TEST 4/200mm: late Pentacon vs Minolta MC-X and Nikkor AI

[stevemark]

Since I found a rather well preserved Pentacon 4/200mm (last version from the early 1980s) lens on the flea market today, I did a quick test comparing it to the well known Minolta MC-X and Nikon Ai 4/200mm lenses from the mid-1970s. The weather was sub-optimal, but sufficient to get a first a glimpse at the performance of the Pentacon 4/200mm.

While my sample of the Pentacon was produced in the 1980s, its optical computation was still the same as that of the original Meyer Görlitz Orestegor 4/200mm. Even in the late 1980s, after 25 years of production, the lens had still the original pre-set aperture!

First center performance wide open and stopped down to f5.6:
(CLICK TWICE AND/OR DOWNLOAD TO GET FULL RESOLUTION)



Given the fact that the Meyer Görlitz Orestegor 4/200mm (which has the same optical formula as the Pentacon 4/200mm) was applied for patent in 1961 (roughly tean years before the calculation of hte corresponding Minlta MC-X and Nikkor K/AI), its center performance is surprisingly good even at f4.


Now lets move to the corners:



It immediately becomes clear how outdate the computation from 1961 is. While it may have been a good and advanced lens in the early 1960s, it simply can't compete with the mid-1970s tele lenses from Nikon or Minolta - let alone those produced in the mid-1980 such as the Nikkor AiS 2.8/180mm ED or the Minolta AF 2.8/200mm APO. But hey - since the GDR (and their products) was perfect by definition, there was no need for improvement ...

These test results reflect my experiences with two other common Pentacon lenses, the Pentacon 2.8/29mm and the Pentacon 2.8/135mm. Both are Good or even very good in the center, but both clearly fail to reach the border or corner performance of contemporary Nikkors or Rokkors. Interestingly, the excellent CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135mm has its roots in Bertele's 4/13.5cm Sonnar which was calculated in the 1930s ...

That much for today

S

EDIT: in a first version of the test images, the description of the Pentacon vs the Minolta were mixed up. Corrected thanls to kiddos hint below!

[Raxar]

nice work as always steve ,I always wondered if the corner's sharpness of these tele-lenses differ becuz they have bigger and smaller image circle. did you ever test coverage?

[kiddo]

on the pictures for the corner test, i see Minolta worse of the three of them wide open and center wide open Nikon is worse of the 3
my guess would be on the first test, second row would be Pentacon and on the second test, the third would be pentacon
this is the lens called Bokeh Monster, right? i had one multiblades one, but was so hapy when i`ve got rid of it together with the 29mm and 50mm 1.8 (this wasn´t as bad though) - I`m also happy owner of the Apo 2.8 and honestly, except weight, there is no need to look for another 200mm lens
this pentacon lens might fit for portraits and probably the maker had that in mind firstly, not as a landscape lens

[stevemark]

[Doc Sharptail]

There seemed to be quite a lot of sample variation with-in the A/I line of Nikkors.
That being said, from a quick perusal of what Stephan has provided, the nikkor still leads on contrast.
I had the A/I 200 f 4 here for a couple of years, and it was not immune to trouble- oil on the blades.
For what it was, I found it to be pleasurably compact (if a 200 can be called that).
It never did strike me as much of a landscape lens, but managed to hold up well with what I put it up to: mostly animals and birds.
Current nikkor 200 f 4 I have here is the internally focusing A/I Micro, and I can never seem to get the time to give it an honest run-down.

-D.S.

[Alsatian2017]

Very nice comparison, thank You, Steve. Note that there was another version of the Pentacon 200 mm f/4, issued in 1979 and described in detail in the Zeissikonveb pages. It has an automatic diaphragm and an improved optical design.

It might have been very interesting to include that in your test. I've got the two of them but i'm unfortunately too busy to test them.

Best regards

Volker

[stevemark]

[D1N0]

The Pentacon/Meyer is obviously not a landscape type lens, but more for portrait and close up, where the center matters most and the borders are out of focus anyway. The obsession with corner to corner sharpness in the newer designs has affected center image contrast.

[stevemark]

[Alsatian2017]

[stevemark]