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

Is the Super Cosina 80-200 mm a Japanese aftermarket Zeiss?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:31 am    Post subject: Is the Super Cosina 80-200 mm a Japanese aftermarket Zeiss? Reply with quote
I noticed the construction of this lens almost comes close to the Zeiss Japanese lenses. The coatings look vaguely similar, too. is there a relationship to Zeiss here?


PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:07 am    Post subject: Re: Is the Super Cosina 80-200 mm a Japanese aftermarket Zei Reply with quote
newton wrote:
I noticed the construction of this lens almost comes close to the Zeiss Japanese lenses. The coatings look vaguely similar, too. is there a relationship to Zeiss here?
Didn't Cosina produce (some of) the Contax Zeiss lenses?


PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cosina produces the current Zeiss ZF/ZE/ZM lenses (with a few exceptions) and also the Voigtländer SLII lenses. Whether they produced anything for Zeiss in the past I don't know. I think that was all done by Kyocera after (most of) the production was moved to Japan.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I will take some photos and you guys tell me if it is Zeiss quality. Thanks!


PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There were some Carl Zeiss Jena branded lenses which were just Cosina lenses re-badged, I believe, made in the 1980s. These were nothing to do with the "real" Carl Zeiss Jena lenses produced in East Germany prior to that.

http://forum.mflenses.com/carl-jeiss-jenazoom-28-135-t34946,highlight,%2Bjenazoom.html


PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What do you mean by real? Is there truly a difference in quality of optics? Thanks.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, the later lenses weren't Carl Zeiss designs (as far as I'm aware) and were simply Cosina lenses branded as Carl Zeiss Jena in order to sell better Wink


PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
How could they be selling CZ and not be CZ? Wouldn't that harm their reputation?

I think Wiki says they were CZ lenses just manufactured by Cosina; that should imply the same specs, including optical materials....the casing doesn't matter so much, no?

Does this imply that all CZ made in Japan are also not Carl Zeiss?


PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The super cosina is variable aperture, the Zeiss is F4, definitely not the same. I am unaware that Cosina produce lens under their name with identical formula to Zeiss. If you think a $10-20 lens can have the same formula, you must be either badly mistaken, or the very first one to have discovered this (go and buy them all before it's too late). Laughing

The only other non-Zeiss brand lens with identical formula that I am aware of would be Pentax K 28/2, different coating, equally if not more expensive.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
OK, here's my understanding (others, please feel free to correct any inaccuracies):

Firstly, I wouldn't think of the lenses as Carl Zeiss. These lenses are branded "Carl Zeiss Jena

After WWII, Carl Zeiss was split into two: Carl Zeiss Jena was the East German company while Carl Zeiss was the West German plant (before the wall came down, obviously). As per http://www.zeisshistorica.org/companies.html

VEB Carl Zeiss Jena made lenses for Exakta, M42 and various other mounts including Praktina.

Carl Zeiss Oberkochen (West Germany) made lenses for Contax, Hassleblad etc.

Carl Zeiss Jena was eventually swallowed up by the Pentacon / Pracktica group and this led to the first Carl Zeiss Jena branded lenses which weren't actually Carl Zeiss designs e.g. Pentacon lenses were branded Carl Zeiss Jena.

After german reunification, the Praktica group collapsed and the Carl Zeiss Jena name was sold off, and my understanding is that Cosina then used the brand name on their own lenses, to increase sales.

Meanwhile, Carl Zeiss Oberkochen continued to produce lenses for Contax and other manufacturers.

So, if your lens is a 1980s Cosina zoom, the chances are that it could also be found with a Carl Zeiss Jena name. But that is where the link to Carl Zeiss ends (as far as I'm aware).

Hope this helps


PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aleksanderpolo wrote:
The super cosina is variable aperture, the Zeiss is F4, definitely not the same. I am unaware that Cosina produce lens under their name with identical formula to Zeiss. If you think a $10-20 lens can have the same formula, you must be either badly mistaken, or the very first one to have discovered this (go and buy them all before it's too late). Laughing

The only other non-Zeiss brand lens with identical formula that I am aware of would be Pentax K 28/2, different coating, equally if not more expensive.


I do not think that the correlation of Bay prices for lenses and their quality is a direct proportion. Plenty of people have scored good stuff for prices all over the place, including as low as a buck.

Currently the verdict of what this lens really is, is still out. At worst case it is a cheap Japanese lens, in the middle a CZ Jena, at best and least likely a German CZ copy. In either case, it shoots outstanding, IMO. It is too bad few people have it or the sample photos to see it's decent quality. I don't think price is a direct correlation of quality every time. Plus. I am sure the lens did not sell for $20 in the 1980's, when it was manufactured.

I have plenty of "cheap" no name lenses that shoot amazingly depending on their sweet spot, settings. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
OK, here's my understanding (others, please feel free to correct any inaccuracies):

Firstly, I wouldn't think of the lenses as Carl Zeiss. These lenses are branded "Carl Zeiss Jena

After WWII, Carl Zeiss was split into two: Carl Zeiss Jena was the East German company while Carl Zeiss was the West German plant (before the wall came down, obviously). As per http://www.zeisshistorica.org/companies.html

VEB Carl Zeiss Jena made lenses for Exakta, M42 and various other mounts including Praktina.

Carl Zeiss Oberkochen (West Germany) made lenses for Contax, etc.


Thanks! I guess the answer would be that it is a Carl Zeiss Jena of sorts.

I would post pics but have nothing beautiful to take pics of....wait a sec.... Wink


Carl Zeiss Jena was eventually swallowed up by the Pentacon / Pracktica group and this led to the first Carl Zeiss Jena branded lenses which weren't actually Carl Zeiss designs e.g. Pentacon lenses were branded Carl Zeiss Jena.

After german reunification, the Praktica group collapsed and the Carl Zeiss Jena name was sold off, and my understanding is that Cosina then used the brand name on their own lenses, to increase sales.

Meanwhile, Carl Zeiss Oberkochen continued to produce lenses for Contax and other manufacturers.

So, if your lens is a 1980s Cosina zoom, the chances are that it could also be found with a Carl Zeiss Jena name. But that is where the link to Carl Zeiss ends (as far as I'm aware).

Hope this helps


PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
newton wrote:
aleksanderpolo wrote:
The super cosina is variable aperture, the Zeiss is F4, definitely not the same. I am unaware that Cosina produce lens under their name with identical formula to Zeiss. If you think a $10-20 lens can have the same formula, you must be either badly mistaken, or the very first one to have discovered this (go and buy them all before it's too late). Laughing

The only other non-Zeiss brand lens with identical formula that I am aware of would be Pentax K 28/2, different coating, equally if not more expensive.


I do not think that the correlation of Bay prices for lenses and their quality is a direct proportion. Plenty of people have scored good stuff for prices all over the place, including as low as a buck.

Currently the verdict of what this lens really is, is still out. At worst case it is a cheap Japanese lens, in the middle a CZ Jena, at best and least likely a German CZ copy. In either case, it shoots outstanding, IMO. It is too bad few people have it or the sample photos to see it's decent quality. I don't think price is a direct correlation of quality every time. Plus. I am sure the lens did not sell for $20 in the 1980's, when it was manufactured.

I have plenty of "cheap" no name lenses that shoot amazingly depending on their sweet spot, settings. Wink


I am not saying that a $20 lens cannot be good. I am saying that, given its price, it is highly unlike that this lens share the same formula with Zeiss lens, which is what your original question "Is the Super Cosina 80-200 mm a Japanese aftermarket Zeiss?"

In general, you do get what you pay for. If a Zeiss quality lens is sold for $20, it would be snapped up instantly by people and drive up the price until it reaches equilibrium, supply and demand.
Wink Looking forward to seeing samples of your lens.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Did you see the CZ 180 mm 2.8 that went for $56.81? Now that is a $60 lens. LOL.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If not because of the fungus, spot on front element, Jena which usually is cheaper than West German lens, and Exakta mount which is even cheaper, it could have sold more Wink


PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I wouldn't say that this Super Cosina is a Carl Zeiss lens, but it sure does take some pretty pictures. I cannot wait to upload them!! Wink CZ is in its own world, but this Cosina is amazing. Very Happy. The manual came in German!

Last edited by newton on Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:37 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
a few sample pics from the super cosina 80 - 200 mm.....




PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
(my expensive titanium watch being held together by a cheap stainless steel paper clip. Wink - when watchmakers fail you, a good paper clip can sometimes come in handy. Very Happy)



This is pretty sharp to me. Smile (taken when i came into work the other day)

full size - ck it out - http://forum.mflenses.com/userpix/20114/big_4047_ManualLensesMarch201113_1.jpg

------------------------------------------
"Don't discount something good, just because it doesn't carry a name."


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
No.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks. I appreciate the two letter comment regarding the question. Obviously, this was clarified earlier as we all agreed. It is clearly not a Zeiss but the quality is certainly high in terms of optics. That is all that I am saying. Cool


PostPosted: Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I was trying to be honest, not sarcastic..

Actually I don't think the quality is that (Zeiss) good - and I have quite a few Zeiss optics - as the watch for instance, seems to show chromatic aberration / purple fringing along the edges where the contrast is high? I get little or none with either my Zeiss primes, or my Zeiss zoom.

The others are nice, but for real Zeiss 'pop' Orio's work in particular stands out, Whilst Stan and many others do amazing things with some great glass like Canon L CD zooms..

Doug



newton wrote:
Thanks. I appreciate the two letter comment regarding the question. Obviously, this was clarified earlier as we all agreed. It is clearly not a Zeiss but the quality is certainly high in terms of optics. That is all that I am saying. Cool


PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks that is a lot more helpful! Your comments now are much more informative...like professorially........ I have a few Zeiss lenses as well. I learned about chromatic abberation in grad school in theory, but haven't really seen great examples of it in reality...so your feedback is very helpful. Do you think I overexposed the pic and that produced the purple fringing? Is it more a function of my exposure or really the "cheaper" glass? I would love to see examples of all sorts of lens defects from CA to whatever else one typically sees. Where can I find this very clearly online?

Also, how do you find out what type of glass a lens maker used? I know in physics labs that most glass that is used commercially comes from a limited set of standard compositions; often this detail is published and one can make conclusions alone based on quality of the glass without getting into the lens design, number of elements, and achromatic lens pieces, etc... I would love to be able to know this level of detail somehow. There is such limited information about lens specifications out there or that I have found so far... I know nothing about this Cosina, for example...


PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The lens produced the purple fringing because of the high contrast colours next to each other. CA is my enemy. I hate it with a passion, but fortunately some lenses have corrective glass to fight it Smile


PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Do photoshoppers correct this / compensate for their bad optics using image correction software? The watch picture is untouched.

CA has been a bane to good optics since forever; it seems that was super emphasized in the optics class I took in grad school which I aced, but now remember only bits and pieces from so many years ago. The Polish/German professor who taught it was awesome...probably why I got the highest grade in the class. I am so proud of that. Wink. I would love to see photographic examples of lenses that suffer frequently from CA. I imagine few lenses correct for this impedance matching defect. I remember studying all sorts of elements and things to correct for it, theoretically.

What are some of the better lenses that compensate for it, given the initial conditions?


PostPosted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
newton wrote:
Do photoshoppers correct this / compensate for their bad optics using image correction software? The watch picture is untouched.

CA has been a bane to good optics since forever; it seems that was super emphasized in the optics class I took in grad school which I aced, but now remember only bits and pieces from so many years ago. The Polish/German professor who taught it was awesome...probably why I got the highest grade in the class. I am so proud of that. Wink. I would love to see photographic examples of lenses that suffer frequently from CA. I imagine few lenses correct for this impedance matching defect. I remember studying all sorts of elements and things to correct for it, theoretically.

What are some of the better lenses that compensate for it, given the initial conditions?


The term APO (Apochromatic) is applied to lenses offering better control in this regard. Unfortunately, like many terms, once marketing picks up on it, it gets used more loosely to the point of meaninglessness, but some lenses are in fact very well controlled with (and without) the moniker. Voigtlander makes a series of SLR lenses - the Lanthars APO's 90, 125 and 180. The latter two especially are very good in this regard (and the 90 is no slouch).

Frankly, even some very good optics - Zeiss included - fringe under the right circumstances, but often a lens is corrected for other aberrations more accurately instead. The 85/1.4 Planar comes to mind. Very low field distortion but fringes wide open, but I'd still classify it as a great optic. Fringing isn't everything, just another thing. Granted, much of todays high end glass in my experience has all but reduced fringing to pixel peeper levels along with many other common aberrations (true with all my modern high end glass anyways).

Lastly regarding Zeiss today (and continuing from the West German division), they produce all their designs and glass in Germany (Schott glass) and outsource only the manufacturing. So if a theory were Japanese rebadges, even if the design were cloned, the glass and coatings would not be the same.

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