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

Preset Takumar 200mm f/5.6 vs SMC 'K' Pentax 200mm f/4
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 11:57 am    Post subject: Preset Takumar 200mm f/5.6 vs SMC 'K' Pentax 200mm f/4 Reply with quote

Just a little test between the very old preset Takumar 200mm f/5.6 and the rather rare SMC Pentax 200mm f/4 'K series'.
Pictures taken with a 42.4 megapixel Sony A7Rii camera, on a tripod with self timer.

First, let's take a look at the pictures from a distance:



Not too much of a difference at first sight. In the close focus picture, you can see that the Takumar renders hexagonal shapes in the out of focus areas whereas the Takumars renders a bit smoother because of its 10 aperture blades.

Now look at the 100% enlarged center areas:


At larger apertures, the Takumar seems a little sharper, however I can not 100% guarantee that the focus of the SMC is spot on; a slight deviation may account for the difference. At smaller apertures there is hardly any difference visible. Color saturation of the SMC is better, but only slightly so. The Takumar has some purple fringing going on.

Now, let's take a look at the corner:


The SMC Pentax 200/4 is the clear winner when it comes to corner performance.

Then, close focus (2,5 meters) shots, 100% enlarged center area:



The Takumar suffers from some chromatic aberrations; the image of the SMC Pentax is better.

My conclusion: the SMC Pentax wins because of better corner performance, slightly better saturation and less chromatic aberrations. The Takumar has possibly slightly better center sharpness at infinity focus, and a bit smoother bokeh. It is significantly compacter as well which makes it ideal for traveling.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the comparison. My choice would be the Takumar f/5.6. I just love preset lenses and the rounder highlights they can produce.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

55 wrote:
Thanks for the comparison. My choice would be the Takumar f/5.6. I just love preset lenses and the rounder highlights they can produce.


Yeah, I’m very curious about the preset Takumar 200/3.5. Maybe I'll buy one, one day.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

These results confirm my own observations, between the much smaller and portable F5.6 and the M42 S-M-C Takumar 1:4/200 which has same formula as SMC K version. With modern camera high iso performance shutter speeds can be fast enough for more range of use. I sold mine because although weighing almost nothing, easy to pack along everywhere, it didn't get used very often, and usually required firm support.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

caspert79 wrote:
55 wrote:
Thanks for the comparison. My choice would be the Takumar f/5.6. I just love preset lenses and the rounder highlights they can produce.


Yeah, I’m very curious about the preset Takumar 200/3.5. Maybe I'll buy one, one day.


I bought the SMC Takumar 4/200 first, and found the 3.5/200 preset at a later time.
In use, I found the f3.5 to be a better lens, and it has a tripod mount as well
I sold the 4/200
Tom


PostPosted: Thu Jun 04, 2020 2:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have all three - preset f/5.6, preset f/3.5, and auto f/4

As a practical matter they are all perfectly usable within their limits.
That is, its very much a matter of the photographer vs the lens.
And of course the photographers personal preference.

The preset f/3.5 does have rather better bokeh than the f/4; that half-stop of aperture makes a significant difference.

Personally I like the results of the auto f/4 as it has noticably crisper contrast at f/4.

I like using them for the sake of using them, not for the purpose of achieving a photographic effect.

For field use, if the actual purpose is taking puctures, all of these, like most 200mm primes, are less versatile and so less practical than zooms in this range. The good ones like the Tamron "Swiss Army knife" 60-300 macro can do just as well at @200mm, plus everything these lenses can't do.