Six budget 200mm lenses compared on 5DmkII

BRunner · Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic

Another comparison, this time few low-cost 200mm primes. Sorry, not much of them and no big names here. I sold already most of my lenses in this FL and stopped buying another after I've got APO-Telyt 3.4/180 and APO Lanthar 4/180.
I wanted to release comparison of my 180mm lenses first, but some interesting lenses are on the way to me and some test photos are not consistent enough (it was little bit cloudy), so this test is postponed.
But back to 200's. Test methodology is exactly the same like in my previous comparison of 12 fast 135's. I won't repeat it here.

PRECAUTION: don't judge the sharpness from one particular test, always check all three tests. I'm trying to do my best when focusing,but I still can't avoid slight focusing errors. Another quality factor is copy variability, always is possible,that I've got lemon copy or otherwise and yours experience may vary. When I had opportunity to try more copies, it will be mentioned in text.

This time are the differences between tested lenses smaller, but I think, that Super-Takumar shows slight advantage in all three tests and deserves to be chosen as reference lens in this comparison.

Super-Takumar 4/200mm
Despite it's age this lens shows well balanced performance in all areas. Considering it's price, I can hardly find any significant flaw. Except - of course - chromatic errors, but in this focal length without going APO with adequate price tag, they are unavoidable.
+ uniformly sharp already from wide-open
+ good contrast
+ flawless performance in backlit test
+ lowest CA's
- 6 blades aperture
- no integrated sun shade

Sharpness @f4, f5.6

CA @f4, f5.6

Contrast @f4, f5.6

Meyer Orestegor/Pentacon 4/200 preset and Pentacon MC 4/200mm
As it's shorter brothers, these lenses share same optical scheme. Except lower contrast this lens has similar performance to Takumar, but Tak holds overall advantage.
In comparison to 135mm Pentacon/Meyers, these lenses showed greater copy variability in sharpness. With MC version I was lucky, but only third copy of preset version was comparable to MC. All four lenses rendered different colors too. MC has most neutral colors, preset versions are more towards warm colors, with different color casts and slightly more contrast.
+ good overall sharpness in field
+ good CA's
+ integrated sunshade on MC version
+ nice rounded aperture on preset version
- lower overall contrast
- six blades aperture on MC version

Pentacon MC 4/200
Sharpness @f4, f5.6

CA @f4, f5.6

Contrast @f4, f5.6

Pentacon preset 4/200
CA @f4, f5.6

Contrast @f4, f5.6

Here is infinity sharpness comparison between last and best copy of preset Orestegor and Pentacon MC. I don't see any significant differences. These photos was made later and at other daytime. Please, don't compare them directly to other lenses in this test.

Pentacon MC 4/200
Sharpness @f4, f5.6,f8

Meyer Orestegor 4/200
Sharpness @f4, f5.6,f8

Jupiter-21M 4/200mm
On FF this lens is slight disappointment for me. It is better performer on APS-C. Center sharpness is very good from wide open but corners lacks. Jupiter shows lot of CA's in car test, but LoCAs and corner CAs are lower than other lenses.. Interestingly this lens perform very well at shorter distances, even wide open.
Jupiter @f4 at ~2m

Stopping down improves fine detail rendering, but contrast lowers at f5.6. My copy has already modified internals to lower possible reflections.
+ good wide open center sharpness
+ very good close focus performance
+ focuses significantly closer than other lenses ~ 1.5m
+ integrated sunshade
+ 8 blades aperture
- LaCAs
- lower contrast, especially stopped down
- field and corner performance lags behind center on FF

Sharpness @f4, f5.6

CA @f4, f5.6

Contrast @f4, f5.6

Voigtlander Color-Ultron/Rollei/Zeiss Tele-Tessar 4/200mm
You can get this lens in M42 or Rollei QBM mount, where M42 version goes usually for significantly higher prices.
On the positive side, this lens shows very rich colors and best contrast. Handling of backlighting is flawless too.
But now comes the BUT. Everything is spoiled by huge CA's. It is necessary to stop down to f8, at least, to bring CA to level of Super Takumar at full aperture.
This lens don't reach infinity with my QBM->EOS adapter, sorry no sharpness test.
It's possible that I've got lemon copy, but this is my first West German Zeiss lens, which can't match usual optical quality of this brand.
+ rich colors
+ very good contrast
+ integrated sunshade
- strong CAs, even stopped down
- only 6 blades aperture

CA @f4, f5.6,f8

Contrast @f4, f5.6

Soligor TELE-AUTO 3.5/200mm
This is only lens from "no-name" group I kept for this comparison. It performs very well, especially on crop cameras. On FF it lags behind Takumar in field and corner sharpness and has significantly worse CA. Stopped down to f5.6 it delivers highest center resolution. The lens is probably even more solidly build than Takumar. In comparison to 2.8/135 Soligor, this lens is nice suprise.
+ sharp center areas
+ flawless backlit performance
+ very good contrast
+ integrated sunshade
+ 8 blades aperture
- field and corners sharpness lags behind center
- strong CA's, even stopped down

Sharpness @f3.5, f5.6

CA @f3.5, f5.6

Contrast @f3.5, f5.6

The bokeh...
Except Jupiter-21M, I can hardly spot any differences in bokeh rendering. Jupiter shows slightly more busy OOF rendering, but with seemingly lower LoCA's (bokeh CA's). The cause is probably optical design of Jupiter, which is unique in this focal lenght and speed - simplified Sonnar, like 135mm Jupiters and CZJ Sonnars.

Closing words...
Overall all these lenses shows it's age. There is no problem with sharpness, especially Super-Takumar shows remarkable performance over entire image straight from full aperture.
The main problem are chromatic aberrations. To suppress them it's necessary to use special high refraction index glass or fluorite crystals in optical system. None of them was commonly available when these lenses were computed. But if you can live with these chromatic errors, all lenses offer great value for your money and probably still outperform many modern low-end zooms with little PP.

Personally I hate CA's. Because they are very unpredictable and hard to correct in PP. Sometimes they spoil entire image and on other photos they are acceptably suppressed.
Color-Dynarex and Pentacon MC, both @f4. Last is APO-TELYT 3.4/180 @f3.4

Recently I acquired SMC Takumar 4/200 and CZJ Sonnar MC 2.8/200. So you can expect small follow-up. Super Takumar vs. two above mentioned lenses. Maybe I can borrow Tamron 3.5/200 A2 and a Nikkor too.

Thank you for viewing and please share your findings, opinions and experiences.

Pancolart · Expire: 2013-11-18

Great job! Lowest CA with Takumar is somewhat surprising (i didn't try 200mm, all others had a lot of CA) and Jupiter being soft at corners too - you should test at least 3 samples like Meyer / Pentacon Wink

.

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

Excellent job! Thank you ! I love these lenses without any exception , they are good ones.

torbod · Joined: 31 Jan 2010 Posts: 379 Location: Sweden

Great comparison. I can't wait until you add the new lenses also Smile

Just a comment on the PF from the Jupiter.
I think the PF is much simpler to improve in PS than the e.g. the Takumar.
My simple method of reducing the sticky PF effect on the Jupiter is just to lower the saturation of purple (picking up the exact PF color first with narrow extension). This rarely affects the overall image IQ. If problem occurs, it is often good enough with a very crude mask to save other parts of the image.
The Takumar has more red in the PF which makes this operation harder since the color often collides with something else in the image. Thus thorough masking is needed which increases workload dramatically.

The phenomenal LoCA control in conjunction with the quick PF restoration technique and short MFD makes the Jupiter one of my favorites in my collection regarding IQ. But I'm mostly shooting wide open and not at infinity so a Super Takumar would be a nice tool for distance shots.

Does anyone have any other good PF improvement methods to share for the specific lenses in the comparison? I think it is relevant since this seems to be a common drawback with all of the lenses.

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

Again, well done!

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Excellent.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

Very well done. I was a bit disappointed that the old Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 wasn't included, but you can't have everything.

To me, the 200m f/4 Super Tak came out on top, all the way around. I was impressed by the Jupiter's sharpness -- it came close to rivaling the Tak's, but didn't measure up in the other areas. Even the Soligor's sharpness was good, although it looked like the photo was taken on a hazier day. If it was taken at the same time as the others, then it's contrast is on the soft side. Actually all the lenses were quite acceptable, in my opinion. The CA wasn't anything that can't be gotten rid of in PP. And with my crop-body DSLR, I don't really have to worry about edge and corner sharpness anyway. Hopefully one day soon I'll have a 5DII so I'll have corners to worry about too. Cool

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I have the Soligor, full of fungus, cleaned it up and not impressed, my Pentacon 4/200 is much better to my eyes. Probably the poor condition of the Soligor is why it isn't that good.

I have a load of 200mm lenses, cheaper ones than yours, I think you just inspired me to do a similar test with them.

ChromaticAberration · Joined: 23 Dec 2010 Posts: 819 Location: Portugal

I was thinking about getting a 200mm prime but after trying out my Yashica on 80-200, I think that at least on a crop sensor 200mm is way too long for most situations and being a prime it would mean that I would need to carry a second lens with me all the time, something I might not be able to.

OM · Joined: 15 Jan 2010 Posts: 166 Location: Southern England

RioRico · Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:25 pm Post subject:

Great test! I also miss not seeing an older Viv/3.5 included in this 200 shoot-out. Mine is an 18-iris blade version (Komine?, #72293, 640g). Weight concerns me somewhat. That Viv/3.5 and my SuperTakumar/4 (560g) are dwarfed by the Jupiter/4 (950g) but are still a bit heavy. I'm most likely to carry the slower, lighter, very nice TeleTakumar/5.6 (410g) or Meyer Telemegor 180/5.5 (250g). That TeleTak/5.6 is still quite a bargain lens. I'm told the Pentax A- or M-200/4 is small, light, sharp, not too costly -- I must look for one.

Yes, 200mm *is* too long for much casual shooting on a crop sensor. None of my 180-200-240 lenses would be the only one I'd carry. But at times, nothing else will do! Like for picking out faces in an urban setting -- 'candid' (stealth) portraiture. And that's why I keep the Telemegor or TeleTakumar handy. Any lens that is used is better than any lens that ISN'T used, eh?

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

My Takumar 200 is my only 200, but I love it dearly! Cool

It's interesting to see it perform against other lenses though, excellent job BRunner.

BRunner · Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic

Thank you all for your replies and opinions!

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas