the *real* Ultron lens ?

I am trying to find information on the old Voigtlander (i.e not
Cosina) Ultron lens such as its construction and number of elements.
Can somebody suggest a URL? When I do a search I always end up with
the new Cosina-Voigtlander Leica mount lenses.

RolandRB wrote:

I am trying to find information on the old Voigtlander (i.e not
Cosina) Ultron lens such as its construction and number of elements.
Can somebody suggest a URL? When I do a search I always end up with
the new Cosina-Voigtlander Leica mount lenses.

You might want to search for "Color Ultron". That's what its called on
my VSL1.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated April 29, 2004
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

The 50/2 Ultron lens is a 6-lens design. I assume you mean the Ultron lens
way back?
195X and 196X ....e.g. the lens used on Vitomatics?

A nice link to start with it this: .....click on cameras ....

http://www.classic-cameras.info/camindexe.html

There are several links also.....you can mail and ask questions ect.

Max


"RolandRB" skrev i en meddelelse
om...
I am trying to find information on the old Voigtlander (i.e not
Cosina) Ultron lens such as its construction and number of elements.
Can somebody suggest a URL? When I do a search I always end up with
the new Cosina-Voigtlander Leica mount lenses.

from Dr. Mabuse's posting at my lens type pages
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenstype.html:

Not to confuse with the "-gons" which name wide-angle lens designs.
the only special developments I know were the Voigtlaender Septon and
Nokton with 7 elements in 5 groups and a very peculiar
Zeiss/Voigtlaender design for the Icarex called Ultron 50mm/1.8 with 6
elements in 5 groups. This one has a concave front element what is
absolutely unusual !

I'm looking for this in TM version but they are very seldom.
To induce even more confusion Zeiss/Voigtlaender marketed later on a
"Color-Ultron" for the SL-706 and VSL-1 with the same specifications but
with a Planar design of 6/4. The Planar design mayo be easier to correct
for close-up region.

end-quote

hth - bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...

from Dr. Mabuse's posting at my lens type pages
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenstype.html:

Not to confuse with the "-gons" which name wide-angle lens designs.
the only special developments I know were the Voigtlaender Septon and
Nokton with 7 elements in 5 groups and a very peculiar
Zeiss/Voigtlaender design for the Icarex called Ultron 50mm/1.8 with 6
elements in 5 groups. This one has a concave front element what is
absolutely unusual !

I seem to recall a Pentax lens design with a concave front element - wonder
if there is any similarity.


I'm looking for this in TM version but they are very seldom.
To induce even more confusion Zeiss/Voigtlaender marketed later on a
"Color-Ultron" for the SL-706 and VSL-1 with the same specifications but
with a Planar design of 6/4. The Planar design mayo be easier to correct
for close-up region.

end-quote

hth - bobm


Peter

Bandicoot wrote:

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...

from Dr. Mabuse's posting at my lens type pages
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenstype.html:

Not to confuse with the "-gons" which name wide-angle lens designs.
the only special developments I know were the Voigtlaender Septon and
Nokton with 7 elements in 5 groups and a very peculiar
Zeiss/Voigtlaender design for the Icarex called Ultron 50mm/1.8 with 6
elements in 5 groups. This one has a concave front element what is
absolutely unusual !

I seem to recall a Pentax lens design with a concave front element - wonder
if there is any similarity.

When my brother bought his first 35mm SLR, he didn't know much about
brands. There was one camera made of good components, whose normal lens
was very good on paper. The salesman even mentioned that it had been
designed with a computer (this was late sixties), and the computer had
said to use a concave first element.

BTW, the maker was called Cosina...

-- Lassi

Lassi Hippeläinen wrote in message ...
Bandicoot wrote:

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...

from Dr. Mabuse's posting at my lens type pages
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenstype.html:

Not to confuse with the "-gons" which name wide-angle lens designs.
the only special developments I know were the Voigtlaender Septon and
Nokton with 7 elements in 5 groups and a very peculiar
Zeiss/Voigtlaender design for the Icarex called Ultron 50mm/1.8 with 6
elements in 5 groups. This one has a concave front element what is
absolutely unusual !

I seem to recall a Pentax lens design with a concave front element - wonder
if there is any similarity.

When my brother bought his first 35mm SLR, he didn't know much about
brands. There was one camera made of good components, whose normal lens
was very good on paper. The salesman even mentioned that it had been
designed with a computer (this was late sixties), and the computer had
said to use a concave first element.

BTW, the maker was called Cosina...

-- Lassi

I seem to recall that when Voigtlander (I mean *real* Voigtlander and
not Cosina) 35mm format cameras were offered on sale with alternative
lenses then the Ultron lens version was only very slightly more
expensive than the Color-Skopar version. This makes me think that at
that time they may have been very similar designs. If the Ultron lens
were more than a 4 element design at that time then surely it would
have sold for a lot more. Like comparing the Color Heliar with the
Color Skopar for their Bessa II models, the Color Heliar version being
sold for a lot more having the extra element.

(RolandRB) wrote in message . com...
Lassi Hippeläinen wrote in message ...
Bandicoot wrote:

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...

from Dr. Mabuse's posting at my lens type pages
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenstype.html:

Not to confuse with the "-gons" which name wide-angle lens designs.
the only special developments I know were the Voigtlaender Septon and
Nokton with 7 elements in 5 groups and a very peculiar
Zeiss/Voigtlaender design for the Icarex called Ultron 50mm/1.8 with 6
elements in 5 groups. This one has a concave front element what is
absolutely unusual !

I seem to recall a Pentax lens design with a concave front element - wonder
if there is any similarity.

When my brother bought his first 35mm SLR, he didn't know much about
brands. There was one camera made of good components, whose normal lens
was very good on paper. The salesman even mentioned that it had been
designed with a computer (this was late sixties), and the computer had
said to use a concave first element.

BTW, the maker was called Cosina...

-- Lassi

I seem to recall that when Voigtlander (I mean *real* Voigtlander and
not Cosina) 35mm format cameras were offered on sale with alternative
lenses then the Ultron lens version was only very slightly more
expensive than the Color-Skopar version. This makes me think that at
that time they may have been very similar designs. If the Ultron lens
were more than a 4 element design at that time then surely it would
have sold for a lot more. Like comparing the Color Heliar with the
Color Skopar for their Bessa II models, the Color Heliar version being
sold for a lot more having the extra element.


Also the Ultron was the f2.0 and the Color-Skopar was an f2.8 with the
Ultron version being only slightly more expensive. If the Ultron was a
six element lens and the Color-Skopar a 4 element lens, then I would
have thoght the price difference would be very significant. Certainly,
on the Vitessa L , it has a convex front and not a concave front as I
have heard other Ultrons had. I just wonder if it is another
Color-Skopar with a wider aperture with the Ultron name used to
distinguish the two models.

RolandRB wrote:

(RolandRB) wrote in message
. com...
Lassi Hippeläinen wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...

from Dr. Mabuse's posting at my lens type pages
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenstype.html:

Not to confuse with the "-gons" which name wide-angle lens designs.
the only special developments I know were the Voigtlaender Septon
and Nokton with 7 elements in 5 groups and a very peculiar
Zeiss/Voigtlaender design for the Icarex called Ultron 50mm/1.8
with 6 elements in 5 groups. This one has a concave front element
what is absolutely unusual !

I seem to recall a Pentax lens design with a concave front element -
wonder if there is any similarity.

When my brother bought his first 35mm SLR, he didn't know much about
brands. There was one camera made of good components, whose normal lens
was very good on paper. The salesman even mentioned that it had been
designed with a computer (this was late sixties), and the computer had
said to use a concave first element.

BTW, the maker was called Cosina...

-- Lassi

I seem to recall that when Voigtlander (I mean *real* Voigtlander and
not Cosina) 35mm format cameras were offered on sale with alternative
lenses then the Ultron lens version was only very slightly more
expensive than the Color-Skopar version. This makes me think that at
that time they may have been very similar designs. If the Ultron lens
were more than a 4 element design at that time then surely it would
have sold for a lot more. Like comparing the Color Heliar with the
Color Skopar for their Bessa II models, the Color Heliar version being
sold for a lot more having the extra element.


Also the Ultron was the f2.0 and the Color-Skopar was an f2.8 with the
Ultron version being only slightly more expensive. If the Ultron was a
six element lens and the Color-Skopar a 4 element lens, then I would
have thoght the price difference would be very significant.

A heliar is a difficult lens to make, hence it's extra cost. There were
never any f2.0 tessar style lenses that I know of, so the ultron would have
been at least a 5 if not 6 element lens, probably a planar type.

There is more to dificulty/expence in design than the number of lens
elements.

--

Stacey

Stacey wrote in message ...
RolandRB wrote:

(RolandRB) wrote in message
. com...
Lassi Hippeläinen wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...

from Dr. Mabuse's posting at my lens type pages
http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenstype.html:

Not to confuse with the "-gons" which name wide-angle lens designs.
the only special developments I know were the Voigtlaender Septon
and Nokton with 7 elements in 5 groups and a very peculiar
Zeiss/Voigtlaender design for the Icarex called Ultron 50mm/1.8
with 6 elements in 5 groups. This one has a concave front element
what is absolutely unusual !

I seem to recall a Pentax lens design with a concave front element -
wonder if there is any similarity.

When my brother bought his first 35mm SLR, he didn't know much about
brands. There was one camera made of good components, whose normal lens
was very good on paper. The salesman even mentioned that it had been
designed with a computer (this was late sixties), and the computer had
said to use a concave first element.

BTW, the maker was called Cosina...

-- Lassi

I seem to recall that when Voigtlander (I mean *real* Voigtlander and
not Cosina) 35mm format cameras were offered on sale with alternative
lenses then the Ultron lens version was only very slightly more
expensive than the Color-Skopar version. This makes me think that at
that time they may have been very similar designs. If the Ultron lens
were more than a 4 element design at that time then surely it would
have sold for a lot more. Like comparing the Color Heliar with the
Color Skopar for their Bessa II models, the Color Heliar version being
sold for a lot more having the extra element.


Also the Ultron was the f2.0 and the Color-Skopar was an f2.8 with the
Ultron version being only slightly more expensive. If the Ultron was a
six element lens and the Color-Skopar a 4 element lens, then I would
have thoght the price difference would be very significant.

A heliar is a difficult lens to make, hence it's extra cost. There were
never any f2.0 tessar style lenses that I know of, so the ultron would have
been at least a 5 if not 6 element lens, probably a planar type.

A good point -- I have never heard of an example of a f2.0 Tessar type
either.

There is more to dificulty/expence in design than the number of lens
elements.

The original camera price for the Vitessa L I saw had the Ultron
version only $20 more than the Color-Skopar version. If the Ultron was
easy to make, hence the low cost, then I have to wonder why people
even bothered with the Tessar design because thy could have a better
corrected lens with a wider aperture at roughly the same cost.

To be fair, I have not seen a copy of the original advertisement for
the Vitessa L and so I am trusting sombody's compilation of original
prices. Does anyone have a copy of an advertisement for a Vitessa L in
any language so they can post the advertised prices for the different
versions?