MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
DiskFreeVault safely moves Mac apps and data to external storage.
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

Better Pentacon 200 f/4 or Jupiter 21m 200 f/4?
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:53 pm
Post subject: Better Pentacon 200 f/4 or Jupiter 21m 200 f/4?
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:53 pm
Post subject: Better Pentacon 200 f/4 or Jupiter 21m 200 f/4?
Reply
Thank you for your opinion.


Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:00 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:00 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Jupiter 21mm might be sharper and heavier
both has great bokeh
Pentacon 200mm light weight.

I prefer meyer zebra

http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/meyer/meyer200zebra/
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/pentacon/pentacon_200mm/
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/russian_lens/jupiter/jupiter_21M_200mm_f4_m42/
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/russian_lens/jupiter/jupiter-21M/


Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:27 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:27 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Can't speak for the 200mm's but comparing the 135mm's Jupiter-37AM to the CZ Jena equivalent, the CZ Jena has better mechanics. For that reason I'd go with it but the Jena has a 6-blade diaphragm. Optically they're pretty much identical.


Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:30 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:30 pm
Post subject:
Reply
orly_andico wrote:
Can't speak for the 200mm's but comparing the 135mm's Jupiter-37AM to the CZ Jena equivalent, the CZ Jena has better mechanics. For that reason I'd go with it but the Jena has a 6-blade diaphragm. Optically they're pretty much identical.


I guess this is copy variant issue only I didn't have any Jupiter with mechanical problem and I have some with aperture stuck from CZJ. I can confirm too they are pretty much same optically.


Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:53 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:53 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Attila wrote:
Jupiter 21mm might be sharper and heavier
both has great bokeh
Pentacon 200mm light weight.


I have both, have the same (Attila's) conclusion...

Pentacon has lot of CA (never tested Jupiter in harsh condition), almost un-usuable in bright light & contrasty (with whites) situation (I am talking wide open condition)...

Stopped down, pentacon may be sharper...


Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:19 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:19 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Better one of these or a zoom like Tamron 19AH?Smile


Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:24 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:24 pm
Post subject:
Reply
19AH yes perhaps same or better , but I think these lenses have better bokeh.


Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:21 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:21 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Ballu wrote:
Attila wrote:
Jupiter 21mm might be sharper and heavier
both has great bokeh
Pentacon 200mm light weight.


I have both, have the same (Attila's) conclusion...

Pentacon has lot of CA (never tested Jupiter in harsh condition), almost un-usuable in bright light & contrasty (with whites) situation (I am talking wide open condition)...

Stopped down, pentacon may be sharper...


Hi,

I had 4 copies of J-21M (at now I'm owner of two), and tested 4 copies of preset Orestegor/Pentacon (4 specimens in collection Wink.
Orestegor/Pentacon 200/4 generates about three times greater CA than Jupiter-21M.
At f4 Jupiter-21M is better, towards f8 Orestegor/Pentacon output starts to be more crisp, especially towards edges.
J-21M wins in minimal focusing distance - about 1,7 comparing to 2,2m in Pentacon.
Orestegor/Pentacon wins when You are going to long trip - it's about 0,3 kg lighter,a and
it's really compact, less bulky and fits bag easier than J-21M with lens hood screwed in than J-21M with it's lens hood in "hidden" position.
From the other hand, raw mass of J-21M makes it better choice for low light hand held shots, as it will reduce vibrations from clapping mirror and shutter action.
Jupiter is easier to focus when You need to do it quick - it's focusing ring needs to be turned within more narrow angle to move focus point within the same distance than in Orestegor/Pentacon construction.
The main disadvantage of Jupiter-21M is that it's extremely prone to flaring with dSLR, especially with light source positioned aside from the framed scene - the build in lens hood is virtually useless.
Orestegor/Pentacon constructuion is MUCH better in this matter, especially the latest preset Pentacon versions are coated very well, it does much better job without any lens hood than Jupiter-21M with quite impressive one screwed in (I've tested one from Super Takumar 200/4)
IMHO, Orestegor/Pentacon 200/4 is more handy and more reliable in high contrast situations, although in sunny days I must step it down to f8 te got rid of CA around shiny elements (but from f6.7 CA is not worse than in Super Takumar 200/4 which shares the same optical design BTW).
IMHO, the perfect choice would be the newer Pentacon 200/4 Auto/Electric version, as it's secondary spectrum is reduced and it is multicoated, but it's minimum focusing distance is 2.7m...

My conclusion:
for strong muscles, butterfly close-ups and APO style imaging from f5.6 up (with chance of internal light bounces disaster) - Jupiter-21M

for handy and reliable photographic tool with chances of CA till f8 on sunny days - Orestegor-Pentacon.

BTW, Having both decreases headache in the matter "which one I shall choose"... Smile


Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:24 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:24 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Laughing Thank you for very detailed explanation!


Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:34 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:34 pm
Post subject:
Reply
orly_andico wrote:
Can't speak for the 200mm's but comparing the 135mm's Jupiter-37AM to the CZ Jena equivalent, the CZ Jena has better mechanics. For that reason I'd go with it but the Jena has a 6-blade diaphragm. Optically they're pretty much identical.

Well, Russian may have used better grease, because I have 4 copies of J-37A which are going well, and I had two copies of CZJ Sonnar which had completely stuck both aperture and focus rings Smile
From the other hand, the mechanical weakness of Jupiter-21M is in it's manual/auto switch which sometimes needs to be disable to have working diaphragm at all .
From the optical point of view Jupiter-21M is not worse than CZJ Sonnar 200/2.8 and much more usable...


Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:46 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:46 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Attila wrote:
Laughing Thank you for very detailed explanation!

You are welcome Wink
I in my spare time 'll try to post some test pictures which gives good comparison,
I have collected some from J-21M, Orestegor/Pentacon 200/4, Pentacon Auto 200/4 and Super Takumar 200/4.
I'm curious how J-21M compares to Telear 200/3.5, but I must wait until it arrives Smile


Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:47 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:47 pm
Post subject:
Reply
wariag wrote:
orly_andico wrote:
Can't speak for the 200mm's but comparing the 135mm's Jupiter-37AM to the CZ Jena equivalent, the CZ Jena has better mechanics. For that reason I'd go with it but the Jena has a 6-blade diaphragm. Optically they're pretty much identical.

Well, Russian may have used better grease, because I have 4 copies of J-37A which are going well, and I had two copies of CZJ Sonnar which had completely stuck both aperture and focus rings Smile
From the other hand, the mechanical weakness of Jupiter-21M is in it's manual/auto switch which sometimes needs to be disable to have working diaphragm at all .
From the optical point of view Jupiter-21M is not worse than CZJ Sonnar 200/2.8 and much more usable...


Not worst just slower one stop can be life saver in many situation.


Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:48 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:48 pm
Post subject:
Reply
wariag wrote:
The main disadvantage of Jupiter-21M is that it's extremely prone to flaring with dSLR, especially with light source positioned aside from the framed scene - the build in lens hood is virtually useless.

That's my experience too. Thanks for this useful comparison! Smile


Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:54 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:54 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Smc-takumar 4/200mm .... A good combination of j-21 and Pentacon 4/200 advantages ! I own 2 version of the pentacon , one j-21 , and two Takumars (one smc , one no smc) Lets have a look on a possible challenger :
Mitake optical Eyemik 3,5/200 15€ (with p&p) :




http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3269/2449791204_bf0eb645ba_b.jpg


Very Happy

PS : Attila advice on czj's grease is true ! I dismantleg all my czj gear to change the grease , and my 38 years old j-9 is perfect ... , j-11 too . However, The 3m5ca is not so good (the grease !)


Post
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:56 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:56 am
Post subject:
Reply
re: mechanics, what I meant is the CZ Jena is better built mechanically. Maybe the J21 is a different class but the J37AM (and the helios-44-2 which I have) are quite shoddily built. Soft metal, painted-on non-engraved markings, bad paint flaking off....

but of course none of them match the Pentax Super-Takumars for build quality. I have the S-M-C 200/4 and it's a very nice lens, quite good wide open but sharpens up even more at 5.6, however it has a rather long minimum focusing distance (>8 ft).


Post
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:29 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:29 am
Post subject:
Reply
Attila wrote:

Not worst just slower one stop can be life saver in many situation.


Well, that's interesting matter itself - does one f2.8 lens allow to use really 2x shorter shutter time than f4 lens... Wink
Light transmission factor can make it contrary to expectations Smile
I.e. my Cosinon 55/1.4 is as fast at f1.4 as my Helios-44 58/2 at f2.
And Pentacon 200/4 is faster than Jupiter-21M 200/4 - i did expect something opposite, as
there are definitely more glass/air boundaries in Pentacon Smile


Post
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:44 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:44 am
Post subject:
Reply
orly_andico wrote:
re: mechanics, what I meant is the CZ Jena is better built mechanically. Maybe the J21 is a different class but the J37AM (and the helios-44-2 which I have) are quite shoddily built. Soft metal, painted-on non-engraved markings, bad paint flaking off....

but of course none of them match the Pentax Super-Takumars for build quality. I have the S-M-C 200/4 and it's a very nice lens, quite good wide open but sharpens up even more at 5.6, however it has a rather long minimum focusing distance (>8 ft).


Soviet lenses are quite similar to soviet tanks - shoddily built but surprisingly well working Smile
My favourite 135mm lens is still my oldest J-37A which has almost no paint left on the barrel Wink
To be honest, I've sold my Super Takumar 200/4 because at f6.7 i saw no difference in CA intensity comparing to my Pentacon 200/4, resolution is equal and what does matter in my case - Orestegor/Pentacon is shorter and focuses 30cm closer Smile
But that's true - Takumars are build like WWII japanese battleships - solid and beautiful ...


Post
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:04 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:04 am
Post subject:
Reply
I've bought jupiter 21m, for 37E:-)
Post new topic Reply to topic
Page 1 of 1