Jena or Opton Tessar?

[Q-dog]

I recently saw an ad offering two Rolleiflex MX, one with Zeiss Jena Tessar and one with Zeiss Opton Tessar. Does anyone know if one is better than the other?

/Ola

 

[Jerevan]

I believe the Jena Tessars are from before the war, and the Optons from after the war. I think overall condition of the glass is the most important thing (clean and with no chips or scratches), as the optical formula is the same.

EDIT: check out this discussion for more accurate information than I gave above: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NPhF

 

[rolleistef]

zeiss optons were made in West Germany, though Zeiss Jena were made... in Jena, at that time an East-German town. Because of all the mess due to the partition in two of the Zeiss company, between Carl Zeiss Jena (you often found the acronyme CZJ on the net) and Carl Zeiss in Oberkochen, Zeiss-Ikon if you prefer in West-Germany, you can find rolleiflexes with two types of lenses, depending on the market they were aimed to :
-Eastern country, Carl Zeiss Jena,
-Western country, CZ Oberkochen, name "Zeiss Opton" because, from what I remember, Jena had kept the Tessar brand before Zeiss-Ikon got it back.
Difference in quality? I don't know of it. Normally not. Anyone who knows? outstanding vs superlative??

 

[KoNickon]

This is a distinction you see with the Contax rangefinders also -- the Opton lenses were made postwar in Western Germany while the Jena lenses were made in the East. The lenses are identical optical designs, but the bodies of the Jena lenses are aluminum rather than chromed brass, I believe, so the Optons tend to be more desirable and pricier.

 

[M. Valdemar]

Some claim the early 1950's Opton lenses had wide sample variations and problems because they were built by newly recruited young, inexperienced employees who took a long time to master the steep learning curve.

 

[Seele]

I have a Rolleiflex MX with Zeiss Opton Tessar too and it's been serious headache. Consultation with other collectors and users, after examining the disassembled lens, revealed something very interesting.

The short answer: the Zeiss Opton Tessars are fine regarding the glass bits, but the way they were mounted was unbelievably idiotic and prone to failure.

The long answer: the Tessar is a four-element lens in three air-spaced groups, with two air-spaced elements at the front and the cemented group at the back. When mounted in a leaf shutter, the front and back cell units are screwed into the shutter body.

Looking at the front first: there are many ways to fit two air-spaced elements together and then to the shutter; one main consideration is to keep the distance between the elements constant and the optical axes aligned. In the Zeiss Opton Tessar, the front cell was made to fail: the front-most element is dropped into the cell, resting on a ridge, and then a retainer ring screwed in from the front; no problem here. But the inner cell was dropped into the cell through the back, and then glued into position. When the glue fails, the correct positioning is lost, and you get a big blur on the negative.

At the back, the usual arrangement is to drop the cemented doublet into the cell and the cell is spun, as in using a tool to bend the edge of the brass cell so as to grab the doublet in position. An alternative method is to screw in a retainer ring to hold it in position. Here, the doublet was dropped into the cell and then held by glue. That is also a recipe for disaster; on my example the doublet slipped out of position by more than a millimetre; coupled with the issue at the front I did not even get a blur on my negative.

Fortunately a local optical specialist had it put right for me... at a price of course.

By the way it seems, a significant proportion of Zeiss Opton lenses suffered from this sloppiness and absence of commonsense. At the same time the people at the original Jena works still did things the proper way. For my money, if there are two identical cameras with Tessars, one by Carl Zeiss Jena, and the other Zeiss Opton, you know which one I would pick.

 

[Sanders McNew]

I have a Rolleiflex MX with Zeiss Opton Tessar too and it's been serious headache. Consultation with other collectors and users, after examining the disassembled lens, revealed something very interesting.

The short answer: the Zeiss Opton Tessars are fine regarding the glass bits, but the way they were mounted was unbelievably idiotic and prone to failure.

The long answer: the Tessar is a four-element lens in three air-spaced groups, with two air-spaced elements at the front and the cemented group at the back. When mounted in a leaf shutter, the front and back cell units are screwed into the shutter body.

Looking at the front first: there are many ways to fit two air-spaced elements together and then to the shutter; one main consideration is to keep the distance between the elements constant and the optical axes aligned. In the Zeiss Opton Tessar, the front cell was made to fail: the front-most element is dropped into the cell, resting on a ridge, and then a retainer ring screwed in from the front; no problem here. But the inner cell was dropped into the cell through the back, and then glued into position. When the glue fails, the correct positioning is lost, and you get a big blur on the negative.

At the back, the usual arrangement is to drop the cemented doublet into the cell and the cell is spun, as in using a tool to bend the edge of the brass cell so as to grab the doublet in position. An alternative method is to screw in a retainer ring to hold it in position. Here, the doublet was dropped into the cell and then held by glue. That is also a recipe for disaster; on my example the doublet slipped out of position by more than a millimetre; coupled with the issue at the front I did not even get a blur on my negative.

Fortunately a local optical specialist had it put right for me... at a price of course.

By the way it seems, a significant proportion of Zeiss Opton lenses suffered from this sloppiness and absence of commonsense. At the same time the people at the original Jena works still did things the proper way. For my money, if there are two identical cameras with Tessars, one by Carl Zeiss Jena, and the other Zeiss Opton, you know which one I would pick.

Hey, thanks for this. You just taught me something.