Sun Hi-Tele 1:4 f=200mm

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

Recently I got a nice looking Sun Hi-Tele 1:4 f=200mm preset lens. I don't know much about Sun, but I would assume the lens is from the 1960s. It's M42, and it's quite a long lens - nearly 15 cm! Well made full metal barrel, and the focusing (which goes down to 2.5m) is still smooth and very precise. The engravings - nicely made as well - are a bit unusual since they are in line with the lens' axis.

Well, here's the lens:

My experience with 1960s tele lenses (all of them pre-ED/AD/UD of course) is that they often aren't as bad as one would suspect, given all the praise the later AD/ED/UD and IF lenses would get by contemporary advertising.

I have the Sun 4/200mm with the well known (and much bigger / heavier) Nikkor-Q Auto 4/200mm as well as the smaller and lighter Minolta MC-I 4.5/200mm. The latter hasn't a very good reputation among Minolta gearheads, but I constantly am surprised how good it actually is. Not as god as the later MC-X/MD-I 4/200mm (the 530g version), but still quite good for a mid-1960s 200mm lens.

CLICK TWICE ONE THE IMAGE TO GET THE FULL RESOLUTION!

As we can see here, in the image center the Nikkor has the best contrast wide open. Looking at the borders (nor shown here) and at the corners, however, the Nikkor looks pretty disappointing. The Sun is quite good over the entire image even at f4, and the Minolta is even better (though quite a bit slower - I would say it's closer to f5 than to f4.5).

So - it's a funny little lens I got for next to nothing, and if you can get one: It's optically better than the Nikkor-Q Auto 4/200mm, lighter and smaller too, focusing is smoother - and probably it'll cheaper as well Wink

.

S

caspert79 · Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2917 Location: The Netherlands

Even more surprising than the Sun's performance, is the lack of performance of the old Nikkor. The later ai/ai-s version I found quite good though, but I think the Minolta MC-X/MD 200/4 still has the edge.

martinsmith99 · Expire: 2013-11-18

I prefer the Nikkor for the centre sharpness.

eggplant · Joined: 27 May 2020 Posts: 516

Always a fan of how you format your comparisons-

How do you manage to get the same dimensions for your corner crops on each image?

Dejan · Joined: 05 Jan 2021 Posts: 139 Location: Belgrade, Serbia

Most disappointing thing about Nikon here is that it doesn't really improve (usefully) no matter the aperture. Center sharpness is fine, but I consider slow 200mm primes to be more of a general use lenses than my choice for portraiture. I don't think I'll be buying any of these (because I already have Minolta 200mm F4 and may try Olympus as well because of its size or Canon for shorter mfd), but non-Nikon lenses here seem quite usable. As for CA and fringing, that seems to be a very common thing for (at least older and non-expensive) vintage 200's.

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

alex ph · Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1571

It looks like the reputation of old Sun lenses progressively improves. I remember posts from 2014-15 saying no good lens among Suns. That is an interesting and reassuring effect of the knowledge being accumulated.

luisalegria · Expire: 2018-01-18

Most Sun lenses were adequate IMHO, no worse than most third-party lens makers. Their Tele lenses were ok. Lots of manufacturers managed to make decent short-medium tele lenses.

Wide angle and zooms were where major issues can be seen, though Sun did manage to make some decent ones.

Doc Sharptail · Joined: 23 Nov 2020 Posts: 987 Location: Winnipeg Canada

I have 3 of nikkor 200's.

One "Q", one "Q.C." and an a/i.

All are in reasonably good condition, and appear to have not seen that much use.
Both the Q lenses are still in the old pre-a/i F mount.
Of these two, the Q.C. has the better I/Q, likely due to it's coatings.
It's contrast is superior to the uncoated earlier version.
I have only used them on film.

The a/i variant gets a bit tricky to focus above 100ft / 35 meters or so.
It also has a slightly sticky aperture, so I don't use it much above f 8.
It is still the most compact 200 I've handled, and there are various photo's posted here that were made with it.
I really should get around to digging these lenses out, and putting them on a short extension tube with the D-810 for some close focus testing.

I sort of suspect sample variance in the earlier Nikkor offerings.
Either that, or they were used/abused to the point of lowered I/Q.
I've seen far less than kind remarks directed at the Q line, and still can't quite figure that out.
The commentary above regarding the reportage design and resulting center sharpness may have quite a bit more than a grain of truth- considering the hype around the release of the F camera.

-D.S.

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

There is a zoom too, sometimes with pistol grip shutter release:

Click here to see on Ebay

Click here to see on Ebay

luisalegria · Expire: 2018-01-18

Sun made a lot of zooms in its day. I have a writeup about that pistol grip type - the 85-210/4.8, which was made in several other styles.

Sun made many other lenses in the @20 years it was making zoom lenses.
Most were not sold under the Sun brand but in importers and distributors brands.