3 faces of CIMKO Cima Kogaku 2.8/28mm

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

I saw there is quite some confusion which 28mm lenses were made by Cimko. Here i'll present all three models from oldest to newest.
You can find them easily as Beroflex brand.

Newer being better though oldest is already a very good lens. Remember those three screws on rear side for positive ID. Diamond only could be tricky.
Cimko lenses have fine constant mechanical and optical quality matching that of Tokina RMC.

1. Sturdy first model:
Click here to see on Ebay.de

2. MC model A:

Nicely presented here: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/34675-cimko-mt-series-28mm-f-2-8-a.html

3. Last MC model:
Click here to see on Ebay

For all photos included i wrote for permission. Didn't received all replies yet though.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

Now honestly, wouldn't it be fair towards Cimko you'd try even one lens made by them before continue devalue procedure?

Is it not bad enough you wrote 17 pages of bad critics on a wrong lens and wrong manufacturer?
Sometimes it's much better to just admit being wrong.

I've tried all three 28mm models above thus speaking from personal experience. Cimko 28mm lenses are of respectable quality.

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

I have the 135 / 2.8 as a Super Paragon PMC ( same lens as the Topcor above ), and it has the unequal green diamond and the unequal screw spacing which going by the majority of information, makes it a Cimko. It's a very nice lens altogether, I've always had good sharp pictures and good contrast from it, and it's 2.8 and very compact. What's not to like?

The Super Paragon PMC 28 2.8 I have also has all the Cimko features, but it's a lens I rarely use, it's no competition for my Takumar or Vivitars. It's not a bad lens as such, just not the best.

Both are certainly from the same manufacturer, and are very well built lenses. I've used the 135 for a few years now and wouldn't part with it. I shall have to give the 28 another chance.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Excuse me, but couldn't you ask if I have tried any Cimko lenses first?

I have tried 5 or 6, they are junk, poorly made, low quality build and optics. I recently had a Cimko MT 4.5/80-200, very poor optically and the thing waggled like hell when you zoomed it, which is typical of Cimko. I had a Super Paragon PMC 28-100 that was probably the worst lens I ever tried, distortion was ridiculous, going from severe barrel at 28 to severe pinchusion a 100, and that waggled like hell too,infinity was never where marked and no combination of aperture, focus and zoom gave a sharp image. The Cimko 200mm I've had twice, a CA monster with low contrast, muted colours and soft.

So the main thing when identifying these lenses is to remember they are junk. They were the among cheapest on the market and among the worst quality.

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

Ian, most of those you mention are zooms. and economy level zooms are notoriously inconsistent in their quality. I wonder if the zooms were a different beast altogether than the primes? the two primes I have are certainly well constructed, both are silky smooth to focus, the ap' ring is nicely notchy, and they have a nice all metal feel to them. They are a better constructed lens than most economy lenses of the period in my opinion. They are both way better made than the Tokina's of the day for certain.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

That's quite possible, the zooms were rickety. I really like the build quality of Tokinas, especially the Hoya badged ones. I shall have to root in my box of junk lenses and see if I still have that Cimko MT 4.5/80-200 so I can shoot some samples.

frenched · Expire: 2014-06-17

Maybe it's just me, but are we talking apples and oranges here? One's praising primes, the other's bashing zooms.

Oldhand · Posted: Sat Aug 03, 2013 11:05 pm Post subject:

An apology first as this thread is about 28mm prime lenses.
Since it has drifted into zooms and they aren't looking too flash in the discussion, here is my only (recently identified) Cimko/Panagor 28-80 f3.5
It is a very impressive lens - smooth, tight and sharp.

Cheers
OH

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

Interesting. Is it like this one: http://www.foto-analog.com/forum/index.php?topic=9.0

Oldhand · Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 10:22 am Post subject:

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

I am quite puzzled regarding late Cimko zooms. It seems they too could not resist temptation of Tokina RMC 35-100mm:

Thus i would not fully believe Cimko made whole spectrum of Wiki listed MT series zooms, i even doubt 1.7/55mm is theirs:

AM Topcor 55mm f1.7
Cimko MT 28-50mm f3.5-4.5 (two touch)
Cimko MT 28-50mm f3.5-4.5 (one touch)
Cimko MT 35-100mm f3.5-4.3
Cimko MT 55-230mm f3.5-4.5
Cimko MT 70-200mm f3.8-4.8
Cimko MT 80-200mm f3.8
Cimko MT 80-200mm f4.5

John Shriver · Joined: 24 Dec 2009 Posts: 199

The problem with the Cima Kogaku 200/3.3 lens is that one internal element is VERY haze prone. More a corrosion, not cleanable. I had to get two to get one with that element clean, which I put in the "RE TOPCOR" variant to use on my Super D. I tested it casually against several other 200mm lenses for my Super D, and it performed well.

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

I've still got Super Paragon / Cimko 135 / 2.8 and still use it a bit - because it is very compact, fastish, and sharp enough. I've certainly got better 135's, but that doesn't make it a bad lens at all.

Unlike the 28 / 2.8 that I had, which I screwed on the front of a Zenit that I sold for £5. It was only beaten in the race to the bottom by the truly awful Japanese CZJ 29 / 2.8 Razz

John Shriver · Joined: 24 Dec 2009 Posts: 199

The 55/1.7 has the standard Cima Kogaku mount with the four unevenly spaced screws. I have the RE Topcor version. You can get a better understanding by reading their patent: US Patent 4,174,167.

The 55/1.7 wasn't sold by many of Cima's OEM customers, the market for third party "50mm" lenses is pretty thin.

I think I've observed all the zoom lenses with those uneven screws on eBay.