War reparations at Carl Zeiss Jena – where did the dismantled equipment go?

January 8, 2024 / spqr / Leave a comment

The Soviets reportedly stripped Carl Zeiss Jena of 93% of its equipment, most of which was redistributed throughout factories in the USSR. This included 14 of the 16 glass furnaces at Zeiss [4], machines, office supplies and equipment, stocks and raw materials, boilers, elevators, switchboards etc. [5]. So what happened to the equipment taken by the Soviets as war reparations from the Jena plant from October 1946 to April 1947?

The majority of the dismantled equipment was transferred to three cities in the USSR – Moscow, Leningrad, and Kiev [8]. To Moscow went the rangefinder equipment, to Leningrad the equipment for the production of microscopes, micrometers and fine measuring devices, and to Kiev the geodetic equipment and the Contax Camera section [8]. Most of it seems to have been transferred to two factories in Russia: No.349, and No.393.

The Optical-Mechanical Plant No.349 near Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) was founded in 1914 in Petrograd. In 1919 it was nationalized, and in 1921 it was renamed the Factory of State Optics. Further reorganizations resulted in the factory in Leningrad becoming Gosudarstvennyy Opticheskiy Mekhanicheskiy Zavod (GOMZ), or State Optical-Mechanical Factory, in 1932. In 1965 GOMZ changed its name to LOMO (Leningradskoe Optiko Mekhanichesko Obedinenie), or Leningrad Optical-Mechanical Union. They produced optics for the Soviet military and space programs, as well as consumer cameras. Seventy-nine of the Zeiss experts from Jena were assigned to GOMZ, and the existing equipment in various parts of the factory was replaced by equipment dismantled from Jena [2]. By mid-1947 the process was completed, and the Soviet personnel were trained on using the equipment. A CIA report on the facility [2] suggests that much of the dismantled equipment stored in the open, or spoiled by mishandling, and the Soviets gained very little from the seized equipment [2].

Zavod (factory) No.393 is located in the small town of Krasnogorsk, a few kilometers from Moscow. Krasnogorsky Zavod was founded in 1942. During the Soviet era it became known as Krasnogorskiy Mechanicheskiy Zavod (Krasnogorskiy Mechanical Works), or KMZ for short. After 1945 it began producing lenses to Carl Zeiss specifications. The machinery at No.393 seems to be almost entirely made up of machines dismantled from Zeiss, Jena [6]. All the grinding and polishing machines at No.393 were transferred from Jena, amounting to one-third of the entire Zeiss plant as it existed prior to dismantling (100 lens grinding machines, 300 milling machines, and 100 metal grinding machines) [3]. The largest segment of machines was the 400 lathes of various sizes. All optical glass used at No.393 from 1946 to 1952 was from Jena, and of good quality [3].

No.393 produced a lot of optical items, including the Zorky camera, designated “FED”, and associated 5cm lenses. The Zorky was essentially a copy of the Leica IIc manufactured during the period 1940-1944. By 1951, about 400 cameras per month were being produced [6]. By 1947 the plant also made Moscow II 6×9cm camera, aerial cameras, photo-rectifiers, phototheodolites, 16mm motion picture cameras, and a series of military items.

The Contax camera section went to Arsenal No.1 in Kiev, Ukraine [8]. By the later 1940s this plant was making reproductions of the Contax II and Contax III cameras. These would morph into Kiev II and III cameras, eventually modified into the Kiev and 4A and 4AM. Some of the equipment also made it to smaller factories in the USSR. A good example of this is Optical Plant No.230 near the small town of Lytkarino (not far from Moscow). They received 50-60 grinding and polishing machines from Jena [7], although the CIA reports this as “bad and uncared-for equipment”. Some of the equipment was used to outfit a vacant optical plant in Zagorsk. Zeiss specialists installed the machinery, and trained Soviet workers [1].

The dismantling was in many ways not considered to be optimally successful, in all likelihood because insufficient care was taken with the sensitive equipment [4].

✽ Please note that while some people seem to regard the Soviet dismantling of equipment in East Germany to be looting, it was actually part of the reparation payments agreed upon in the Potsdam Agreement.

Zeiss versus Zeiss : the trademark dispute

July 5, 2023 / spqr / Leave a comment

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).

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
West German only lenses: Distagon
Shared lenses: Hologon, Biogon, Biotar, Magnar, Planar, Protar, Sonnar, Tessar, Topogon, Triotar

Zeiss versus Zeiss : the postwar split

June 13, 2023 / spqr / Leave a comment

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.

Did Darth Vader use a Zeiss lens?

February 8, 2023February 8, 2023 / spqr / Leave a comment

In a galaxy, far, far away, they used cameras with lenses from Carl Zeiss Jena. It’s true, Vader was into photography, he had a dark-room and everything. Actually I never saw anyone with a still camera of any sort in the Star Wars universe, but I guess they must have existed – they did use “holocams”. So how did a reference to a sci-fi classic get associated with the design of a lens?

In some of the early SLR lenses from CZJ, especially lens series like the Pancolar, many people describe them as being “Star Wars” lenses. What does this really mean? These lenses often have another moniker – “zebra” lenses, because of their striped design. Does the zebra somehow associated them with Star Wars? Most of the talk of Star Wars revolves around the Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar lenses, and in particular the 50mm f/2 (and in odd cases the f/1.8).

The Pancolar 50mm f/2, which first appeared as the Flexon 50mm f/2, was produced from 1959-69 (made mostly for Exakta mount), and had a number of differing aesthetic looks. Most differed by a change in the grip ring in the front of the lens, from a leather to plastic knobs, and finally to the stripped aluminum ring. Except for the earliest version of these lenses, they all sported the “converging” look of the “depth-of-field range indicator” (DoFRI), which appeared around 1962. Basically when the aperture was altered, the indicators (early models in red as shown, later models in black) would move in and out appropriately, so at f/2 they would converge at the red central line. A Zeiss brochure from 1962 which contained four lenses: Flektogon 4/50mm, Flektogon 2.8/35mm, Tessar 2.8/50mm and Pancolar 2/50mm. Strangely enough, the Pancolar was the only one with this converging distance design.

The “zebra design” is the colloquial term for lenses with grip rings that are aluminum – with vertical straight knurling that alternate black and bare aluminum. Supposedly this striped design evolved from the Exakta VX1000 which when released in 1966 had a shutter-speed selection knob of a similar design. The Pancolar 50mm f/2 also adopted the zebra design circa 1966, while still retaining the converging depth scale. The zebra looks was eventually replaced by the black-look lenses in the early 1970s.

Some suggest the Star Wars moniker it is named for the characteristic look of the DoFRI, reminiscent of those very yellow credits at the beginning of the film. If anything, I think the range indicator could be better attributed to the targeting computer in Luke’s X-wing used on the trench run on the Death Star (Episode IV). It shows the same converging lines, and deals with a similar concept, i.e. distances of a sort. On later models of the 50mm f/2, the strips existed on the tandem with the DoFRI, but when the Pancolar 50mm f/1.8 appeared, it maintained the striped appearance, but lost the converging look DoFRI, opting instead for a more traditional one.

It seems then that the use of strips to describe the “Star Wars” look has no real basis. There were other Zeiss lenses that took on the zebra design, as well as other manufacturers, e.g. Meyer-Optik, Asahi (e.g. the Auto-Takumar 55mm f/1.9), using the design well into the 1970s, and no one ever talks about “Star Wars Takumars”.

The reality is, no one really knows where the term originated or why it came into use. Were these lenses associated with Star Wars because of the striped design? Or perhaps it was a play on the “good” versus “evil” of West versus East Germany? If you look at a lens in isolation, it does have an association, but a dark one – it does share some characteristics with Darth Vader. It’s cloaked in blackness, and perhaps the striped design is associated with the strips on Vader’s armour? Or perhaps the strips were reminiscent of the mouth grill on Vader’s mask?

Maybe it just has a Star Wars feel about it, and you know, the more I look at it, the more I feel that way – maybe I’m being drawn in by the Force… must buy more…

Crafting Pixels

Vintage lenses, photography and digital imagery

Carl Zeiss Jena

War reparations at Carl Zeiss Jena – where did the dismantled equipment go?

Further reading:

Zeiss versus Zeiss : the trademark dispute

Further reading:

Zeiss versus Zeiss : the postwar split

Further reading:

Did Darth Vader use a Zeiss lens?