I was looking some auctions on ebay on this lens and I was shocked for the price they sell first and second example.
This lens is avaiable in M42 or Icarex BM mounting but the high rated lens is the m42 so I think that the buyers are using it on a digital body with the adapter.
There is someone using this lens on a digital body and which performance is providing compared to a standard Zeiss Planar?
There is a lot of rumour spread about the legendary 50mm Ultron. Fame and prestige are due to its superlative optical performance and a unique construction.
It was designed by Dr. Albrecht Tronnier in the late 40's (he was also responsible for the Nokton). The first version Ultron f/2 50mm was originally conceived as the top of the line lens for Vito/ Vitomatic/Vitessa cameras. The singular attribute of the lens construction was the negative curvature of its front element. This makes it the only lens besides the Leica Elmarit employing a concave front curvature. The original first generation Ultron 50mm for rangefinder cameras is said to boast with a resolution twice of its competitors like the Tessar or Leicas Summitar f/2 and Summicron f/2! With 3my or 165 lines per mm at f/4 this would make it one of the best 50mm lenses ever.
The second generation Ultron was the Zeiss-Ikon Ultron f/1,8 50mm 1960 - 1972 you are refering to. It was the first computer processed optical lens calculation ever done by the Zeiss R&D. (They used an early Zuse computer.) It was marketed for the Zeiss-Icon/Voigtländer Icarex and SL-706 SLR's.
The third generation Ultron was the Color-Ultron 1.8/50mm 1970 - 1995 still with a negative front element but less good then the ones before. It was also marketed as Rollei Planar 50mm for the Rolleiflex SL.
I tested a M42 version of the second generation Ultron on Canon FF bodies against the f/1.4 and 1.7 Planars and Canon f/1.4 50mm. It shows an astonishing microcontrast all over the field and an impressive high resolution, so the sharp edges have somehow soft halos. Color is cold and a little desaturated. No measurable distortion. For me it was a keeper for certain purposes.
I was told, that there is a relatively high variance of quality among these lenses due to the complex t element composition.
Thank you for the answer now I get some more informations about the lens, I have another question in your opinion this lens is worth the 300$ paid in the above auctions?
And could you better explain to me what you mean here "..,so the sharp edges have somehow soft halos" ?
About the concave Elmarit I have found someone else speaking of this here http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/reviews/voigt35_17.htm .
I always thought the Tronnier lenses were the only ones with negative coving for the front.
It by sure was the first one as far as Tronnier knew (and he probably knew more about pre-1940 lenses then we do). It was said, that the Ultron construction was the result of a joke: Tronnier wanted to prove, that there is no technical necessity to have a lens start with a positive element.
> Otto Nielsen: I took the Elmarit-information from a german website with a lot of material about Tronnier lenses. It does not say, which Elmarit they are refering to and I admittedly never saw a concave Elmarit. So this statement is not confirmed (otherwise this website looked serious to me). I did not keep the link, just stored the text, it was a couple of years ago.
> pk61: Since photozone is german based, I suppose they were quoting the same source.
By the way, the 2. generation Ultron 50mm we are speaking about is a typical Ultron set of elements but without the negative front. The 3. generation Color Ultron however used it again.
I will try to find my test samples with the 2. generation Ultron 50mm and post them, if you are really curious enough to see.
> pk61: $ 300 and asking if something is worth its price, you know that this is a field of subjectivity. If I'm desperate and nosy enough to empirically want to verify a certain lens by myself, I will pay what is asked for from time to time. This one I wanted to check because of its historic status. For a mint copy I paid less then $ 150 three years ago. I would say it is by far less all purpose than the C/Y f/1.7 50mm (which is in terms of MTF the best manual lens for Canon FF that I have tested by myself, better then the Leica range). I would use it for bw and for light situations with little contrast and wide modulation ("Becher Light"). The price of this lens has to do with its rarity and is a collectors price, which sometimes collides with our interest in tools.
Thanks for the excellent background. BTW, I had a 50/1.8 Planar on my Rollei SL35. It did not have a concave front element. Are you sure that the Ultron 1.8 3rd gen was either the same as the planar (i think it was) and that it did indeed have a concave front element (I think it didn't).
Just a small addition/correction to J.O. Nielsen's post. The Ultron noted in the link is not the original Ultron but the current Cosina/Voigtlander LSM lens. It does have the concave front.
I dont understand what you are refering to: The named photozone page only shows the modern 35mm rangefinder wideangle? Is it really based on the Tronnier Ultron construction? I doubt it and cannot find any construction diagrams for this lens.
Regretfully I must say, a mistake has slipped in my last mail. I'm sorry, I was too fast. I do my best to clear up what I know (without quoting things I do not know for sure) and provide sources:
I have both of the 50mm SLR Ultrons. Since I do not have them here in Italy (I work in Venice and the humidity is not good for keeping rare extra glass, so I only have my working equipment here) I mixed them up. This is it:
The 2. generation Ultron sold as Carl Zeiss Ultron 1.8/50 has the negative, concave front element. Clearly to be seen on a photo herewith (link below). This element makes it the seventh element of the lens. The rest looks similar to the original rangefinder Ultron 2/50mm with 6 elements in 5 groups and no negative element. Probably the seventh front element was needed for mirror clearance.
The 3. generation Ultron was sold as Voigtländer Color-Ultron 1.8/50 (in two different body versions) and rebadged as Zeiss Planar for Rollei SL mount. I have this one too, but never tested it on a DSLR (no adapter). This one has a very slight convex front as the seventh element. All the rest looks similar to the above Ultron composition with different distances of course, that make it longer. It has nothing to do with the Planar construction at all. So rfmiranda was right with the front curvature.
The famed one is the 1. generation rangefinder Ultron, but the two direct successors are based on the same construction as you can see. Here you can verify most of this, see the construction diagrams and see actual photos of the lenses: http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Bessa_RF_histo_dt.html
What I would like to know: Does anyone have a cross section of the modern SL Ultron 40mm f/1.2 marketed by Voigtländer and manufactured by Cosina, or even better, has used it on a DSLR? It seems to be the only contemporary Voigtländer SLR lens without an EOS mount. And it is the only option for this focal length in a prime lens. That is why I'm curious about it.
About Voigtlaender SL lens the german site http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_asan6m4dyd.html did not say that they have stopped production there is also the price 499 € much more the price asked by cameraquest but did not show the lens cross section.
From the link provided by Arianne I have found also this http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Icarex.html where is reported a test on the Ultron 50/1.8 made by Popular Photography in 1969 with excellent results.
I have another question for Arianne what is "Becher light" ?
