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

New comparison Pentax-A 70-210/4 vs Vario-Sonnar 80-200/4
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jan 10, 2025 4:42 pm    Post subject: New comparison Pentax-A 70-210/4 vs Vario-Sonnar 80-200/4 Reply with quote

Weather cleared up yesterday so I went for a second attempt to compare the Pentax-A 70-210mm f/4 against the C/Y Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 80-200mm f/4.
This time a subject closer to infinity (about 600 meters) which makes a comparison simpler and more reliable. For the corner comparison, I framed the subject into the corner without changing focus.

First @ 80mm focal length (take into account the slightly different lighting conditions due to a cloud):
comparison80 by devoscasper, on Flickr

@ f/4, both lenses are sharp centrally. The Zeiss has the edge in the corners.
@ f/5.6 similar results, the Zeiss still a bit better in the corners.
curiously @ f/8, the corners of the Zeiss seem to lose some sharpness (most notably the trees behind the barn, is this diffraction?), while the Pentax is getting better.
@ f/11, similar results.

In order to double check this behavior I checked the periphery of the centrally positioned images, and the periphery of the Zeiss images seems indeed optimal @ f/5.6.

Then, @135mm:
comparison135 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Both lenses do pretty good, but the Zeiss is better in the corners, and also centrally, the images seem a bit more 'crispy'. Somewhat better CA control of the Zeiss.

Finally, 200mm:
comparison200 by devoscasper, on Flickr
There's some softness in the Zeiss image wide open, but the corners are a bit better.
Stopped down to f/5.6 and smaller: corners of the Zeiss are a bit better, and suffer less from CA's.

Central crops and corner crops don't tell the whole story. When you scroll over the complete images, you can see clearer differences. Let's look at the mid-periphery (about half way the line between the center and the edge):

@f=80mm:
midperComp80 by devoscasper, on Flickr
Lighting not exactly the same but both lenses do pretty good at this focal length. Wide open, the Zeiss is clearly better.

@f=135mm:
midperComp135 by devoscasper, on Flickr

The Zeiss clearly does better, the crops are already excellent @ f/4. Once stopped down to f/11, crops are about similar.

@ f=200mm:
Also here, the Zeiss does a better job:
midperComp200 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Conclusion: the Zeiss is the better lens, most notably at the longer end. The Pentax can produce satisfactory image quality as well, but needs more stopping down at longer focal lengths. In real life situations, without a tripod, not having to stop down can be a real advantage, as you don't want long shutter speeds. On lower resolution camera's the differences between the two lenses are probably less notable. Each crop is less than 1% (!) of the complete image surface.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2025 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you very much fo re-doing the work! The tests are now much more in line with what I've seen myself when comparing many vintage MF telezooms (such as the Canon FD 4/80-200mm, Canon FD 4/80-200mm L, Konica AR 3.5/80-200mm, Konica AR 4/80-200mm, MamiyaCS/E 3.8/80-200mm, Minolta MD 4.4/75-200 and 4/70-210, Nikkor Ai 4.5/80-200, Ais 4/80-200, Nikon E 4/70-210, Pentax A 4/70-210, Yashica ML 4/80-200mm, Zeiss CY 3.5/70-210 and 4/80-200).

I have done the same comparison myself a few days ago, but due to changing light and weather conditions I chose not to publish them (as soon as I have time and weather is stable I'll do it).

Doing such tests is a lot of work, especially if not just two lenses are involved. Searching, finding and getting all (well: some) of the relevant lenses is one thing, but managing to quickly and reliably compare a set of ten to twenty lenses in "real world scenarios" can be quite tricky: Clear air (no haze), no air turbulences, stable light conditions, no rain ...

I still haven't been able, for instance, to publish my test of about 25 different 2.8/135mm lenses: Three times I tried, but every time there were some (subtle) changes of the light and / or clarity of the air. I myself do gain a lot of knowledge from those trials nevertheless, but they are not suited for publication.

S


PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2025 5:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for posting this. Even though I own neither lens, it is still of interest.

I didn't click through all of them- you have done a huge job here.
Working with zooms certainly complicates the testing aspect.

The Pentax gets the nod from me for it's contrast handling, at least in the first few sets that are wide open to f5.6.
(It also seems to have a slight "character" edge, but I need to view more of this test)
I really should put my Tamron 103-A through some paces like this, but will have to wait for spring. Stable weather conditions at this time of year here in this location are a whole lot of wishful thinking.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
Thank you very much fo re-doing the work! The tests are now much more in line with what I've seen myself when comparing many vintage MF telezooms (such as the Canon FD 4/80-200mm, Canon FD 4/80-200mm L, Konica AR 3.5/80-200mm, Konica AR 4/80-200mm, MamiyaCS/E 3.8/80-200mm, Minolta MD 4.4/75-200 and 4/70-210, Nikkor Ai 4.5/80-200, Ais 4/80-200, Nikon E 4/70-210, Pentax A 4/70-210, Yashica ML 4/80-200mm, Zeiss CY 3.5/70-210 and 4/80-200).

I have done the same comparison myself a few days ago, but due to changing light and weather conditions I chose not to publish them (as soon as I have time and weather is stable I'll do it).

Doing such tests is a lot of work, especially if not just two lenses are involved. Searching, finding and getting all (well: some) of the relevant lenses is one thing, but managing to quickly and reliably compare a set of ten to twenty lenses in "real world scenarios" can be quite tricky: Clear air (no haze), no air turbulences, stable light conditions, no rain ...

I still haven't been able, for instance, to publish my test of about 25 different 2.8/135mm lenses: Three times I tried, but every time there were some (subtle) changes of the light and / or clarity of the air. I myself do gain a lot of knowledge from those trials nevertheless, but they are not suited for publication.

S


Still looking forward to the 135/2.8 comparison, since I haven't tested (and don't have) too many faster 135's myself. But a difficult and time consuming process, with many potential disrupting factors.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2025 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Doc Sharptail wrote:
Thanks for posting this. Even though I own neither lens, it is still of interest.

I didn't click through all of them- you have done a huge job here.
Working with zooms certainly complicates the testing aspect.

The Pentax gets the nod from me for it's contrast handling, at least in the first few sets that are wide open to f5.6.
(It also seems to have a slight "character" edge, but I need to view more of this test)
I really should put my Tamron 103-A through some paces like this, but will have to wait for spring. Stable weather conditions at this time of year here in this location are a whole lot of wishful thinking.

-D.S.


I think the Zeiss looks 'cleaner' indeed than the Pentax.
The Pentax is quite a fine lens still IMO, looking at the images from a distance they generally look very good. But pixel peeping on a high res sensor brings stuff to light that normally wouldn't show up.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2025 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thank you Caspert for this test, it is a surprise to see the center f4 and f5.5 of pentax infinity 200mm FL much better than zeiss, otherwise zeiss is a a bit ahead; i already have the zeiss, but the pentax i can see going very cheap (like 20) and it definetely is an interesting option for many of the users , especially because zeiss it`s much more expensive


PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2025 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kiddo wrote:
thank you Caspert for this test, it is a surprise to see the center f4 and f5.5 of pentax infinity 200mm FL much better than zeiss, otherwise zeiss is a a bit ahead; i already have the zeiss, but the pentax i can see going very cheap (like 20) and it definetely is an interesting option for many of the users , especially because zeiss it`s much more expensive



Yeah, the Pentax is dirt cheap and definitely an excellent deal, but the Zeiss has also dropped in price.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2025 1:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kiddo wrote:
thank you Caspert for this test, it is a surprise to see the center f4 and f5.5 of pentax infinity 200mm FL much better than zeiss,...


I'm confident that's - again - a focusing issue, and not the real performance of the Zeiss, especially since the trees in the very background are really sharp on the Zeiss 200mm f4 center crop:



I know such mistakes do happen quite easily, and that's why I repeat every test at least twice (= three rounds of testing in total) before publishing it.

S


PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2025 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In fact , I thank you both for doing these kind of tests (there are not many people to do these kind of tests and so many of them , require lots of dedication), which I'm sure aren't very easy to do, especially not being paid for . At infinity , of course there are some issues that could happen, besides of focussing issues, there are lenses that are acting different . But it is still surprisingly good how Pentax is dealing in some cases/areas , and they do sell very cheap sometimes (I guess they weight less also?)


PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Finally a day with clear air and no visible air turbulences (at least with f=200mm lenses ...). So I did a quick comparison of the Pentax A 4/70-210mm and the Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 4/80-200mm - both lenses wide open (f4) at a focal length of 200mm:



Interestingly, the Pentax has a lower contrast than the Zeiss even though the Pentax has a built-in hood which I've been using (the Zeiss hasn't).

S


PostPosted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That vario-sonnar is a superb lens. I've been waiting for some nice days to do some proper testing if mine but initial results show it to be superb.

Thanks for doing the testing.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 26, 2025 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



Finally had a decent day. A little walk around the country park gave this.

Fuji X-T4, 80-200 Contax MMJ Vario Sonnar @,f5.6

It's rapidly becoming one of my favourite lenses.