Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,678   Posts: 1,482,080   Online: 788
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    580

    Icarex CS 35 +Biogon 35mm f/3.4

    I just got this camara from the late 60' with a very weird mount. It came with a Biogon 35mm. I was just wondering what other lenses can be gotten for this camera?

  2. #2
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    It's an Icarex bayonet.
    AFAIK only a few Voigtländer lenses were made for it (35, 50, 90, 135 + 200mm?).
    Speaking of which, the 35mm f/3.4 should be a Skoparex, not a Biogon...
    (Very sharp lens when tested, but disappointing in use: Flares a lot - I used the Bessamatic version quite a bit).

    The 50mm Ultron for that camera, with its concave front element, is legendary.
    The 90mm (I had the Bessamatic version again), is one of the best I've used.
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  3. #3
    BobD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    433
    Quote Originally Posted by Pumalite View Post
    I just got this camara from the late 60' with a very weird mount. It came with a Biogon 35mm. I was just wondering what other lenses can be gotten for this camera?
    FYI the Icarex was also made in version(s) having an M42 screw mount. These
    seem to be more sought after because of the ease in finding lenses.

  4. #4
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    By the way...
    While the bayonet mount lenses were effectively made by Voigtländer (in Braunschweig), they were branded Carl Zeiss.
    So the 50mm Tessar for the Icarex is really a Skopar (not a bad thing - many consider the Skopar to be the best of the "Tessars").

    This was fitting, as the Icarex itself was originally a Voigtländer project for a focal plane shutter SLR (the "Bessaflex").
    Zeiss-Ikon bought Voigtländer and sharpened the edges and corners of the "Bessaflex" prototype to give it the traditional Z-I look.
    The line was then bought by Rollei, who re-issued and re-adapted the Icarex in various forms and names, though usually with poor results.

    The Voigtlander lens line was also carried on to the M42 screw mount Icarexes, along with (a limited number of?) "real" Carl Zeiss lenses.
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    I would be careful not to lump lenses and cover them with one judgement, just because they have the same name.
    "A" Skopar does indeed say something about what to expect. But still every different Skopar is a different lens, and while one can be terribly good, another one (different focal length, or same fcoal length different speed, made for another mount, etc.) can be less good. So just as the acknowledged difference between the "Tessars", consider that there is no "a" Skopar that can stand for all Skopars.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    580
    Thanks for all the info guys. For now I'll be using only the 35mm, but I'll remain alert for others.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Utrecht, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    33
    Hi, if you can give us (read me...) the body number of your Icarex and the lensnumbers, I would be very grateful - some of us (Zeiss Ikon Collectors Group) are collecting these. Particularly the post-warII numbers are wanted as Zeiss Ikon West put the factory records in the proverbial garbage bin...
    Hans.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    580
    It seems to be ( I had to look hard): 17156 (inside the back)
    Otside the Back: Made in Germany
    On the front, in the left: Zeiss Ikon
    on the front of the prism: Icarex 35
    CS
    on the back of the prism, in the center: Zeiss Ikon
    Voigtlander
    At the bottom: Made in Germany

    I hope it helps. BTW; the lens is Vogitlander Icarex

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Utrecht, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    33
    Pumalite, you tried, my thanks for that, but (un unpleasant word...) the Zeiss Ikon bodies were numbered as follows: 1 letter followed by max 5 numbers (for example G12345). Please have another look (and yes, I know time can make this reading hard...). Also the number on the front of the Skoparex is interesting for me.
    So, if you don't mind another look...
    Regards, Hans.

  10. #10
    Rol_Lei Nut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hamburg
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    I would be careful not to lump lenses and cover them with one judgement, just because they have the same name.
    "A" Skopar does indeed say something about what to expect. But still every different Skopar is a different lens, and while one can be terribly good, another one (different focal length, or same fcoal length different speed, made for another mount, etc.) can be less good. So just as the acknowledged difference between the "Tessars", consider that there is no "a" Skopar that can stand for all Skopars.
    I generally agree: "Tessars" and "Skopars" (And "Xenars" and such) were quite often tweaked depending on optical glass availability, new glass types, cost-saving schemes and so on...

    My main intention was to point out the curiosity that the Icarex "Tessar" was really a Voigtländer Skopar.

    Skopars *tend* to have an excellent reputation and, as I said, I've heard of many people preferring them to more or less equivalent Tessars.

    I've used many types and samples of both, with very varying results - though that could also be sample variation, individual camera alignment, ect.
    Both can be excellent lenses (I haven't nit-picked enough to find much real difference between the two).

    Though the best of the kind I've used is the Tessar on my Rolleiflex TLR: sharp in the corners at full aperture (Not supposed to be possible)!
    M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin