CZ Jena Biotar 58/2 (my first Zeiss)

david_smith110 · July 12, 2012

The other day on Craigslist an add showed up for "some old film cameras". The gentleman listed off in the body of the add some Yashica cameras and lenses, an old movie camera and a Praktica FX3. I was initially interested in the Yashica stuff until I looked up the old FX3. Turns out it could have a very nice lens on it.

I sent the email informing him I was interested and some time later I received a call back. The gentleman informed me he was currently having a garage sell but would answer anything about the cameras I needed. I inquired about the Yashica equipment and then asked if the Praktica was still available. He said it was, but that it had been his fathers camera and his son had seen it in the garage sell and expressed an interest in keeping it since he didnt have anything of his grandfathers. He told me that someone had offered him $25 dollars for it but he had to explain that his son wanted it. I asked him out of curiosity if he would tell me what it said on the lens. His reply was "Carl Zeiss Jena, Biotar, 2/58."

I then asked him if he might be willing to sell the lens only for the aforementioned $25 if I could replace it with another lens with the same mount, namely M42. He was immediately amendable since he did not think his son would care which lens was on it as he intended to use it for decoration and memory purposes and he was apparently keen on making as much from this days garage sale as possible.

Upon receiving directions to his house I mounted up the trusty motorcycle and sped over to the garage sell with high hopes. I have never been able to afford and Zeiss glass and now I might actually have the opportunity. When I got there we talked shop for awhile as I looked over the lens. It was in pretty good shape with some marks on the glass and there was a bit of oil on the blades making the aperture a tad bit slow. But it seemed to work. I handed over a Mamiya Sekor 50/2 that had been sitting around ever since I came across a M/S 55/1.8. He screwed it on the camera and thought it looked just fine. He showed his son and he approved as well, remarking that the black lens looked a little better then the silver one that had been on it.

I took that little silver lens home. I cleaned it up. I am in love.

david_smith110 · July 12, 2012

And now for some photos. Please forgive the fact that there are so many, but I have been shooting this like crazy for the last 4 days.

Charles <img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8285/7525426552_8ef40a2218_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="534" /> a far away wilt <img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8428/7547776960_b6c60c6a61_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" /> looking for dust (with Minolta close up lens No. 2) <img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7258/7554207362_3509287970_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" />

a coming wind <img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7271/7547776388_00ff41dfac_c.jpg" alt="" width="531" height="800" /> the light (with Minolta close up lens No. 2) <img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7277/7554207972_9dbb0ee07e_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" /> lifeline <img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8292/7554205868_e6bf9cb4c4_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" /> passed out <img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7259/7529108430_b5f762db77_c.jpg" alt="" width="534" height="800" /> just another angel <img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8421/7554207706_7d51828c47_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" /> once and never gone <img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7131/7554206952_912f2dcc0c_c.jpg" alt="" width="531" height="800" />

david_smith110 · July 12, 2012

If anyone would like to fill me in on any of the history of this lens I would be grateful. I believe it to be one of the German lenses made on the Russian side, correct? And didnt it eventually become the Helios 44-2?

rick_drawbridge · July 12, 2012

Yes, the Helios is a derivation of the Zeiss Biotar optical formula. The Helios has the same rather busy OOF characteristics, which I sometimes find a little distracting. Lovely pics, as usual, David; were they on film, or digital capture? "Far away wilt" is beautiful and typical of images I get with the Helios series. "Just another Angel" and "Lifeline" I also really like. I can see you having lots of fun with this lens. Thanks for another very pictorial post.

david_smith110 · July 12, 2012

Thanks Rick. And good eye, you busted me. All pics are on digital, straight out of the camera (with maybe some sharpening applied), from either my NEX-7 or my SLT a35. All of the B&W's were shot in the High Contrast Monochrome mode. It is rather becoming a favorite mode of mine. I find the natural low contrast of this particular lens suits the over done contrast the camera puts out when its on this setting.

sarah_fox · July 12, 2012

What an interesting lens! It has quite a lot of personality. It shows marked field curvature and overcorrection for spherical aberration (hence the busy bokeh). And yet it is beautifully sharp wide open. The foreground OOF elements show a buttery bokeh, BTW -- as one would expect from the harsher background bokeh. I would think this lens would be lovely for "city lights" photography.

Beautiful photographs, BTW!

carbon_dragon · July 12, 2012

I think this dates back to the East German post war Contax S SLR. Back when the west German Carl Zeiss was producing Contax IIAs and IIIAs, the East Germans were trying to innovate by doing an SLR and I think this was their "normal" lens (using M42 mount). The weakness of the East German lenses was lightweight mounting in aluminum and indifferent quality control, but the optical designs were often quite good since they were just the same designs as the prewar Carl Zeiss. The hard part would be finding one still in good shape. The brass and chrome West German lenses were pretty long lasting, but the East Germans weren't so if you have a good one with good unmarked glass, it's likely to be quite a good lens.

JDMvW · July 12, 2012

The Biotar is the original of which the Helios is a clone. It was copied by nearly everybody all over the world. West Zeiss called their version of it a Planar. It was reportedly originally designed because of the difficulty in getting wider apertures on a Tessar. The 58mm focal length had to do mostly with clearing the mirror on the East Zeiss Contax S, arguably the first prism 35mm SLR. The f/2 was wanted because the original prism on the Contax was fairly dim. These are almost all still working fine. I have a number of them in various mounts from M42 to Exakta and however people may speculate on their "weaknesses" about all that happens is that sometimes a 'cosmolene'-like (not actually Cosmolene) white lubricant has stiffened and requires some naphtha or such to loosen it up. I don't think the aluminum itself has anything to do with it. Although apparent confusion with Soviet-made lenses has led to the charge of indifferent quality control, I have never found that to be true of the ones marked Zeiss or even Jena. There was a period in the DDR of low quality control just before the Wall went up, it is true.

Herbert Kepplar of Modern and later Popular Photography loved this lens and tested it against a more recent Nikon copy : http://keppler.popphoto.com/blog/2007/04/inside_straight.html#more<div></div>

Rob_the_waste · July 12, 2012

I love the series of photographs you took with it. You really made some wonderful use of the bokeh.

q.g._de_bakker · July 12, 2012

"West Zeiss called their version of it a Planar" Historically (and otherwise) rather inaccurate, JDM. A Planar is not the 'West's' version of a Biotar. The Planar was the earlier Zeiss Double-Gauss design. From the 1890s, long before there was a 'West vs East'. And long before there was a Biotar. The Biotar is a Zeiss variation on the Planar, first made in the late 1920s. Also before there was a 'West vs East'.

gene m · July 12, 2012

http://westfordcomp.com/classics/contax-s/october05/biotar.html

JDMvW · July 12, 2012

As I understand it the reason there was a postwar West Zeiss "Planar" for 35mm was because of the success of the East Zeiss lens. I was NOT speaking of the prewar Planar, back in the 19th c , but that history is discussed in Keppler's discussion I linked to. I was only speaking of the time after the Biotar lens in question was designed in the East, old "Cold Warrior" claims notwithstanding about what the Wessies were doing and when.

q.g._de_bakker · July 12, 2012

Well, JDM, it's still woefully inaccurate. "Created in the 1920s by Zeiss Jena, this six-element, five-group optic is still the formula used in most 50-58mm f/1.8-2 range, normal lenses for SLRs." is absolutely correct. And once you remember that Zeiss Jena was not Zeiss 'East' in the 1920s, but simply Zeiss, you're halfway there uncovering the inaccuracy of what you wrote. The other half is rather simple: Zeiss 'West' did not call a, "their", version of the Biotar Planar. The lenses called Planars are, quite simply, Planars. Not "their" version of a Biotar (which - as mentioned - would be rather strange, a Biotar being a version of the Planar design.) There's more still not yet mentioned: the Biotar wasn't copied all over the world, as you said. The Double-Gauss type, of which the Biotar is a variation, is. Zeiss wasn't even the first to create the slight variation they called Biotar. Schneider, for instance, produced the Xenon before Zeiss made the Biotar. Let's see, what more. The Triplet type was developed into a fast version even before the Biotar appeared. Not quite the Tessar, true. But still: there was no difficulty making a fast triplet derivative at that time. The fast Sonnars were a further elaboration from about that time. But still it's not entirely inaccurate to say that the triplet or even Tessar was not such a good lens at f/2 or larger.

nicolas_renon · July 12, 2012

The Planar design was patented before the Tessar but was not really used before lens coating appeared. Instead, the Sonnar was produced for those willing a wider aperture than the Tessar.

Today, we have the choice between the Tessar, the Planar (double Gauss) and the Sonnar. Personally, I prefer the Sonnar.

peter_de_waal · July 12, 2012

Interesting debate, and nice shots David!

The "Gauss type" was developed from the old double-anastigmat formulations such as the Goerz 'Dagor' and the Zeiss 'Double Protar.' They in turn was developed by air separating the inner glasses to form Hugo Meyer's 'Euryplan.' The 1896 Zeiss Planar design separated the outer glasses allowing further correction and an increase in speed to f/3.5.

Around 1920 Mr. H.W. Lee of Taylor, Taylor & Hobson developed an asymmetrical version of the 1896 Planar, resulting in a well-corrected lens with an angle of view of 45 degrees and a maximum aperture of f/2.0. This lens was called the 'Opic', and is actually the true forerunner of modern "Gauss" types. TTH's 'Opic' had a more even distribution of residual aberrations than the original Planar, allowing a more uniform resolution from centre to edge.

Modern 'Opic' types such as the single coated Meyer Oreston in Jena Zebra mount or it's later development the multi-coated Pentacon 50mm f/1.8 are well known for their high performance and low cost. The Oreston is one of my personal favorites, but I love the results from the 1951 Jena pre-set Biotar on my Contax d.

With the Biotar, or it's Helios-44 copy, I find I need to be careful about what kind of background I'm shooting against to avoid harsh bokeh. If it involves lots of foliage I prefer to use the Oreston.

jon_eggleston · July 13, 2012

I have encountered many photographers with low opinions of the 58/2 Biotar, and a few who find it an eminently competent optic (I happen to fall in the latter camp). I think the reason for this is indifferent quality control, as mentioned above. I found mine, in excellent condition and mounted on a similarly beautiful Contax D, in an antique shop in Cesky Krumlov in the Czech Republic several years ago. I have enjoyed using the lens, especially on the Contax. Its plain, distraction-free, toothy ground-glass finder conduces to careful composition, a frame of mind I like to enter even if my results are still compositionally impaired. In any case, I have found nothing to fault in the performance of the Biotar. I would compare it to the best of the Xenons I have used, or to the Steinheil Quinon on my Praktina FX (another favorite combination). They are all, of course, of the same six-element type, of the post-war era, and with the coating technology of their time. I'm sure there are others of the type out there waiting to be appreciated, the numbers depending on original quality control and the effects of age (internal haze from vaporized and re-deposited lubricants is a killer of contrast in a well made and otherwise undamaged lens). I used a 1950s Petri rangefinder with a very nice 50/2 Orrikor for a time, before its shutter failed. The Petris of the Sixties earned a reputation for shoddier construction.

JDMvW · July 13, 2012

QC, for sure there was no East or West Zeiss before 1945. Do you really suppose that no one is aware of that? I was and am talking specifically about the lens the OP just bought. There were, of course, Planars before there was a Biotar. but it was the Biotar on the Contax S that had the impact in the world of lens design after 1949. Of course, West Zeiss never admitted to ever copying anything from the original company in Dresden and Jena. That's politics, not history. Those Commies couldn't possibly have come up with a good idea of any kind. I think there is a very good argument that the West in this case of the Biotar of the late 40s was influenced by the East, and I am by no means the first to point this out. Of course, if you only read the Western propaganda, you'd have no hint of this.

Inaccuracy is often in the mind of the critic, but there's no excuse, now that the Cold War is over, for denigrating the contributions made under very trying conditions by the workers of Zeiss in the DDR.

The fact, yes fact, that the Biotar is a "version" of the general Planar design, does not mean that is only a Planar. There are lots of older Planars, but an awful lot of the late double Gauss designs after the war have a really surprising resemblance specifically to the Biotar, not the older designs.

Karim Ghantous · July 13, 2012

Some lovely shots there, David. My favourite would have to be 'Just Another Angel'. This lens definitely has that old-school character. It's most obvious in the last shot. There is a kind of 'distance' between the observer and the images made with lenses like this. It's so hard to explain. I think your photos show that once you have a good film or sensor, it's the lens that counts for most of the way the image looks.

q.g._de_bakker · July 13, 2012

JDM What i am telling you is that you were incorrect, for the reasons given. You're biggest error (you're still continuing - so again i'm telling you that you are incorrect) is turning this into a 'West vs East' thingy. It isn't. Trying to construe pointing out that it isn't as an attempt to denegrate the 'East', cold war politics, is quite something. Kudos! But you knew how succesfull it would be even before you wrote that stuf. Given all that, JDM, would you yourself not say that someone - you - is indeed assuming that there was an 'East vs West' thingy before 1945? If not, you really should. ;-) All that holds even when we limit this discussion to the specfic lens, manufactured in the 1950s, when there certainly was a 'West vs East' thing going on. Why has been pointed out in my first attempt to point out where you are wrong: the Biotar - even when a Biotar lens was manufactured in the 1950s, would be today or tomorrow, is not a lens designed in the 1950s, today or tomorrow. If not from me, accept it from the source you quoted in your defence: "Created in the 1920s by Zeiss Jena" Another mistake you're perpetuating is the confusion about what is a copy of what. Planars are not copies of Biotars. Biotars are not the general, basic design idea. A Biotar is a slight variation on the Double (! Peter - a "Gauss type" is only a half of the lenses you mentioned) Gauss theme. Planars are that too. Neither one is a copy of the other. I understand that a conspiracy theory, suggesting that Zeiss 'West' copied something good Zeiss 'East' did without wanting anyone to know it, for Cold War political reasons, fits your desire to turn it into a 'West vs East' thingy. But, again, this is not (!) a 'West vs East' thingy. Finally a challence: could you point out the specific differences between a Biotar, a Planar and other Double Gauss designs? ;-)

q.g._de_bakker · July 13, 2012

Peter, In case you don't read the altercations between JDM and me (and noone would blame you for not doing so), a slight correction of what you wrote: a "Gauss type" lens is only half of the types of lenses you mentioned, only half of a Biotar or Planar. The basic idea behind those lenses was to take two of such "Gauss type" lenses, put one behind the other, reverse the second, and create a (somewhat) symmetric Double Gauss type lens. You do know that, of course. Just wanted to insert the word "Double" into the designation you used in your post for these lenses. Those Double Gauss type lenses all were asymmetrical right from the start, by the way. Slight or less slight variations in the halves offer important means to improve the image quality.

JDMvW · July 13, 2012

What I was talking about, from start to finish, was that the lens purchased by the OP was a representative of a lens which was built in part to service the new Contax S and later East German SLRs. The camera itself was revolutionary, even though it had precursors that go back before WWII.

That camera had a superb lens on it, among others, that was the Biotar 58mm f/2 lens. I argue that it was that particular occurrence of the Double Gauss design that had its historical impact.

If you would just go back and actually read Keppler's little article I linked to in my FIRST post, you would see that all this stuff about the historical roots of the thing was in my comment from the start:

Since you don't want to look at the article, here is one part of it concerning your "corrections"

for the normal focal length lens of the Contax S, which most purchasers bought with the camera bodies, Zeiss reached far back in its optical closet and came up with the six-element, five-group 58mm f/2 Biotar -- the same design used on the 35mm Exakta waist-level cameras since 1936! It focused to 18 inches instead of the rangefinder cameras' 3 feet, and its 58mm focal length provided 1:1 viewing on the Contax S focusing screen.

Almost all the other camera manufacturers aped the Contax S lens focal length specs (or near them) and close focusing for their initial lenses: the 58mm f/1.2 Canon, 55mm f/1.4 Chinon, 57mm f/1.4 Hexanon, 58mm f/1.4 Nikkor, 58mm f/1.4 Auto Rokkor, 58mm f/1.4 Topcon.

</blockquote>

q.g._de_bakker · July 13, 2012

JDM, When will you stop this madness? I quoted that article to you, which must be quite a feat, given that - as you suppose - i "don't want to look at" and thus cannot even have read. The thing is still the same, no matter what you want to turn it into: "West Zeiss called their version of it a Planar" Historically (and otherwise) rather inaccurate, JDM. And that's it.

JDMvW · July 13, 2012

If that makes you happy, QG, fine. I see that it is madness to not accept your interpretations of your facts.

fred_c1 · July 14, 2012

Zeiss Oberkochen have always used Planar for all their double-gauss lenses, just as they use the name Sonnar even for Ernostar designs. It's just a simple, clean marketing decision not to have too many different lens names. Nothing to do with belittling DDR Zeiss at all.

In fact, Zeiss "East and West" even co-operated back in the 1950s: Jena supplied some lenses for the Contax IIa/IIIa and Rolleiflexes when Oberkochen wasn't up to capacity.

evan_dong1 · July 14, 2012

For additional reading on the West - East Zeiss history, I would recommend searching out a copy of the following book:

<h1 >Zeiss Compendium East & West: 1940-1972 (Hove) </h1>

Written by Charles Barringer & Marc James Small. Wealth of information that explain the split.

Evan

Sign In

CZ Jena Biotar 58/2 (my first Zeiss)

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in