C.Z. Jena and Carl Zeiss Jena, any differences ?

[kl122007]

<p>Hi, <br />Just came across the fleak market and I notice there are 2 flektogons 35/2.8 makered with C.Z. Jena and Carl Zeiss Jena respectively with exakta mount. THe price for short form is much cheaper than that of the original one. <br />So is that mean C.Z. Jena is a fake lens?</p>

 

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p>They are the same; the CZ Jena lenses were sold in the West after the Courts awarded the Carl Zeiss brand name to the Western division of the company. So the Jena lenses were sold variously as Aus Jena or CZJena , T for Tessar, S for Sonnar and the like. All this was due to the Post war spoils of politics between the West and East Bloc countries. sp</p>

[kl122007]

<p>That sounds interesting. I have seen an ausJena before, I thought that was a fake so I avoided it. And I notice some of them have the red T on the lens while some are not, but both of them are coated. What does it mean?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Carl Zeiss Jena continued to be used in the Warsaw pact, as well as a few other places, so some of these lenses can show up in lots of variants, as SP has noted. The T refers to different coatings on the lens.<br /> Here's a contemporary ad for Carl Zeiss Jena</p><div></div>

[rustys pics]

<p>Never saw anything like THAT come out of an East German Factory JDM! At any rate all of the Zeiss Jena lenses I've used have been superb. Ironically the Jena factory was first, and the western Oberkochen factory came later. So if anything was a "fake" Zeiss it would be the Western Lenses!<br>

I wonder if any lens manufacturing persists in Jena Germany? I imagine that after re-unification all the Eastern factories were closed.</p>

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

<p>The successor of former Carl Zeiss Jena is Jenoptik. They still make optical devices, but no consumer products. There are digicams labelled Jenoptik, but no part of them is made in Jena, they are all rebranded chinese or taiwanese products of mediocre quality.<br>

www.jenoptik.com</p>

<p> </p>

[fred_c1]

<p>Carl Zeiss Oberkochen is the sole owner of Carl Zeiss Jena GmbH. Jenoptik has nothing to do with it since 1995: http://www.zeiss.de/c12567a100537ab9/Contents-Frame/66c4c07ddf516ccec1257141002e7c4b</p>

<p>Zeiss Jena GmbH company site: http://www.smt.zeiss.com/C12571410035282A/?Open</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

There are not many fake C.Z. Jena lenses .. any "fakes" would be those in Kiev/Contax mount! Or those in LTM.. which would be suspect anyway..... I mean really, How many Zeiss lenses were made for Leica? Does anyone know of fake Zeiss lenses in Exakta mount? or 42mm TM?

[fred_c1]

<p>There were some Jenazooms coming out of Japan (most, if not all, made by Sigma). These are not forgeries but not real Zeiss lenses either, even though they bear the name: http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00PHCD</p>

[ralf_j.]

<p>JDM - I love that ad - can you email me a high res copy?</p>

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

<p>There is a bit more behind the newer history of the former government-owned Carl Zeiss Jena. After the reunification the VEB Carl Zeiss Jena was renamed Carl Zeiss Jena GmbH, later Jenoptik Carl Zeiss Jena GmbH. This partially-state owned company was split into Jenoptik GmbH and Carl Zeiss Jena GmbH, the latter was owned by Carl Zeiss Oberkochen and the state of Thueringen. In 1996 the shares held by the states of Thueringen were finally transferred to Carl Zeiss Oberkochen and Jenoptik GmbH (Jenoptik Ltd.) became Jenoptik AG. So I think it is correct to see both Jenoptik AND Carl Zeiss Jena as successors of Carl Zeiss Jena.<br>

Anyhow, there is no doubt that all Carl Zeiss Jena, CZJ and "aus Jena" lenses are genuine Zeiss lenses made in Jena. At least the (redesigned) Tessar made by CZJ in the 1950s probably was one of the best Tessar versions ever made. Due to shortages of suppy by Zeiss-Oberkochen Rollei equipped some Rolleiflexes with CZJ Tessars, and it seems that the owners of these cameras were happier than the owners of Rolleiflexes with west-german Tessars.<br>

I have never heard of any fake CZJ Exakta mount lenses (but I am everything but an Exakta expert). Many Zeiss lenses were manufactured with LTM mount in the 1940s. But obviously there are some fakes, especially of the Zeiss Sonnar in LTM mount, assembled from stolen parts. There are also quite a few Sonnar-LTM fakes made from the FSU-made Sonnar copies. It is strange that so many of the "Zeiss Sonnar" lenses in LTM mount are sold from sellers in former eastern-block countries...<br>

I think there are so many CZJ lenses in M42 mount around that there is no reason to fake them.</p>

<p> </p>

[fred_c1]

<blockquote>

<p>Many Zeiss lenses were manufactured with LTM mount in the 1940s. It is strange that so many of the "Zeiss Sonnar" lenses in LTM mount are sold from sellers in former eastern-block countries...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Simple. That's because Zeiss made very few LTM lenses. The fake ones are forged from Jupiters where they are common in the Eastern bloc.</p>

[fred_c1]

<blockquote>

<p>So I think it is correct to see both Jenoptik AND Carl Zeiss Jena as successors of Carl Zeiss Jena.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>... which is impossible to tell from your first post in the thread.</p>

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

<p>oops ... I did not want to use the term "many lenses" as "a great number of lenses" but "many types of lenses". The total number probably is small compared to Leitz manufacturing figures but Zeiss offered many of their lenses in LTM mount in the 1940s.<br>

Yes, it's true, I have learned a bit since my last post, mainly from the "Jenoptik" article on german Wikipedia. Jenoptik came to my mind first since (with their "own" digital cameras) their name is much more popular than Carl Zeiss Jena GmbH.</p>

 

[bob_miller4]

<p>Post-WW2, what proportion of key Zeiss personnel moved to Oberkochen, as opposed to restarting the Jena operation?</p>

[winfried_buechsenschuetz1]

<p>The chapters about company history on the Zeiss site says that "in 1945, US troops take 126 managers and scientists to their zone (of occupied Germany) - in 1946, the managers and scientists deported by US troops continue the business of the (Zeiss) foundation in the newly founded 'Optische Werke Oberkochen' (Optical Works Oberkochen)". Let's remember that Jena was first occupied by US troops and then handed over to soviet troops (like some other parts of the later GDR). I once read an article about the early post-war history of Zeiss, it was mentioned there that US troops also took thousands of drawings (which had to be re-drawn, partially from memory) and thousands of samples from Jena. Noone knows what ever happened to the collection of samples.<br>

The frontier between GDR and West-Germany were still more or less open until 1961, but I think there are no statistics how many Zeiss scientists, engineers and workers left Jena for Oberkochen between 1945 and 1961.</p>

 

[pavel_dan]

<p>

<p >A few words about the quality of the C.Z.J. lenses.</p>

<p >I don’t like Zeiss Tessars in general. They are high quality lenses at reasonable price but they don’t have the “personality” or “ character” of other lenses. In a way they are the grandparents of contemporary lenses – best quality for money but all are trying to render the reality in the same way, like following an ideal look.Just like a “Mc Donald’s” meal – clean, good taste, cheap … but a kind of uniform taste. I prefer to eat in a little pub some spiced local specialties. It’s a repercussion of the general globalization, I think(or am I getting old?). </p>

<p >Anyway, the lens I like most in the “normal range” of the 6x9 format is a …Tessar. An old 105mm. Tessar T*(coated) from an Ercona I camera made in the early years of D.D.R.. And I do have some 10 “normal” lenses for 6X9 , old and modern, made by most of the great manufacturers, to compare it to. Why I like the old D.D.R. Tessar most? Well, unlike other Tessars I have, it has character. It is almost as sharp as the sharpest lenses I have in this range, it has a reasonable contrast and, what makes it special, it has a very nice way of rendering subtle and delicate tonalities that other lenses don’t even notice. A nice lens for general use - first candidate for being cammed on my 6x9 Linhof Technika. A kind of rich, delicate and subtle precision character – very “German” in it’s best manner, indeed. </p>

<p >That made me buy another Ercona camera – a later Ercona II - but its Tessar had nothing special. Maybe I was just lucky with the first one. The other D.D.R. Zeiss Tessar I have is an 80mm/2,8 wich barely covers 6X9. It is very sharp, but that’s all - no “character”. Its shutter makes it special to me. On it is engraved with minuscule letters: “ Lens made in Germany URSS occupied” - a piece of history. </p>

<p >To resume, in my opinion (based on my limited experience), the early Carl Zeiss Jena MF lenses at least, are of a high quality - equal if not higher than the early Oberkochen lenses or older ones. I have no experience with later D.D.R. Zeiss lenses. </p>

<p >By the way, talking about the Zeiss quality - in Romanian language Zeiss is the only company’s name that became a adjectiv in the commune language (beginning with the late 30’s). If something is perfectly geared or it works perfectly you may say about it that it’s „Zeiss” or it works „Zeiss”.</p>

</p>

[kl122007]

<p>Agree with Pavel, the West-Tessar performs differently from the East site. In a general term, west Tessar/ morden Tessar performers similary without any significant differences. They are sharp, full of colour and high contrast, but there is no character's soul inside.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>Winfried, Jenoptic previously purchased Coastal Optics of Florida. They make arguably the most completely corrected lenses for Nikon. They are several times the cost of comparable Zeiss optics.<br>

http://jenoptik-inc.com/standard-products.html</p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>Contrary to what many think, a lens is an inanimate object that should ideally transport to the film or sensor a faithful rendition of what it sees. </p>

[pavel_dan]

<p>

<p >"Contrary to what many think, a lens is an inanimate object that should ideally transport to the film or sensor a faithful rendition of what it sees."</p>

<p >Yes, you are right. Photography is an instrument to create an objective rendition of the reality. But, in the same time, it interprets what it sees – it has a dual nature. Objects like : portret lenses, wide angles, tele lenses, polariser filters, view cameras, etc are all meant to help you create a faithful, I agree, but deformed rendition of what they see. Photography interprets what it sees exactly in the same manner a musical composition is interpreted by the orchestra and not objectively represented. In this respect I don’t think is exagerate to talk about the "character" of a lens in the same manner you can talk about the "character" of a violin in an orchestra. But we already are out of topic.</p>

</p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>The subjective element belongs to the photographer, who selects and uses the tools to realize his vision. However, we expect the tools to be precise within realistic limits.</p>