Cosina - branding recognition

N

noimmunity

scratch my niche
Local time
7:21 PM
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
3,102
For my 200th post on RFF I would like to sing the praise of Cosina! My first SLR way back when was a Cosina...amazing how far the brand has come since then, with so many unusual lenses and bodies in production.

My admiration for the Cosina-produced ZM line up is evident in my signature :D . In recognition of Cosina's overall excellence in the manufacture of high quality, unusual lenses, I think it is inevitable that the Cosina name will earn (reevaluated) branding recognition. How much longer does Cosina need the Voigtlander name? Why can't Cosina-produced Zeiss lenses be called Cosina Zeiss?

Indeed, in Japanese trade circles, the ZM lenses are often referred to as Cosina brand. Not trying to undercut Zeiss, here. The two Zeiss-produced ZM lenses are undoubtedly superlative, while the Cosina ZM lenses are obviously Zeiss designs. Just saying that Cosina deserves branding recognition (in the anglophone market) in its own right.
 
My "Vivitar" SLR is Cosina made. Small, compact, good split screen focusing, light. Love it, wouldn't trade it.
 
As long as they keep making film cameras they can call it whatever they want.

My first SLR was an Argus/Cosina STL1000 with the Cosinon 50/1.8. Used it till the shutter went out, then found a replacement for it on Ebay. It's basically an M42 mount Nikkormat.
 
Cosinas are great. I have many of their products, some with their name on them and some not. They're not the top-of-the-line, but they are competent and the price is right. And my Bessa R and Bessaflex TM are loads of fun. Unfortunately, I can't afford their newest Zeiss-branded offerings, but I believe they're great, based on reports I've read.
 
Well, I once owned an el-cheapo SLR zoom, a 100-300, built by Cosina. It was beyond a doubt the worst lens I have ever used :D

But I'm totally convinced they can and do make superlative stuff. All the 'specialist' RF and MF SLR stuff gets excellent reviews. I only own the 35mm f1.7 Ultron as of now, but that's a fine little lens.
 
My first SLR was a Cosina C1. Nobody had heard of them, but they had the Pentax K mount, so I was quite happy. I couldn't afford a Pentax. I've still got the little SLR, and it's a nice camera. I should post a photo of it.
 
I see many film slr's in the hands of my students, the Vivitar SLR's and the Nikon FM10's made by Cosina seem to break a lot more often than others. On the other hand, it's about all there is left in film slr's that that a student could get new. Their Voigtlander RF stuff is great, especially the lenses and while I find the RF bodies in another league compared to Leicas they are a good value, a good alternative, and I've not seen an R4 which of course is unique.
 
I had a great OM 2000 once.

Have plenty of CV lenses now.

If you think Zeiss lenses are Cosina lenses, really, buy CV lenses, they are cheaper :)
Like, replace your Biogon with a Nokton or Ultron ...
 
ferider said:
I had a great OM 2000 once.

Have plenty of CV lenses now.

If you think Zeiss lenses are Cosina lenses, really, buy CV lenses, they are cheaper :)
Like, replace your Biogon with a Nokton or Ultron ...
Click to expand...

market value and segmentation provides some reassurance, i suppose. the OP was about branding, not which is better.

but as far as cost goes, let me share one example: i actually paid more for the VM (Voigtlander M mount) Ultron 28 than i did for the ZM 28, yet i decided to sell the VM ultron in spite of the advantages offered. i simply liked the ZM better. leica was too expensive for me. but more than that, i am not attracted to the community that gathers around contemporary leica products, and since community is actually one of the themes/motivations of my photographic experience (and one of the reasons i prefer RFs in general), leica really didn't make sense for me.

a casual comparison between Zeiss lenses made by Cosina and Zeiss lenses made by Sony has showed to me that the Cosina-produced ones have a much better build. Although I suspect this is also because the Sony ones are AF, and I cannot be sure if all samples are like the ones I saw, the difference was still significant to me. undoubtedly ferider or someone else here could tell us more about this, i hope...
 
noimmunity said:
the OP was about branding, not which is better.

but as far as cost goes, let me share one example: i actually paid more for the VM (Voigtlander M mount) Ultron 28 than i did for the ZM 28, yet i decided to sell the VM ultron in spite of the advantages offered. i simply liked the ZM better. leica was too expensive for me. but more than that, i am not attracted to the community that gathers around contemporary leica products.
Click to expand...

I wasn't commenting on which is better either, just that the difference in price between CV-built Zeiss and CV-built CV lenses is mostly brand based (unless there is a documented difference in base materials - like different glass - production or QA processes, etc - which there is not, AFAIK).

List price for Ultron and ZM 28/2.8 is almost factor two apart last time I checked.

We might agree more than you think - I don't own a single contemporary Leica product, BTW.

Roland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom