Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Is it a real CZ Jena?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I won the auction! Cost 10EUR with the Zenit! I will refer with pictures taken with this lens!


PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think this lens is much rare than original Biotar, so I'd call it bargain Smile


PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sevo wrote:
I've done a couple of interviews with former Bentzin and Goltz&Breutmann employees (or their children) for my research on large format SLRs. As far as the perceived chain of events from their (highly subjective) perspective went, Bentzin was forcibly merged with Meyer into a VEB early on, and relegated from the maker of the Primar Reflex series (essentially the blueprint for the first Hasselblad, and by all accounts superior to the KW/Zeiss Praktisix) into a lens maker, and finally Meyer was forcibly merged into Pentacon and further reduced to a assembly plant for lesser Pentacon lenses, mostly old Zeiss designs, to increase the insult. YMMV as to the truth behind it - the region around Görlitz was battle zone between Prussia, Austria and Saxonia for ages, so there is a certain spirit of disgruntledness native to these parts, and the general post-GDR self-apology of having been forced into any stupid decision by the commies is even more noticeable there than elsewhere...

But the image of Zeiss among the competitors never was too good - they already started out as a much-envied early case of state-funded research privatized rather than put in the public domain. And their origin gave them a near-monopolistic control on new glass types and later a tax-exempt status as a foundation, while they nonetheless acted like a aggressive trust on the market, tieing their glass and lens customers into dependencies, eventually entering into competition with them or taking them over.

The mergers of considerable parts of the optical industry with Zeiss in the economic crises of the twenties and early thirties did not improve the climate - at least part of the merged companies were (or at least felt) more profitable than Zeiss, and considered themselves sacrificed for the benefit of Zeiss, who eliminated much competition in the process while picking up competence in the field of small camera and movie technology as well as fast lenses.

The relationship with Meyer seems to have been particularily strained as a consequence of the relations between Zeiss, Paul Rudolph (the Tessar and Planar inventor) and Meyer. Zeiss had laid off Paul Rudolph into retirement after WWI, and he went on to Meyer with the Plasmat design which Zeiss had originally rejected - after that proved to be a success, Zeiss hired him back and had him produce a series of related, competing designs, which does not seem to have pleased Meyer.

Sevo


Thanks, Sevo.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi All,

Forgive me, please, for reviving an old thread.

By a series of odd events, I am currently in possession of one of these anomalously-marked "Biotars." The markings are identical in all relevant respects to those on the OP's lens.

Build quality seems very CZJ-like, as do the distance scale and DOF markings. If this is a fake, it's very well executed, down to the 10-blade diaphragm.

My custody of the lens is probably temporary. I purchased a Primoplan from a dealer, and found this lens in the package instead of the Meyer. On the basis of a few hurried test shots (carefully taken, since I don't expect to keep the lens), IQ seems excellent.

I was just wondering: was there ever a consensus on the likely provenance/authenticity of this lens?

Cheers,

Jon