Zeiss Jena Biotessar f2.8/165mm

[Jack Campin <jack@purr.demon.co.uk>]

While we're talking about big East German Zeiss lenses...

Has anybody else out there ever heard of the Carl Zeiss Jena Biotessar
f2.8/165mm lens?  I got one cheap some time ago; it came in a 39mm screw
mount, along with a bellows.  The film plane distance suggests it was
intended only for use with bellows, rings or a mirror box.  (Not having a
mirror box, I'm currently using it on a Zenit 3M via an extension ring).
I haven't used it enough to work out how good it is yet.  Anyone know what
it was meant for?  It's colossal: 70mm filter thread, all-brass construction
and weighs 2.3 kilograms.  Focus is by turning a ring with a projecting lug
at the front; nothing else rotates when you do this.  The glass is uncoated.
The diaphragm (with zillions of blades, a bit sticky like the focus) goes
down to f45.  There's no built-in tripod mount; a previous owner has bodged
one together with a big Jubilee clip holding a tripod bush onto the barrel.
I haven't yet figured out a good way to support it for hand-holding.

My guess is that the thing was intended for macro work with a Visoflex (or
some East German equivalent).  The 39mm thread projects from a flat flange
55mm across that unscrews easily from the rest of the lens to expose a male
thread; is there any piece of equipment this 54mm screw could have been
intended to mount on directly?  There are some wear marks on the back that
suggest this flange might have fitted into a socket 55mm across and 10mm
deep.

It's obviously been used heavily, from the amount of paint that's worn off,
but the glass and mechanics are perfect save for the stiffness.  The serial
number is 957341, if that tells anybody anything.  I can't find a reference
to a "Biotessar" design in any book I've got.


On replies to the group: it makes no difference to my mailing behaviour;
I use freeware-Eudora for the Mac, and that can cope just as easily with
either default.  But if removing the Reply-To: field would have stopped
me getting the deluge of waffle about this topic from people who think that
their crummy software has to decide the issue one way or the other, I'd
be all for changing it.

photo-op@ix.netcom.com (Sherril & Bill) wrote:
> I think that replies should go to the group.  It is easy enough to 
> reply to the sender...but it would be most difficult to reply to the 
> group using the original text if automatic replies went to the individual.

For me, it would not be "most difficult", it would involve a cut and paste
operation taking less than a second or an even faster selection of a user-
configured menu.  I redirect replies between individuals, mailing lists and
newsgroups dozens of times a day.  This using a four-year-old Mac Classic II,
freeware or shareware messaging software, and the UK's cheapest and least
supportive internet service provider.  If your system is getting in the way
that much, think about changing something.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
jack@purr.demon.co.uk  -  Jack Campin, 2 Haddington Place, Edinburgh EH7 4AE