[weakhead]

Hello.
I'm considering buying used, analog-era 200mm prime for short to moderate distance wildlife photography. I don't mind manual focus. I've found two available offers:

• SMC Pentax-M 200mm F4.0
• Auto Revuenon MC 200mm F3.5 (K mount, made in Japan)

While I can find information about Pentax lens (and many reviews on this forum), I have no luck with Auto Revuenon thingy.
Does anyone has this Revuenon? Or maybe both primes?
How do they perform? How are they, compared to each other and compared to DA 50-200 at long end?
Thanks in andvance for your answer!

[pezmaker]

I can't speak to either of the above. I found a Super Takumar 200mm F4 recently and it's fantastic, if you don't mind using the m42-k adapter. Heck, just get a cheap one, remove the locking spring, and voila, you have a completely manual K mount lens. No lens I've touched can rival the build of the Taks.

Sorry, I know this wasn't maybe helpful in direct relation to your post - you didn't ask about other options, but for more info about the Auto Revuenon. Thought a third alternative may be helpful though, if you hadn't considered it.

[boriscleto]

The Auto-Revuenon is most likely a Tokina. I have one sold as an Asanuma. I can't help with comparisons to the 50-200 because I don't have one. I never use the Asanuma anyway because I own the DA L 55-300.

Tokina 200 mm F3.5 RMC Lens Reviews - Tokina Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

[ducdao]

Putting a m42-k adapter to a M42 lens doesn't make it equivalent to a native K-mount. The native K-mount, like the M200/f4 has the aperture mechanism that it only stops down when you press the shutter, that allows you to focus at wide open (more light = easier to focus) while the M42 needs to be stop down manually. The Takumar's have the A/M switch so you can also focus at wide open with the switch set to A then set back to M to shoot. That creates two extra steps to the workflow compared to a native K-mount.

Back to the OP question, I only have the M200/4 but I suspect the Revuenon is very similar to the Vivitar 200/3.5, if so they are equally good in term of IQ, but I prefer the M200/4 because of the build quality and weight. It's very small and light for a 200mm lens.

[pezmaker]

Putting a m42-k adapter to a M42 lens doesn't make it equivalent to a native K-mount. The native K-mount, like the M200/f4 has the aperture mechanism that it only stops down when you press the shutter, that allow you to focus at wide open (more light = easier to focus) while the M42 needs to be stop down manually. The Takumar's have the A/M switch so you can also focus at wide open with the switch set to A then set back to M to shoot. That creates two extra steps to the workflow compare to a native K-mount.

This is all quite true, but is pretty minimal in affect. Good to not leave it out though, I'm just too lazy to type all that up.

[wombat2go]

Hi WH,
Reposts of a comparison some time ago between the SMC Pentax 1:4 200mm
Wide open
https://www.box.com/s/5rktnhln1ejzdn7gj5x6
f/8
https://www.box.com/s/ztu4g2zkjy8s1xgd6d8d


and an off brand Makinon 1:4.5 200 mm
Wide open
https://www.box.com/s/zzx7zxkxcovo15raeb1o
f/8
https://www.box.com/s/nmvo5qpl61inem8nbipy

[eddie1960]

I can only speak for the M200 4.0, if the price is good it's a very competent lens. there are times i'd rather have an A variant but it does quiet well (given i paid about $15 i can't complain). better at 200 than my tamron 28-200 super zoom (and faster)

In m42 lenses i would generally go after a tak unless the price was too good to pass up on the other. their is the odd m42 that is Auto only so you either shoot wide open or jam the pin down.
that isn't an issue with a tak

[vonBaloney]

I have a Komine-made (serial #28xxxxx) Vivitar 200/3.5. Quite sharp, not expensive. You'll see some CA on a DSLR with all of the old Japanese-made lenses, including the Taks. You can get the non-SMC Super-Tak 200/4 pretty cheap. I sold one to somebody a while back for $40 I think. I actually prefer the Vivitar -- if it was an SMC I would probably would have kept the Tak instead.

[jwc77]

I also have a copy of the Komine-made Vivitar and I like it very much. It is a very competent 200mm with some nice bokeh! It's a little heavy...but a very nice lens.

[Lowell Goudge]

you might also want to add to this list, a few other options. I have a takumar preset 200F3.5 which is a wonderful lens. also, as someone has posted there is the SMC/Super takumar / K200F4 lens which is bigger than the M200/4. Although I know you said prime, you will also find the vivitar series 1 70-210F3.5 a superb lens.

I have the vivitar, the Tak 200/3.5 and the SMC Tak 200/4. At 200mm the Tak 3.5 is my favorite but the vivitar is better if you need to focus quickly, plus it does macro

[hoanpham]

Cheapest? Vivitar 200/2.8 m42.
Next is pentax m200/4, costs 4 times the vivitar.

[Pioneer]

The Pentax M SMC 200mm f4 is a great little lens and completely overshadows the Vivitar. For the 200mm reach It is quite small and handy, and for daylight use it is very, very hard to find a better lens without spending a great deal more money. I have been reading some of the posts here and I am completely confused as to why anyone would recommend the Vivitar over the Pentax. There are only a few reasons I can think of to even consider the Vivitar. One is that you already own the Pentax and just want to play around with some other brands. Two, you are a collector interested in gathering up a number of different examples of very inexpensive, vintage 200mm lenses. Three, you have one you want to get rid of so you hope to drive up the price a bit by recommending it.

How does the Vivitar really compare to the Pentax? Take a look.

WEIGHT -
The Vivitar, which I have owned, is a tank! There is a reason that almost every review on the Pentax Forum lists weight as a Con. It weighs a ton compared to the Pentax, and it is front heavy to boot. ADVANTAGE = Pentax

IMAGE QUALITY -
The image quality is no better with the Vivitar. Neither lens is stunning wide open but I see better image quality (40 lp/mm) from the Pentax at 5.6 than I do with the Vivitar at f8. However, I have no clear test information either way so...ADVANTAGE = Tie

BOKEH -
Not sure here. I have never really been able to measure this. In my opinion the quality of bokeh usually depends on what is in the background. Some backgrounds blur out nicely, others do not. It also depends on the depth of field. Medium format has a narrower depth of field so things blur out better with the medium format lenses so the comments for those lenses typically rave about their "bokeh." Neither of these lenses show harsh bokeh, neither are particularly "creamy", whatever that means, so I have to call this a wash. ADVANTAGE = Tie

BARREL DISTORTION -
Both of them show some barrel distortion so there is no advantage on either side. ADVANTAGE = Tie

CHROMATIC ABERRATION -
Both of them can be manipulated to show some CA, although I feel that the Pentax has slightly less than the Vivitar. Now days with Photoshop this is a bit of a non-issue anyway. ADVANTAGE = Tie

VIGNETTING -
Both show some vignetting at wide open aperture. The Pentax is not an issue at 5.6. The Vivitar still has some at f8 although it tends to drop off at f11. ADVANTAGE = Pentax

LENS COATINGS -
The Vivitar does not have the advantage of the SMC coating so it has more problems with flare when shooting into the sun. ADVANTAGE = Pentax

BUILD QUALITY -
The Vivitar does feel a bit more solid but this is likely a weight issue. The Pentax M 200 is certainly no slouch in the build arena. Because the Pentax comes with a very nice, built in hood I am going to give the advantage to Pentax. ADVANTAGE = Pentax

ADAPTOR -
The Vivitar requires one, at least mine did. The Pentax does not. This one is a no-brainer folks. ADVANTAGE = Pentax

FILTERS -
Been awhile since I sold it but I believe the Vivitar used a 67mm filter. The Pentax uses a 52mm. 52mm filters are less expensive than 67mm ones, and they are certainly far more common. ADVANTAGE = Pentax

VALUE -
The average sold price on E-Bay for the Vivitar equals $25 for the past month or so. Average sold price on E-Bay for the Pentax M200mm f4 equals $35 for the past month or so. ADVANTAGE = Vivitar (by a whopping $10!)

PENTAX FORUM RATING - The Pentax M200mm F4 has been rated at 8.33 by 33 of our peers. The Vivitar 200mm f3.5 M42 has been rated an 8.64 by 11 of our peers. ADVANTAGE = Vivitar (although I cannot for the life of me figure out why!! For crying out loud, someone even called it a "sleeper." Does that mean if someone hits you over the head with it you will go to sleep!)

MY RATING (for what it is worth)
Pentax +6
Vivitar +2
Tie +4
Based on my highly subjective review the Pentax lens is clearly the superior lens. The OP should not even consider the Vivitar unless he wants a very heavy lens that requires an adaptor. But some of us are so enamored of older Vivitar lenses that we insist on buying them, and then lying magnificently about our experiences with using them to convince everyone else that we made a great deal and are having a terrific time. Meanwhile it sits on the shelf most of the time. My nice little Pentax 200mm actually goes along in my bag because I don't even notice the extra weight. That way it is there when I need it.

Don't even get me started on the Vivitar 70-210mm f3.5 zoom, which I also own and love...but rarely use because it is such a monstrous thing to pack around!!

[vonBaloney]

The Pentax M SMC 200mm f4 is a great little lens and completely overshadows the Vivitar. For the 200mm reach It is quite small and handy, and for daylight use it is very, very hard to find a better lens without spending a great deal more money. I have been reading some of the posts here and I am completely confused as to why anyone would recommend the Vivitar over the Pentax. There are only a few reasons I can think of to even consider the Vivitar. One is that you already own the Pentax and just want to play around with some other brands. Two, you are a collector interested in gathering up a number of different examples of very inexpensive, vintage 200mm lenses. Three, you have one you want to get rid of so you hope to drive up the price a bit by recommending it.

That's nice, but no one in the thread actually recommended the Vivitar over the Pentax-M 200/4. The one person that mentioned them both recommended the Pentax. I think you are a bit off on the prices though -- the Pentax tends to go for twice as much or more as the Vivitar, and the OP did ask for cheap.

[Pioneer]

I think you are a bit off on the prices though -- the Pentax will tends to go for twice as much or more as the Vivitar, and the OP did ask for cheap.

Thanks for the comment and you are certainly right. The price will certainly vary from day to day, on both lenses, and it can also depend on where you got your numbers. KEH is getting between $94 on the high side and $47 on the low side for this lens as of today. I would have used those numbers but KEH doesn't have a Vivitar M42 200mm lens for sale right now so I couldn't. My prices were pulled from the average price for each lens as shown in the completed (actually sold) listings on flea bay. If we do it next week it will be different again. My own Pentax M200mm only cost me $40 so it doesn't seem too far off. Of course, prices could be climbing and I may want to consider making a little money off my investment...Nahh!!

[8540tomg]

Another vote for the M 200/4 here.

Just took a look at KEH Camera and found one for $84.00 in EX condition.

There was one for $47.00 in BGN condition.

You might also consider the older SMC K 200/4. It is larger and considered by many to be the better lens (rarity?). It is certainly better built although the M is no slouch either. It also takes 52mm filters vs 49mm for the M. KEH had a K 200/4 listed for $59.00 in BGN condition.

In any case all of these are under a hundred bucks which is pretty cheap by most standards.

Tom G