A long-focus lens is a lens that has a focal length longer than the diagonal measure of the film or sensor. A telephoto lens is a sub-category, whereby a lens contains a group of elements that allow the physical length of the lens to be shorter than the focal length. Therefore all telephotos are long-focus lenses, but not all long-focus lenses are telephotos.
The most important difference between a long-focus lens of conventional construction and a telephoto lens of the same focal length lies in the overall length of the lens. Thus, a conventional 400mm lens will be positioned roughly 400mm away from the film, and will be fitted in a lens barrel approaching 400mm in length. Many of the lenses produced by companies such as Tewe were long focus lenses. A telephoto with a focal length of 400mm, on the other hand, may be as little as 300mm in length, and will be usually much lighter in weight than the conventional lens.
A tale of three different 400mm long focus lenses. The Telemegor and Tele_Takumar are telephoto lenses, the Asahi Takumar 500mm is a pure long-focus lens.
The reduced length of a telephoto is derived by using a more “complex” optical design. One tremendous advantage of the telephoto construction is that it permits the use of lenses of very great focal length – lenses which would be impossibly heavy and inconvenient if the normal construction were used. Historically, long focus lenses, with focal lengths up to 2000mm, were often so big that it was customary to support the lens on a sturdy tripod.
Lenses are funny. Lenses with small focal lengths usually contain a lot of glass, conversely those with long focal lengths contain very little. Why is this the case? Shouldn’t telephoto lenses be filled with optical elements? The answer is no, and it’s because of the nature of how telephoto lenses, or in this case long-focus lenses, work – vintage telephoto lenses are not all built in the same way.
The famous 400mm lens from “Rear Window” only has two lens elements.
There are some vintage long-focus lenses that have a mere two elements – many of these lenses have extremely long focal lengths. These two-element lenses were often cemented together, positioned in front of the diaphragm, with very little in the way of anything else in the lens barrel. Simple lenses of the type are capable of excellent definition if the field is restricted to a few degrees from the axis and the aperture is not too great.
This type of 2-element lens was made by a number of different manufacturers:
Vintage lenses are festooned with markings. There are the numbers related to focusing, and the f-stop values, but the details engraved upon the lens name plate will explain most things about the lens. This post will look at vintage lens markings by investigating a few examples. In general, most lenses have 5-6 markings: (i) lens model/brand; (ii) maximum aperture (speed); (iii) focal length, (iv) serial number; (v) company; and (vi) place of manufacture (these are shown in Figure 1 using colour coding to highlight). In addition there may be some symbols used to denote specialty characteristics such as lens coatings. These markings are usually found on the front of the lens on the rim sounding the first element. On lenses where there is no room on the front of the lens, the lens marking are usually found circumscribed around the outside of the lens.
Fig 1. The various markings on a lens (colour coded)
The first two items described are the manufacturer (or brand), and the type or name of the lens. In this case the manufacturer is E.Ludwig, and the type or name of the lens is a MERITAR. Most vintage lenses also provide the len’s serial number on the name plate – in this case 1199207. With come manufacturers the serial number helps track down information like where, and when it was manufactured. The most important information is the 1:2.9, which basically specifies the speed (maximum aperture) of the lens, here f/2.9. The last piece of information is f=50mm which specifies the focal length of the lens. On this particular lens there is also two additional symbols which specify lens coating and a quality mark.
Fig 2. Lens markings on various brands (same colour-coding as Fig.1, with the addition of red to denote place of manufacture)
Figure 2 shows three more examples of lens markings from Kilfitt, Asahi, and Enna. Figure 3 shows lens markings from Zeiss Biotar 58mm f/2 lenses from two differing periods. The latter one has more cryptic lens marking – there is less info here because the lens was produced during the infamous Zeiss trademark dispute. Zeiss Jena in East Germany marked the Biotar lenses with a “B”, in order for them to be sold in the west.
Fig 3. Zeiss Biotar lenses from two differing periods
The focal length/aperture combination is the one thing that can be described in a number of different ways. The f-number is normally specified using a ratio, 1:x, rather than the f/ term. On some lenses the length and aperture are combined in the form aperture/focal length, e.g. 2.8/50. It’s actually somewhat rare to see f being used to specify maximum aperture, instead it is often used to signify focal length, e.g. f=58mm. Focal length is nearly always specified in metric, the only difference being that up until about 1950, many lenses were specified in centimetres, whereas afterwards the focal length became more standardized using millimetres. So an early lens might have been 5cm, versus the more standardized 50mm.
Fig 4. Specialized lens markings found on various German lenses.
Sometimes vintage lenses also carry other markings. Sometimes instead of a brand name, there is a logo to signify a brand. This is common in vintage Russian lenses where the same lens could have been manufactured in more than one plant. Some lenses also have a number with the diameter symbol, ∅, which indicates the filter size of the lens in mm. Some lenses also use letters to signify the presence of lens coatings, e.g. Meyer Optik specified a lens coating using a red “V”, after the focal length (which means Vergütet = coating). Examples of specialized lens markings for German lenses is shown in Figure 5.
Fig 5. Types of specialized lens markings found on German lenses.
Some online photographic stores have lenses that are marked as “rare”. This is sometimes a bit of a red flag, because as is often the case, these lenses are not really rare. Rare sometimes indicates that the seller has priced the lens high, even if the lens has defects. It is possible that “rare” emanates from an internet search that found few comparable lenses. For example there is nothing rare about a Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 lens, certainly not one that usually sells for under $100. There may be some early versions of the lens, e.g. the early “silver” ones, that are less common, but the lens itself is not rare. Rare lenses do exist, but these are usually rare because few were produced, or few are available. The Helios-40, 85mm f/1.5 is a less-common lens, and could rightly be portrayed as rare. In many respects it would be better to use the term “uncommon” when describing lenses that have low availability, leaving “rare” for the truly rare lenses.
Truly rare lenses include the likes of the Fisheye Nikkor Auto 6mm f/2.8, which can be worth upwards of $150K. The Canon 50mm f/0.95 on the other hand could probably be considered uncommon, as only 20,000 were produced. The Konica Hexanon 60mm f/1.2 is even rarer, with only 800 units supposedly produced. However it is fairly hard to define a Zeiss Sonnar 135mm lens as being rare, because a lot were produced, and there is nothing inherently special about them just because they are branded ZEISS (they sell for about C$75) – vintage 135mm lenses are a dime a dozen. The only rare 135mm lenses are those from companies who produced very few, or the lenses themselves had some sort of interesting or exclusive characteristic.
Is it rare or uncommon? The distinction is not always an easy one.
There are many reasons a lens could be considered rare. Vintage lenses with small focal lengths, or super-fast speeds (for a particular period) will always be quite rare, because few were likely produced (they were expensive to produce). A good example is the Vivitar Professional 135mm f/1.5 (T-mount) – nobody would necessarily use the terms Vivitar and rare in the same sentence, but is a special lens. Possibly only a few hundred of the 135mm lenses were made, having been originally produced for NASA in 1966-1967. But it’s claim to fame is that it was a superfast 135mm (and it was super large, 140mm long, 100mm diameter, and 2kg in weight). There are few, if any, on the market today.
A further reason is that a lens may represent the first of a series, or has some particular historical significance. A good example is the first 35mm macro lens, the Kilfitt Macro Kilar D 40mm f/3.5. Or perhaps it is rare because it is a pre-war lens – for example associated with the release of the Kine Exakta, the first 35mm SLR. A good example of this is the famed Biotar 75mm f/1.5, released in 1939, and was the fastest portrait lens at the time. Still another form of rarity – one where a lens is very rare in one version, but commonplace in another, even though both versions being optically identical – usually has something to do aesthetic differences between the the lenses, or the amount of time it was in production.
Some lenses are marked “rare” for the pure shock value – because if people think a lens is rare, they will be more likely to purchase it. So before buying a lens make sure to determine whether the lens is in fact rare, and whether it warrants the price being asked. In addition avoid purchasing a rare lens that is severely deficient, e.g. has stiff focusing or aperture mechanisms, or optical fungus. Spending $1000 on a defective lens, even if it is rare, is somewhat foolhardy (unless you are a collector, and have no plans to actually use the lens). It can be very challenging to have a rare lens repaired, depending of course on the type of damage – first it is hard to find someone to repair it, and it may also be hard and expensive to find parts (rare lenses means rare parts). For example I’ve seen one ad for a Konica Hexanon 57mm f/1.2, for C$500, cited the lens as being rare, with a series of caveats – internal spots of fungus on the optics, and stiff focus, and aperture mechanism. It turns out this lens is one of the least rare Hexanon lenses.
Note that some sellers use the term “rare find”, which is somewhat different in context. A rare find implies that there aren’t many available at a particular time.
P.S. Another term to be wary of is “mint”, which means pristine, or unblemished. Is it truly possible to define a lens as being devoid of all defects? Most vintage lenses contain contain at least some sort of dust internally (unless it was stored in its box in the right conditions for the past 50+ years).
Historical accounts of who actually invented the zoom lens differ. But its adaptation to the SLR is down to one person – Frank Gerhard Back. He designed the first zoom lens for 35mm cameras – the Voightländer Zoomar. Before the Zoomar saw the light of day, designs with adjustable focal lengths were called varifocal lenses or rubber lenses.
“A great number of optical problems have been overcome in this lens. It is a splendid achievement. It zooms – what other still lens does?”
Look! A real zoom lens for your 35mm, Herbert Keppler, Modern Photography (May, 1959)
Back was born in Vienna, Austria in 1902. He attended the Technische Hochschule of Vienna where he received a masters in mechanical engineering in 1925, and a doctorate of science in 1931. From 1929 to 1938 he worked as a consulting engineer during which he was employed by Georg Wolfe, a manufacturer of endoscopes. In July 1939, he emigrated to the United States. After working for various companies in New York City, he started his own company in 1944, Research and Development Laboratory. In 1945 he started Zoomar Inc. where he developed and patented an optically-compensated zoom lens for 16mm television cameras (1948), and one for 35mm SLR cameras by 1959. From the late 1940s through to the 1970s, Back introduced new innovations for television, motion, picture, film photography, astronomical, and numerous other applications. On 25 October 1946, Back presented a new type of variable focal length lens to a convention of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers (SMPE) in Hollywood, California. The lens, sometimes known as the could zoom from 17 to 53mm, and contained 22 lens elements. It was 12” in length, weighed 790 grams and had an aperture range of f/2.9-f/22 [3].
Zoomar lenses disrupted the market for American television camera lenses, and likely were the catalyst in making zoom lenses ubiquitous in the industry. Back’s Zoomar lens had a substantial impact on both the motion picture, and television industries in the years following. It gradually made the “practice of “zooming” a more desirable, acceptable, and practical technique, in turn spurring demand for zoom lenses suitable for feature film use, with higher optical quality and greater zoom ranges. By 1954 a more compacts version of the “Zoomar 16” appeared – 5” in length, and weighing 570g it now had a zoom range of 25-75mm. It is not surprising that the concept would eventually spill over into the still camera industry.
In Back’s design, four of the lens’s 14 elements (the lenses in groups 2, 3, and 6 move linearly together to allow for focal length changes) move from 36mm to 82mm. A ×2.3 range from 36mm to 82mm allowed the lens to retain a reasonable speed of f/2.8, good image sharpness, and optical anomalies kept to a minimum (something earlier varifocal lenses could not achieve). The use of the word “zoom” likely derived from the Zoomar name. The lens used a push/pull mechanism to change focal length, whereby the change of focal length happens when the photographer moves the ring towards the mount or backwards.
Zoomar lens schematics (the lens diagram shows the 36mm and 82mm positions of the moving lens components).
Optically, the Zoomar 36-82 was a great breakthrough, made possible according to Dr. Back by new rare earth element glasses (Lanthanum) and computer aided optical designs. Back filed two patents in 1958 [6,7], one for optical design, and another for mechanics, likely at the same time production was already gearing up. Starting in 1959 the German optics firm Heinz Kilfitt would build the lens, under contract with Voigtländer for their Bessamatic SLR. The Voigtländer Zoomar was presented to the public on February 10, 1959 at the International Camera Show in Philadelphia (the same show that introduced the Nikon F and Canon Canonflex). Back would file another patent relating to an improved optical design in 1959 [8]. This optical design modified the rear lens elements, both in the type of element, and the material from which they were constructed.
Thelens optical design in Patent No. US2902901
By the late-1950s, Zoomar was to have some legal issues regarding its patent, fighting a patent battle with Paillard Products, the US subsidiary of Swiss company Paillard-Bolex, which had been importing French zoom lenses. In 1958 the New York Southern District Court ruled that Back’s patent overreached by appearing to cover all zoom lenses of any design. Zoomar eventually reduced its R&D of new lenses in favour of promoting foreign-made lenses – Back purchased Heinz Kilfitt in 1968 (catalog).
“The Voigtlander-Zoomar is the only Zoomar lens for still cameras. This model, with fully automatic diaphragm, is designed expressly for use with the Bessamatic Camera. A high-precision varifocal lens, in focus at all focal lengths from 36 to 82mm, it enables the photographer to shoot continuously at variable focal lengths without changing camera position.”
Description from the manufacturer.
The lens was produced from 1959-1968, with a total of only 15,000 units being built. Today the Zoomar 36-82 f/2.8 is often associated with the Voigtländer Bessamatic SLR. However the Zoomar was introduced from day one in both the DKL (Voigtländer) and Exakta mounts. Later it was also produced in other mounts, including the ALPA, and an M42 mount for the East German cameras like the Ikon Contax S. By the early 1960’s there were more zoom lens options, mostly in the telephoto zoom realm. None were anything special when compared to prime lenses, as they often had increased distortion and less contrast, but these were often overlooked because of the “newness” of the technology. It is still possible to find these lenses today, with prices in the range of C$700-1200 for lenses in reasonable condition.
✽ The Zoomar actually had a doppelganger – the Russian Zenit-6 camera came standard with a zoom lens called the Rubin-1. It wasn’t exactly the same, the focal length is shorter at 37-80mm and both had different zooming mechanisms.
Paul Piesker & Co. was founded in 1936 as a Berlin manufacturer of lenses and lens accessories for reflex cameras (in West Germany). After WW2 the company focused on lenses with long focal lengths for the Exakta and cameras with M42 mounts. Like its competitors, Astro-Berlin, and Tewe, Piesker lenses don’t seem to very common, at least not in Europe. Most of the lenses produced seem to have been for the US market, where they appeared in ads in Popular Photography in the mid 1950s. The lenses can also be found under the “Kalimar” trademark, and also rebranded for Sterling Howard, under the trademark “Astra”, and “Voss” (in addition to other brands: Picon, Votar, Telegon). Production at Piesker was discontinued in 1964.
It was Zeiss who came up with the “the eagle eye of your camera” slogan in the 1930s to advertise their lenses (or in German “Das Adlerauge Ihrer Kamera” – eagle eye being Adlerauge) [1]. Of course they were mostly talking about the Tessar series of lenses.
“The objective should be as the eagle’s eye, whose acuity is proverbial. Where its glance falls, every finest detail is laid bare. Just as the wonderful acuity of the eagle’s eye has its origin, partly in the sharpness of the image produced by its cornea and lens, and partly in the ability of the retina – far exceeding that of man’s vision – to resolve and comprehend the finest details of this delicate image, so, for efficiency, must the camera be provided on the one hand with a ‘retina’ (the plate or film) of the highest resolving power – a fine grain emulsion – and on the other hand with an objective which can produce the needle sharp picture of the eagle’s lens and cornea.”
The Eagle Eye of your Camera (1932)
Zeiss took great lengths to use this simile to describe their lenses. A lens must have the sharpness of an eagle’s eye, and the ability to admit a large amount of light – sharpness and rapidity over a wide field of view – the Zeiss Tessar. While Leica named their lenses to indicate their widest aperture, Zeiss instead opted to name their lenses for the design used. Indeed the Tessar came in numerous focal length/aperture combinations, from a 3¾cm f/2.8 to a 60cm f/6.3.
Zeiss “Eagle Eye” advertising in the 1930s
The Tessar is an unsymmetrical system of lenses : 7 different curvatures, 4 types of glass, 4 lens thicknesses, 2 air separations, i.e. 17 elements which can be varied. Zeiss went to great lengths to disseminate the message about Tessar lenses:
sharp, flare-free definition
great rapidity (allowing short instantaneous exposures)
exceptional freedom from distortion (obviating any objectionable curvature)
good colour correction
compact design (so that light falling off near the edge is reduced to a minimum)
sufficient separation of the components of the lens (to allow a between lens shutter)
the use of types of glass as free as possible of colour
reduction to the minimum of the number of lenses, and particularly of glass-air surfaces
“It must have the sharpness of the eagle’s eye”
It is then not surprising that Zeiss choose to compare the lens to an eagle’s eye. The eagle is considered to be the pinnacle of visual evolution. They can see prey from a distance – it is said they can see a rabbit in a field while soaring at 10,000 feet (1.9 miles or 3km). It was Aristotle (in 350BCE) who in his manuscript “Aristotle, History of Animals” pointed out that “the eagle is very sharp-sighted”. The problem however is that it’s not really possible to compare a simple lens against the eye of a living organism. Zeiss was really comparing the lens of an eagle’s eye against the Tessar, or rather the Tessar and the human eye behind it, because the camera lens is just a part of the equation of analog picture taking. So how does an eagle eye compare to a human one?
It’s kind of hard to really compare eyes from different species because they are all designed to do different things. In all likelihood, human eyes have evolved over time as our environment changed. In birds, unlike humans, each eye looks outwards at a differing scene, and the overlap of the visual field of both eyes, i.e. the binocular region, is relatively small. This is typically less than 60° in birds, versus 120° in humans, and can be as narrow as 5-10° in some species. Because of this a birds total visual field is quite extensive, with just a narrow blind region behind the head. Eagle’s have a highly developed sense of sight which allows them to easily spot prey. They have 20/5 vision compared to the average human who has 20/20 vision. This means they can see things at 20’ away that humans only have the ability to see at 5’. They have fixed eye sockets, angled 30° from the mid-line of their face, giving them a 340° view. Many also have violet-sensitive visual systems, i.e. the ability to see ultraviolet light and detect more colours than human eyes can.
A Golden eagle, and a cross-section of an eagle’s eye
The first thing to consider may be the size of the eye. We will pick one eagle to compare against human vision, and the best option is the (European) Golden Eagle, because it is quite common in Germany. The average weight of a Golden Eagle is 6.1kg, versus the average weight of a European (human) at 70.8kg. If we work on the principle that an eagle’s eye is similar in weight to a human eye (ca. 7.5g) then an eagle’s eye would comprise 0.12% of its body weight, versus 0.01% of a human. So for the human’s eye to be equivalent in mass based on eye:body weight ration, it would need to be 85g. But this is really an anecdotal comparison, the bigger picture lies with the construction of the eye.
One of the reasons birds of prey have such incredible eye-sight is the fact that their deeper fovea allows them to accommodate a greater number of photoreceptors and cones. The central fovea in an eagle’s eye has 1 million cones per square millimetre, compared to 200,000 in a human eye. One way that eagles do this is by having increased resolution. This is achieved by have reduced space between their photoreceptors. Due to the physics of light, the absolute minimum separation between cones for an eye to function correctly is 2µm (0.002mm). As the space between the photoreceptors decreases, so too does the minimum size of the detail.
Parts of an eagle’s vision
The other thing of relevance is that while humans have one fovea, eagles generally have two – a central fovea used for hunting (cone separation 2µm, versus human cone separation of 3µm), and a secondary fovea which provides a high resolution field of view to the side of their head. So like a camera sensor, more cones means better resolution. In context Robert Shlaer [2] suggested that the resolution of a Golden eagle’s eye may be anywhere from 2.4 to 2.9 times that of a human, with the Martial Eagle somewhere between 3.0 and 3.6 times. The spatial resolution of a Wedge-Tailed eagle is between 138-142 cycles per degree [3], while that of a human is a mere 60. Their foveae are also distinctly shaped, deep and convex, as opposed to the rounded and shallow single fovea of human eyes. In a 1978 article for the scientific journal Nature, Snyder and Miller [4] proposed that the unique shape of foveae found in some birds of prey may act like a telephoto lens, magnifying their vision, which is perhaps why these feathered predators can spot food from so far in the sky. Like humans, eagles can change the shape of their lens, however in addition they can also change the shape of their corneas. This allows them more precise focusing and accommodation than humans.
But Zeiss themselves harked on the limitations of the simile: The fact that an eagle can quickly turn its head to allow for viewing in any direction; the fact that the retina is curved, not flat. From the perspective of resolution the ads were true to form, however the other aspects of the an eagle’s vision did not ring true. Yes, telephoto lenses based on the Tessar design could certainly see further than a human, and given the right lens and film could see into the violet spectrum, but Zeiss’s claim was really more about finding a way to describe it’s lenses in a provoking manner, one which would ultimately sell lenses.
Further reading:
Zeiss Brochure: “The Eagle Eye of your Camera”, Carl Zeiss, Jena (1932)
Reymond, L. (1985). Spatial visual acuity of the eagle Aquila audax: A behavioural, optical and anatomical investigation. Vision Research, 25(10), 1477–1491.
Snyder, A.W., Miller, W.H., “Telephoto lens system of falconiform eyes”, Nature, 275, pp.127-129 (1978)
As cooperation deteriorated, and finally terminated in 1953, it was inevitable that eventually there were some issues with trademarks between the two Zeiss’s. I mean they were on different sides of the Iron Curtain. The East German Carl Zeiss company did not own all the rights to some of the names and brands. This would likely have been fine had they just been sold within the eastern-bloc countries, however many were made to be exported to the west (which is really somewhat ironic) – lenses were developed to sell in the West to produce hard currency. They achieved this at the beginning by resurrecting pre-war designs. Political influence over East Germany did not have any influence in how products were manufactured.
Zeiss vs. Zeiss branding over the years
In February 1954 Zeiss in Heidenheim fired the first shots in what would eventually become a worldwide litigation. They obtained an injunction in the District Court of Goettingen to prevent the continued sale of Jena-made, Zeiss-marked goods [1]. In April Zeiss Jena countered in West Germany by seeking an injunction and an order registering the Zeiss marks in West Germany in its name. That action was dismissed in 1960 when the West German Supreme Court ruled that there was no one in the Soviet Zone having capacity to represent the Zeiss Foundation.
In the same year Zeiss Heidenheim brought action against the Zeiss Jena to prevent them from using the Zeiss name and trademarks anywhere in the world. The Supreme Court of the Federal German Republic determined that the Heidenheim firm was entitled to exclusive use of the Zeiss name and trademarks in West Germany and West Berlin [1]. Interestingly, a CIA report from 1954 [2] suggests that should the naming issues take an “unfavourable” turn for VEB CZJ, then the plan was to change its name to VEB Ernst Abbe Werk (which they obviously never did).
Information provided by lens markings
There was also a long court battle in the US over who owned the rights to the Zeiss name. The litigation commenced on February 14, 1962, filed by Carl Zeiss Foundation and Zeiss Ikon AG against VEB Carl Zeiss Jena and its US distributors [1] (Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. VEB Carl Zeiss Jena). The case went to discovery from 1963-1967 and finally to trial in November 1967. On November 7, 1968, the court found in favour of the plaintiffs, deciding that the US trademarks “Zeiss”, “Zeiss Ikon”, and “Carl Zeiss Jena”, were the property of the Zeiss firm located in West Germany. As to the legitimacy of this? The courts found that the original “Stiftung” ceased to exist in Jena when it had been stripped of its assets. The Stiftung’s domicile was then changed from Jena to Heidenheim. It was not until 1971 [3] that the US Supreme Court finally settled the case of Carl Zeiss vs. VEB Carl Zeiss Jena, after a long 9½ year battle for control of the “Zeiss” trademark, siding with Heidenheim.
Examples of Carl Zeiss Jena lens markings over the years.
After this, Carl Zeiss marketed their lenses as “Carl Zeiss” exclusively in the United States, whereas Carl Zeiss Jena exported their lenses to the US with the marking “aus Jena”, or sometimes “JENOPTIK”, or even “JENOPTIK JENA”. The branding on these lenses was changed: “T” instead of Tessar, “B” for Biotar, “Bm” for Biometar, “S” for Sonnar, “F” for Flektogon, etc. in order not to infringe on the copyright. Therefore a lens might be labelled “Carl Zeiss Jena s”, or “aus Jena s”, and be exactly the same lens. It really depended on where the lenses were sold.
In the Eastern-bloc countries, CZJ could use the name “Carl Zeiss”. Carl Zeiss Oberkochen was not allowed to use “Zeiss” by itself, and instead used the name “Opton” or “Zeiss-Opton”.
In some western countries – namely West Germany, Italy, Greece, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Austria – CZO was allowed to use the name “Carl Zeiss”. CZJ chose to use the name “aus Jena” in the case of lenses.
The rest of the world, i.e. Commonwealth countries like England and Canada, Switzerland, Japan, both companies could use the name “Carl Zeiss”, but only if there was an indicator of origin. For example CZO used “Carl Zeiss West Germany”, and CZJ used “Carl Zeiss Jena” or the term DDR somewhere.
Examples of Carl Zeiss Opton lens markings over the years.
Of course it is also easy to identify a lens if it is marked with DDR. Some lenses were made in only East or West Germany, while others had names which continued to be shared.
East German only lenses: Biometar (a modified Planar), Flektogon (similar to Distagon), Flexon, Pancolar
One of the things that gets very confusing for some people is differentiating between Zeiss lenses from East and West Germany. First, let’s look at the backstory. Prior to World War II, Carl Zeiss Jena had been one of the largest suppliers of optical goods in the world. Note that Carl Zeiss was an optical company and different to Zeiss Ikon, which was a camera company formed in 1926 from the merger of four camera makers: Contessa-Nettel, Ernemann, Goerz and Ica. Both were members of the Carl Zeiss Foundation.
During the war, Jena had been pounded by allied bombing – the British bombed the Zeiss works on 27 May 1943, and the Americans repeated this twice in 1945. Mind you, there was not enough damage to put the factories out of commission but enough to slow production. Jena was captured by the American 80th Infantry Division on April 13th, 1945, and would remain in US control for two months before withdrawing in favour of the Soviet forces. As Americans departed, they took with them 122 key personnel from Jena to Heidenheim in the US zone of occupation (the personnel were from Carl Zeiss and Schott). At the conclusion of hostilities in 1945, Germany was split into differing zones, and as Jena was in the German state of Thuringia, it came under Soviet control (based on the Yalta Conference agreement).
A New York Times article in September 1946 suggested that the Russians were taking US$3,000,000 worth of finished products monthly for reparations [1]. At this stage there was very little in the way of dismantling equipment to ship back to Russia. In fact an earlier NYTimes article [2], suggested Russian occupation authorities had actually stimulated production at the Zeiss plants to pre-war levels, in order to facilitate reparations. It should be noted that the Zeiss plant produced more than just photographic optics – it also produced microscopes, medical and surgical instruments, ophthalmic instruments, geodetic instruments, electron microscopes, binoculars, etc., and military items [3].
The bombing damage to the Zeiss Jena plant
By 22 October 1946, the Soviet occupation authorities began dismantling the Zeiss plant [3] as war reparation payments agreed upon in the Potsdam Agreement. This was known as Operation Osoaviakhim, and involved many industries across Germany. It resulted in the removal of 93% of Zeiss’ equipment (including raw material, pipes, boilers, sanitary installations, etc), and 275 Zeiss specialists [4] deported to various locations in the USSR (approximately 90% of those deported would return to Jena in 1952). The taking of war “booty” was of course entirely legitimate, yet as Peter Nettl put it in a 1951 article, “Like a child long deprived of chocolate, the first Soviet ‘dismantlers’ flung themselves on all the available tidbits” [5].
A US intelligence report from July 1947 described the status of the Zeiss works at Jena [6]. In it they suggest that optical and photographic production had been least affected by the dismantling, with the plant producing lenses for the Soviets (Tessar 5cm f/3.5). The dismantling program had been completed by April 1947 [7], after which the Soviet High Command turned the plant over to the Germans, who re-established the plant. About 1000 machines remained at Jena after the dismantling, allowing for the continued production of eye glasses, camera lenses, medical glass and measuring instruments [8]. There was every hope at this time (at least from the West German side of things), that this was a temporary situation and that in 3-5 years Heidenheim staff would move back to Jena [6].
In June 1948, the Zeiss Jena plants were expropriated by the Land Expropriation Commission [9] and transferred to state ownership, becoming known as “VEB Carl Zeiss Jena”. In the American zone, Zeiss was reborn as “Opton Optische Werke Oberkochen GmbH” in 1946, becoming “Zeiss-Opton Optische Werke Oberkochen GmbH” in 1947, and Carl Zeiss in 1951. They had very little except the relocated personnel and supposedly a quantity of Zeiss documents. In 1949 Germany officially split into East Germany (Deutsche Demokratische Republik) and West Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland). Between 1948 and 1953 the two firms cooperated commercially with one another, after which cooperation deteriorated as the East German regime tightened control on VEB.
Like Zeiss, Zeiss Ikon (Dresden), best known for its Contax camera, also split in 1948. In the west, it was reformed into Zeiss Ikon AG Stuttgart. In the mid 1960s it merged with Voigtländer. It followed the Contax rangefinder line releasing the Contax IIa and IIIa cameras in the early 1950s. In the east, Zeiss Ikon became state owned, known as VEB Zeiss Ikon Dresden (ZID). ZID may be best known for its advanced SLR model, the Contax S, introduced in 1948.
Further reading:
“Russians take 90% of Zeiss Output”, The New York Times, Sept.10, 1946.
“Russians Increase German Industry”, The New York Times, July.5, 1946.
“Activities at the Zeiss Plant, Jena”, Central Intelligence Agency, Information Report, 28 May (1953)
“Deportation of Technicians and Specialists from Karl Zeiss, Jena”, Central Intelligence Group, Information Report, 13 January (1947)
Nettl, P., “German Reparations in the Soviet Empire”, Foreign Affairs, 29(2), pp.300-307 (1951)
“Status of the Zeiss Works in Jena and Moscow”, Central Intelligence Group, Intelligence Report, July (1947)
“Layout and Organizational Setup of the Jena VEB Carl Zeiss”, Central Intelligence Agency, Information Report, 29 August (1955)
“Dismantling, Production in the Societ Zone”, Central Intelligence Group, Information Report, May (1947)
Allison, R.C., “The Carl Zeiss Case”, The International Lawyer, 3(3), pp.525-535 (1969)
Crafting Pixels 