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

The Best and Worst of Cosina-made Lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:25 pm    Post subject: The Best and Worst of Cosina-made Lenses Reply with quote
This thread arose out of the discussions regarding my Auto Rikenon 1.4/55 - possibly a Cosina made lens.
See here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1408963.html#1408963
I also have an excellent Revuenon 1.2/55 which is generally accepted as another Cosina made lens
See here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/revuenon-1-2-55-not-easy-to-use-t66219,highlight,%2Brevuenon.html

Now there are good Cosina lenses and there are others less so.
Cosina was such a prolific supplier of lenses to so may brands that I thought it might be instructive to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Please contribute your experiences here.
Thanks
OH


PostPosted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a Vivitar 50 1.9 that is the same design as a Cosinon and is excellent. The Vivitar Series 1 70-210 Cosina version is very soft at 2.8 and is definitely weaker than the Tokina, Kino and Komine offerings (I have them all).While you have pointed out that people talk up Komine but most of the great samples are from Kiron, I'm guessing there is a reason there are not a bunch of Cosina samples out there. My guess is many like me, after limited shooting, realized it was not a great lens and put it away forever.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cosina made a lot of real stinkers. Some of the 1990s zooms are really terrible.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I was very happy with all prime what did carry Cosina name 1.4/55, 35mm f2.0, 28mm f2.0 , I was really unhappy with Yashica ML 135mm f2.8 marked with small red C on front, according to Koji this is means made by Cosina. Cosina made everything from cheap garbage to Voigtlander APO lenses.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
What do you guys think about 50mm 1.7? The M42 version.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 3:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
drjs wrote:
What do you guys think about 50mm 1.7? The M42 version.


I don't have it, but Mo thinks highly of it.
OH


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:52 am    Post subject: Re: The Best and Worst of Cosina-made Lenses Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
This thread arose out of the discussions regarding my Auto Rikenon 1.4/55 - possibly a Cosina made lens.
See here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1408963.html#1408963
I also have an excellent Revuenon 1.2/55 which is generally accepted as another Cosina made lens
See here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/revuenon-1-2-55-not-easy-to-use-t66219,highlight,%2Brevuenon.html

Now there are good Cosina lenses and there are others less so.
Cosina was such a prolific supplier of lenses to so may brands that I thought it might be instructive to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Please contribute your experiences here.
Thanks
OH

I have the Cosina 55 1.4 M42. Superb lens on MFT. Bad on A7 FF due to ghosting and flare.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
drjs wrote:
What do you guys think about 50mm 1.7? The M42 version.


I don't have it, but Mo thinks highly of it.
OH


The Auto Rikenon? Yes I do like it,I must admit I have not used it in some time now...I may have to drag it out while the weather is beautiful.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
drjs wrote:
What do you guys think about 50mm 1.7? The M42 version.


I have a Cosinon Auto 1.7/50.. black & silver fullmetal version and I love it!




At the moment I can use it only wide open (blades are stuck) but I love what I see there, very good center sharpness and a crazy bokeh Laughing



PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I was very happy with all prime what did carry Cosina name 1.4/55, 35mm f2.0, 28mm f2.0 , I was really unhappy with Yashica ML 135mm f2.8 marked with small red C on front, according to Koji this is means made by Cosina. Cosina made everything from cheap garbage to Voigtlander APO lenses.


Mine has a white C, same as the rest of the engraving, and it's a decent lens. Not outstanding but better than some other 135's I've got. But maybe it's not Cosina ?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I was very happy with all prime what did carry Cosina name 1.4/55, 35mm f2.0, 28mm f2.0 , I was really unhappy with Yashica ML 135mm f2.8 marked with small red C on front, according to Koji this is means made by Cosina. Cosina made everything from cheap garbage to Voigtlander APO lenses.


"C" on Yashica ML 2.8/135mm stands for "compact" IMHO. The lens is most probably Tokina RMC variant. Koji acknowledged that too.

Cosina did not made any 2/35mm lens at least that i am aware of. There is F2.8 35mm COSINA M42 which is so, so.
I liked fast PK 2/28mm COSINA (PETRI branded sometimes).

A while ago i tried to compile a list of COSINA primes: http://forum.mflenses.com/cosina-prime-lenses-pre-voigtlaender-era-t40678.html


PostPosted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
With Cosina making so many lenses for other retailers and even the 'big boy manufacturers' it's hard to know with any certainty what they actually made. Of the lenses I've got or once owned I have had two that were attributed to Cosina.

The Carl Zeiss Jena 2. 24mm / 2.8 was undoubtedly a very poor lens. Every back street workshop that could claim to polish glass has made a 28 / 2.8, I've got them with unheard of names that actually aren't bad. For Zeiss to put their their name to this lens was unforgivable.

But, the Photax 200 / 3.5 was a lens that I had for a very long time, also attributed to Cosina, and a lens that I used on a Pentax K10, NEX5 and the A6000 - it was a great lens in every respect. It was reasonably compact, very good build quality, and optically well above average.
Photax was the store brand of a UK retailer, and they seemed to choose decent lenses to match the good reputation of their stores. So why did I sell it?

I guess Cosina were doing what they had to do, sell lenses. And the buyer probably dictated the ultimate quality.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have 2 Cosinons 1.4/50 and 2.8/24 - both are really good.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a 20mm f3.5 Cosina which is an interesting mix of good and not good. Compared to my other lenses, it's seemingly wider than 20mm, which is good. It doesn't show an objectionable amount of vignetting nor is it particularly susceptible to flair. It's actually better than my Voigtlander 21mm Leica mount lens in that respect, but it hasn't as much contrast. It's nicely made, as far as I can tell without seeing it dismantled and in pieces.

The not-so-good good part is the de-centering which makes the definition fall away considerably towards one side of the image. Quality control as Messrs Cosina semingly wasn't a priority when it was made. It's not particularly sharp wide open, but then it's an inexpensive ultra-wide angle lens - let's not forget it's a film-era design meant for 24x36 format. And it isn't ever as sharp at any aperture as my Voigtlander 21mm is wide open. At least, not on film or on my Leica M8. But used on my Lumix M4/3 camera it actually makes images that look better on screen than the Voigtlander ones. So . . . not brilliant, but not bad for what it cost when new.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
The Carl Zeiss Jena 2. 24mm / 2.8 was undoubtedly a very poor lens [ . . . ] For Zeiss to put their their name to this lens was unforgivable. [ . . . ] But, the Photax 200 / 3.5 [ . . . ] was a great lens in every respect. It was reasonably compact, very good build quality, and optically well above average. Photax was the store brand of a UK retailer, and they seemed to choose decent lenses to match the good reputation of their stores. So why did I sell it?


Lloydy - a couple of things - I think it was the UK Zeiss distributor - CZ Scientific Instruments - who had the idea of badge-naming the Japanese stuff. They also sourced binoculars from Japan, seemingly with the approval of the East Germans. As for Photax - weren't they actually importers, based in Eastbourne? I recall their having 'Paragon' and 'Super Paragon' auto iris lenses as well as 'Photax' pres-et ones. And they distributed the Contax system, if I recall correctly. Do you remember?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
I have a 20mm f3.5 Cosina which is an interesting mix of good and not good. Compared to my other lenses, it's seemingly wider than 20mm, which is good. It doesn't show an objectionable amount of vignetting nor is it particularly susceptible to flair. It's actually better than my Voigtlander 21mm Leica mount lens in that respect, but it hasn't as much contrast. It's nicely made, as far as I can tell without seeing it dismantled and in pieces.

The not-so-good good part is the de-centering which makes the definition fall away considerably towards one side of the image. Quality control as Messrs Cosina semingly wasn't a priority when it was made. It's not particularly sharp wide open, but then it's an inexpensive ultra-wide angle lens - let's not forget it's a film-era design meant for 24x36 format. And it isn't ever as sharp at any aperture as my Voigtlander 21mm is wide open. At least, not on film or on my Leica M8. But used on my Lumix M4/3 camera it actually makes images that look better on screen than the Voigtlander ones. So . . . not brilliant, but not bad for what it cost when new.


I think you refer to the 3.8 lens that was sold as both a 19mm and a 20mm.

I've had two copies, one badged vivitar, one badged cosinon.

Both were badly decentred so that even at f8, one side of the frame was soft. The other issue I had was terrible veiling flare, a bright sky in the top part of the frame was enough to wash out the colours and contrast of the entire frame.

I suspect there was a lot of copy variation and some were not bad, while some were pretty poor.

There is also the Cosina 19-35 zoom,which is very common to see for sale today on ebay, so must have sold well. I had one badged vivitar Series 1, didn't play with it much because it seemed pretty poor.

The worst one I had was the 100-400 super zoom, made in white/cream with a red band around it aping a Canon L series lens. Only good thing to say about that one was it was lightweight.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Back in 2004 when I holidayed in Vietnam I took one camera with me - My Canon EF fitted with one lens the Vivitar 24-70 made by Cosina.
Of course this was all film, but the images were outstanding.
I sold that copy as it was FD mount and bought another in PK mount.
Just as good.
As well, it is beautifully made and pleasant to use as a walkaround lens.
Here is an example:
OH



PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
scsambrook wrote:
I have a 20mm f3.5 Cosina which is an interesting mix of good and not good. Compared to my other lenses, it's seemingly wider than 20mm, which is good. It doesn't show an objectionable amount of vignetting nor is it particularly susceptible to flair. It's actually better than my Voigtlander 21mm Leica mount lens in that respect, but it hasn't as much contrast. It's nicely made, as far as I can tell without seeing it dismantled and in pieces.

The not-so-good good part is the de-centering which makes the definition fall away considerably towards one side of the image. Quality control as Messrs Cosina semingly wasn't a priority when it was made. It's not particularly sharp wide open, but then it's an inexpensive ultra-wide angle lens - let's not forget it's a film-era design meant for 24x36 format. And it isn't ever as sharp at any aperture as my Voigtlander 21mm is wide open. At least, not on film or on my Leica M8. But used on my Lumix M4/3 camera it actually makes images that look better on screen than the Voigtlander ones. So . . . not brilliant, but not bad for what it cost when new.


I think you refer to the 3.8 lens that was sold as both a 19mm and a 20mm.

I've had two copies, one badged vivitar, one badged cosinon.

Both were badly decentred so that even at f8, one side of the frame was soft. The other issue I had was terrible veiling flare, a bright sky in the top part of the frame was enough to wash out the colours and contrast of the entire frame.

I suspect there was a lot of copy variation and some were not bad, while some were pretty poor[ . . . ].


Yes, Ian, you're right, it is the f3.8 - I 'mis-typed' Wink I haven't ever used the 19mm Vivitar, but I think mine is indeed 19 rather than 20mm - and I note you had the same decentering effect.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2014 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I remember Photax advertising heavily in the magazines back in the 1970 - 80's, I think there was a chain of shops - maybe they were mail order ? ( Phil will surely know ) But they do seem to have chosen their imported lenses with a degree of thought towards the actual quality of the lens rather than buying the cheapest junk they could mark up heavily. A lot of Photax was fastish Cimko, and that's not a bad thing.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/2.8-4.0 Q-DOS is good attempt from COSINA: http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-series-1-70-210mm-f-2-8-4-0-q-dos.html

Disregarding the weak focusing lubricant and PK COSINON (PORST) 1.4/50mm is good prime lens: http://forum.mflenses.com/pentax-pk-bayonet-1-4-50mm-alternatives-chinon-cosina-ricoh-t60018.html


PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
scsambrook wrote:
I have a 20mm f3.5 Cosina which is an interesting mix of good and not good. Compared to my other lenses, it's seemingly wider than 20mm, which is good. It doesn't show an objectionable amount of vignetting nor is it particularly susceptible to flair. It's actually better than my Voigtlander 21mm Leica mount lens in that respect, but it hasn't as much contrast. It's nicely made, as far as I can tell without seeing it dismantled and in pieces.

The not-so-good good part is the de-centering which makes the definition fall away considerably towards one side of the image. Quality control as Messrs Cosina semingly wasn't a priority when it was made. It's not particularly sharp wide open, but then it's an inexpensive ultra-wide angle lens - let's not forget it's a film-era design meant for 24x36 format. And it isn't ever as sharp at any aperture as my Voigtlander 21mm is wide open. At least, not on film or on my Leica M8. But used on my Lumix M4/3 camera it actually makes images that look better on screen than the Voigtlander ones. So . . . not brilliant, but not bad for what it cost when new.


I think you refer to the 3.8 lens that was sold as both a 19mm and a 20mm.

I've had two copies, one badged vivitar, one badged cosinon.

Both were badly decentred so that even at f8, one side of the frame was soft. The other issue I had was terrible veiling flare, a bright sky in the top part of the frame was enough to wash out the colours and contrast of the entire frame.

I suspect there was a lot of copy variation and some were not bad, while some were pretty poor[ . . . ].


Yes, Ian, you're right, it is the f3.8 - I 'mis-typed' Wink I haven't ever used the 19mm Vivitar, but I think mine is indeed 19 rather than 20mm - and I note you had the same decentering effect.


The 19 and 20mm marked lenses are exactly the same, just different labelling for some reason. The last one I had was soft on the right edge even at f8 on my NEX-3, so must have been badly decentred, on full frame the right edge must have been rotten.

It often occurs to me that talking about these third party lenses is a minefield because they are all over the place in how they perform, one person can have a good copy, another can have a bad copy. Other Cosinas I've had such as a Petri badged 135mm and a Petri badged 2/28 were poor in all regards, low contrast, washed out colours, needed to be closed 2 stops to achieve any kind of sharpness, but does that mean all copies of these lenses are bad? Probably not to be honest. Another factor is the life they have lead, being cheaper items, they often haven't been looked after very well and that can have a detrimental effect on performance.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 04, 2014 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
Lloydy wrote:
The Carl Zeiss Jena 2. 24mm / 2.8 was undoubtedly a very poor lens [ . . . ] For Zeiss to put their their name to this lens was unforgivable. [ . . . ] But, the Photax 200 / 3.5 [ . . . ] was a great lens in every respect. It was reasonably compact, very good build quality, and optically well above average. Photax was the store brand of a UK retailer, and they seemed to choose decent lenses to match the good reputation of their stores. So why did I sell it?


Lloydy - a couple of things - I think it was the UK Zeiss distributor - CZ Scientific Instruments - who had the idea of badge-naming the Japanese stuff. They also sourced binoculars from Japan, seemingly with the approval of the East Germans. As for Photax - weren't they actually importers, based in Eastbourne? I recall their having 'Paragon' and 'Super Paragon' auto iris lenses as well as 'Photax' pres-et ones. And they distributed the Contax system, if I recall correctly. Do you remember?


CZ appear to have had the marketing power to dictate how lenses and cameras were labelled for resale by them, I think they sold Zenit's under a different name alongside proper Zenits - I could be wrong there though. Photax were the same, they had enough marketing power to have things rebranded. But as they say "you can't polish a turd" - and a crap lens will always be just that no matter what name is on it. The other issue with these re branded lenses is that different lenses are to be found with the same re branded name. I've seen three Super Paragon 135 2.8 lenses, the one I have is a Cimko and very good, the others have been unidentifiable. So recommending a Super Paragon 135 2.8 to anyone is difficult unless the good version is easy to spot. And then there's the quality issue, how many of these lenses made available for re branding were 'end of line' products that had been made for many years and sold under a recognized name, but were now being banged out using worn tooling and cut back quality control?
How often do we discover a lens with a store brand that was once sold with a major brand name ? The major brand only allows that to happen when they have totally finished with it, by that time it's a throwaway item for them and re badging, or selling the design and tooling, is a bonus.

I imagine some companies were more likely to re brand than others, and Cosina were probably one of the biggest re branders.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2022 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
I have a 20mm f3.5 Cosina which is an interesting mix of good and not good. Compared to my other lenses, it's seemingly wider than 20mm, which is good. It doesn't show an objectionable amount of vignetting nor is it particularly susceptible to flair. It's actually better than my Voigtlander 21mm Leica mount lens in that respect, but it hasn't as much contrast. It's nicely made, as far as I can tell without seeing it dismantled and in pieces.

The not-so-good good part is the de-centering which makes the definition fall away considerably towards one side of the image. Quality control as Messrs Cosina seemingly wasn't a priority when it was made. It's not particularly sharp wide open, but then it's an inexpensive ultra-wide angle lens - let's not forget it's a film-era design meant for 24x36 format. And it isn't ever as sharp at any aperture as my Voigtlander 21mm is wide open. At least, not on film or on my Leica M8. But used on my Lumix M4/3 camera it actually makes images that look better on screen than the Voigtlander ones. So . . . not brilliant, but not bad for what it cost when new.


Agree about all said about this little wonder, excellent for focus-stacking, manually, but not the sharpest lens ever made.

Original poster posted in 03, very soon 20 years ago! How time flies! I was around 50 in those days! Sigh.

By the way, mine is a 20/3.5 not a 3.8, bought new in 2015, or so.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 29, 2022 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tord55 wrote:
scsambrook wrote:
I have a 20mm f3.5 Cosina which is an interesting mix of good and not good. Compared to my other lenses, it's seemingly wider than 20mm, which is good. It doesn't show an objectionable amount of vignetting nor is it particularly susceptible to flair. It's actually better than my Voigtlander 21mm Leica mount lens in that respect, but it hasn't as much contrast. It's nicely made, as far as I can tell without seeing it dismantled and in pieces.

The not-so-good good part is the de-centering which makes the definition fall away considerably towards one side of the image. Quality control as Messrs Cosina seemingly wasn't a priority when it was made. It's not particularly sharp wide open, but then it's an inexpensive ultra-wide angle lens - let's not forget it's a film-era design meant for 24x36 format. And it isn't ever as sharp at any aperture as my Voigtlander 21mm is wide open. At least, not on film or on my Leica M8. But used on my Lumix M4/3 camera it actually makes images that look better on screen than the Voigtlander ones. So . . . not brilliant, but not bad for what it cost when new.


Agree about all said about this little wonder, excellent for focus-stacking, manually, but not the sharpest lens ever made.

Original poster posted in 03, very soon 20 years ago! How time flies! I was around 50 in those days! Sigh.

By the way, mine is a 20/3.5 not a 3.8, bought new in 2015, or so.


Welcome to the forum Tord
Actually the original post was in 2014, but it's still a ways back.
Of course many of the current Voigtlander MF lenses are made by Cosina and are quite special as well. The 58mm f1.4 is exceptional

#1


As is the 40mm f2

#2


PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2023 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm not at all sure how many Cosina built lenses I have here.
(Can't seem to resist cheap 3rd party lenses Mr. Green )

Most of the mid to long focal length zooms I have here are mostly unremarkable.

Two do seem to stand out as being able to make more or less usable images~

A vivitar 35-70mm f3.5 and a later "Image" branded 70-210mm f4.5.
The 35-70 is totally un-remarkable, being neither really bad, or exceptionally good.
The 70-210 is probably post 1990, and surprisingly sharp through out most of it's focal range- it is a lens I will be keeping due to it's compact size and I/Q.

The majority of the other cosina made lenses live in the closet, never to take another frame, and collect dust.
Perhaps some of them will become donors for repair parts, if I ever go into it that far...

-D.S.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2