Re: Zeiss trinocular scope

"Kevin Sunley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I certainly won't diagree with the fact that the administration of Zeiss
> Jena, particularily from the 1970s onwards was rediculously bloated.
>
> Another PDF I found online a while back is this:
>
>
> http://www.sunley.ca/microscope/documents/case-study-jenoptik.pdf
>
>
> It's specifically a case study of the transition of pre-WWII Carl Zeiss
> Jena, to post-WWII Carl Zeiss Jena VEB, to post-reunification Jenoptik.
>
> It details as well the problems with the way CZJ VEB was administered,
> going as far to say that by 1975 they had an employee surplus of
> approximately 60%.
>
> I have a 1952 Lu stand, a 1967 Lg stand, and a 1966 Epityp 2.
> Mechanically all the stands are exceptionally well made, machined to
> exceptionally high standards and very functional as microscopes.
>
> The Lu and Lg stands are no different than then pre-WWII Zeiss L stands,
> which at their time were the finest and most innovative upright
> microscopes available.  It's true they do not have the flexibility of
> more modern research stands, but just like a Leitz Ortholux.. they're a
> good design that was manufactured to a higher standard than most (if not
> all) comparable microscope stands today.
>
>
> In fairness, I have almost exclusively more modern Zeiss Oberkochen
> objectives mounted on these stands (with the exception of the Epityp,
> which requires infinity corrected objectives).  I'm curious as to what
> you noticed about the Jena stands (and which stands they were) for you to
> draw your conclusion about their quality.
>
> Was the optical or mechanical quality?  I've heard others who share the
> same opinion about Jena stands, but I've never actually had anyone
> describe what they particularily noticed to give them that reputation.
>
> I'd put the mechanical quality of my Lu stand against any comparable
> Zeiss Oberkochen stand (be it a WL, GFL, Universal, or newer).
>
>
> Kevin
>
> --
> Please remove "REMOVE" from reply address if responding by e-mail.
>
Thanks for the site!  A couple of points about Jena's.  I've had some
colleagues who were dealers for Jena here in America.  Between being
suspected of being a commie by the FBI and asked to be a commie by the East
Germans it just was no fun,

The real problem was the 'scopes were (and now the moment we have been
waiting for) junk!  I've repaired a few, only when asked by a friend, again
like a Meiji.  The nosepieces used the smallest ball bearings and the
cruddiest lubricant ever.  The tension adjustment  mechanism in the
research instrument was so poorly designed I've had to glue the unit in
place. The research focus system was impossible to fully fix since it was
assembled by using heat to expand a threaded part of it then it cooled in
place.  If you know what you are doing this can work well, Nikon used it in
the focus mechanism of the Labophot.  The electronics were designed either
by a very slow engineer or someone in the East block.  I've refused to fix
Jena Labovals, if the main focus system was messed up it was less expensive
to buy a new one.

Hum, any other problems...Oh, the stages were poorly constructed.  It would
have been better if they copied a Zeiss bolt for bolt.

Kevin Cunningham