring .. so i now have an M49 screw mount System for Icarex BM Mount lenses




So you can use all Icarex BM Mount lenses on one adaptor.. only screwing direction is counterclockwise..

Cheers
Henry

[iangreenhalgh1]

Thanks Henry, that's very useful, I do love the look of these lenses, very pretty. You can now buy BM-EOS adapters, seems your idea leaked out

I just picked up a Skoparex 3.4/35 for 10.75 euros, BM mount, glass is nice but it has loads of scratches and wear on the barrel, but I can live with that for the price I paid and if it shoots well.

[std]

The skoparex will be very nice. It has a special oof rendering.
I had it in DKL mount and still regret selling it

[sonyrokkor]

[hinnerker]

[sonyrokkor]

The telomar was the 400 mm lens for the Icarex. Don't remeber the aperture (perhaps F/ 5 or F/5,6)

[cambug]

Orio, as you said " The single coating of the lens (not marked T, same as all other Icarex lenses) is however comparable to contemporary Contarex lenses (where coating is marked T) ", I have never seen any Contarex lens with a T coating marking, have seen only RF Contax ( IIa and IIIa series ) Opton version ( and some East German ones ) with a red T coating marking. Can you point me to any source that a picture is available? However there is one Contarex lens with T* coating marking, the 85mm f 1.4 Planar, with a triangular aperture shape and only 400 pieces ( per Kuc ) produced after the demise of Zeiss Ikon...

If you do not have the original, It can be tricky to use a lens hood on Icarex lenses, the thread is a male one on the lens barrel and is not very obvious to see. Years ago I bought a Icarex TM with the Ultron, just for the lens and gave the camera away. To me, the quality of Icarex camera body is pretty bad, it cannot stand daily vigorous use, I also heard that quite a few plastic parts were used on the film winding mechanism.

It is interesting to note that the lens offering for Icarex BM and TM are not exactly the same, for example there is no 90mm Dynarex on TM (M42) and there is no BM for 25mm f4 Distagon. These days there are adapters available to adapt BM mount lens to EOS, good news for those with lenses, bad for those looking to buy...

[iangreenhalgh1]

[iangreenhalgh1]

[iangreenhalgh1]

[Mos6502]

Somewhere on the web there is a comparison between the Icarex Tessar and a CZJ Tessar, and IMO the CZJ Tessar beat it. But it wasn't really a fair comparison because the CZJ variation tested was much newer than the Icarex version and presumably benefited from modern coating. The primary difference was that the CZJ version had better contrast and this was especially noticeable when the lenses were used wide open. The east version however can't beat the west for classy looks.

[Orio]

Ian, Tronnier designed the original Ultron 2/50 at Voigtländer. The Zeiss Ultron 1.8/50 is a Zeiss-made refresh of the original optical scheme. This is the info I have, of course I can not put my hands over the fire about it.
Cambug, you are right about the T mark not appearing on Contarex lenses.
About the Icarex BM adapters for Canon EOS, it's old news, I have one since more than two years!

[JohnBar]

That's a nice lens especially for under 11 €

Hard to imagine you got it from ebay, the world must have been asleep

I have never seen the bayonet lens hoods for these, they must be rare

[iangreenhalgh1]

Cheers John, the seller had all the other Icarex lenses for sale too and I was outbid on those so only got the Skoparex.

Orio, I'm a bit confused, let's see if I'm understanding this correctly:

first gen - Ultron 2/50 for Prominent, Vitessa etc - designed by Tronnier at Voigtlander

second gen - Ultron for Icarex, concave front - recalculated by Zeiss using the Zuse

third gen - Color-Ultron for QBM mount - Glatzel's Planar

[Orio]

[paulhofseth]

I can confirm that at least the Ultrons on my Vitessa and on my Prominent are quite different from the Ultron on my Icarex Tm. The two first have convex front elements while the latter is concave.

p.

[iangreenhalgh1]

The thing that is seemingly contradictory is the lens diagrams for the v2 Ultron and the Color-Ultron:

Ultron:



Color-Ultron:



Now, while those are pretty crude schematics, it does seem like they are related designs with the latter being an evolution of the former.

I looked for the schema for the Contax Planar 50s and they are somewhat different:

Planar 1.7/50:



Planar 1.4/50



So, is the Color-Ultron derived from the earlier Ultron with concave front or is it a Planar?

It's confusing.

[JohnBar]

Ian

A while back while holidaying in the south of France, I was drinking coffee at a road side cafe. I left my camera with all metal lens on the table in front of me in the sun. I was there approx 30 min

When I picked up the camera , I burnt myself when touching the lens. It was extremely hot to the touch.

The changes in the designs you posted look to me like a solution for all metal lenses which get very hot in the sun. It was deemed a good idea as the balsam doesn't like heat.

[iangreenhalgh1]

That makes no sense at all to me, sorry.

[Mos6502]

John, they all have only one cemented group. So there is no difference in the amount of epoxy used in the designs really. Also by the time the Icarex rolled out I'm pretty sure nobody was using balsam cement for lenses anymore.