[Nesster]

Sorry, not full size... from the early, big T4:

[Nesster]

here's something from a Soligor
Manual Focus Lenses :: View topic - A few hawk shots with my $9.95 Soligor 200/3.5

[tr13]

Here is primer from other thread with 200 lens test
and Focus magic processed file (oversharpening visible).
P.S. And I am really mad at this forum post editor that is unable to insert attachment using 100% size.

[Marc Sabatella]

Here is primer from other thread with 200 lens test
and Focus magic processed file (oversharpening visible).

I know the Pentax 200/4 is capable of far better results than this, so I think the missed focus / camera shake is throwing off the results too much (and I don't trust that focusmagic is equalizing that variable).

P.S. And I am really mad at this forum post editor that is unable to insert attachment using 100% size.

Do you mean you wanted to try to post the entire full size image straight from the camera? There's a reason the forum doesn't allow that - the file would ery large, making pages load too slowly, and would be far bigger than can fit on the screen, forcing people to scroll around. The forum contains those controls because most viewers would not want their viewing experience disrupted by such large files. However, if you post one somewhere else and include a *link* to it here, that gets around all these problems very nicely. The forum software allows it, it doesn't mess anything up, and people who wish to wait for it to load and don't mind scrolling around can still access it.

[Lowell Goudge]

Here is primer from other thread with 200 lens test
and Focus magic processed file (oversharpening visible).

why on earth would you ever, I repeat EVER perform sharpening on a comparative test to assess lens sharpness?

[stevebrot]

I really don't want one more zoom in this range as I am really happy with my Focal zoom.
And is you look at ebay carefully for some time, 70-210mm could be obtained at cheaper price. :-)

If you like the Focal, you would love the Viv Series I 70-210. The Vivitar zoom probably delivers better images than any of the primes mentioned in this thread and is faster to boot.

Steve

[stevebrot]

I know the Pentax 200/4 is capable of far better results than this, so I think the missed focus / camera shake is throwing off the results too much (and I don't trust that focusmagic is equalizing that variable).

Marc,

Those are my images lifted from another thread. They are 100% crops and were taken tripod mounted, SR off, and best of three for focus using the Katz Eye screen (split image). Here is the original post:

Pentax 200 f4 & Vivitar 200 3.5 Comparison #22

I was not happy with the results and followed up a short time later when the light was better with these 100% crops (also on tripod, etc.):

Pentax 200 f4 & Vivitar 200 3.5 Comparison #37

The whole thread might be interesting for someone considering either of these two lenses if they have the time to read it.

As for the sharpening attempt...I would suggest that better results might be had with the OPs PP software if the tools had been applied to the original images rather than to the crops.

Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 09-11-2009 at 01:39 PM.

[wavecurrent]

Here is a cheap one, got it almost for free. Due to a sticking aperture, that's fixed and working perfectly now
It's the Soligor 200 F2.8 C/D version A little soft wide open, but sharp at 5.6.

[Marc Sabatella]

Those are my images lifted from another thread. They are 100% crops and were taken tripod mounted, SR off, and best of three for focus using the Katz Eye screen (split image).

I stand corrected, then. Still makes me wonder, though, because I've taken very similar test shots - a sign in which lettering was about the same size when viewed at 100% (10MP K200D) - and the lettering was quite a bit sharper at f/4 than that. Did you have the hood extended? Filter? I know, I'm reaching for straws. I'm probably just misremembering my own results; I no longer have the test images to compare.

[hinman]

I have tried several 200mm in both K and M42 mounts, you can see my lens in 200mm prime

• Hin's Tech Corner: 200mm

Among the four 200mm that I have tried, I like my Soligor 200mm f/2.8 in M42 mount followed by Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 by Komine. The best value among the 4 that I tried goes to Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 by Komine as you can easily find this inexpensive to own. In my opinion, an K mount is not necessary better than a m42 mount as in M42 mount, I can use Av priority without the need to do stop-down metering.

My copy of Soligor likely comes from Tokina with serial # starting 37 and if you see a Soligor 200mm f/2.8 with the label for C/D, that would be the preferred one to look for. My non-C/D soligor f/2.8 is easy to handle as it is not too big for a f/2.8 lens. However, the Komine 200mm f/3.5 in K mount is smaller and easier to use except the need to do stop-down.

soligor 200mm f/2.8 on left and Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 from Komine in K mount on right

Thanks,
Hin

[stevebrot]

I stand corrected, then. Still makes me wonder, though, because I've taken very similar test shots - a sign in which lettering was about the same size when viewed at 100% (10MP K200D) - and the lettering was quite a bit sharper at f/4 than that. Did you have the hood extended? Filter? I know, I'm reaching for straws. I'm probably just misremembering my own results; I no longer have the test images to compare.

Hood extended, no filter. In both cases the sign was about 50 yards away. The light was pretty poor for both comparison shots...overcast in winter. I have considered doing a repeat series in good light and at the full aperture range. I am also considering throwing my Vivitar 135/2.8 with a Vivitar 2x converter of the same vintage into the fray. Now, that is an unfair comparison!

My conclusion from the other thread is that both lenses are great performers and a great value too. I really could not see any real performance difference at normal taking apertures (say f/5.6 and narrower). The Pentax is lighter/smaller and has the SMC coating, but is usually about 2x the money. Both lenses are very well built.

Steve

[tr13]

I don't know. but I can see quite high abberations on Vivitar in comparison shots.
And as for sharpening - it don't say anything, of course, as it was performed on quite compressed crops. But if you experiment in any sharpening program you'll see that slightly soft lens without too visible abberations sharpens better.
Soligor 200mm F2.8 C/D is quite interesting, but I am not sure that it can be obtained for cheap on ebay.
And as for 70-210 Vivitar zoom. May be I'll try to hunt for A version later.
Also M42 lenses meter much more accurate, usually, as current firmware have troubles to account for time necessary to stop down lens diaphragm.

For owners of this lenses - it is very interesting to compare real speed (T speed) of this lenses (using fixed exposure) and comparing resulting RAW images. I still belive that primes must be fastest, next must be long old zooms, next push zooms.

[8540tomg]

Any cheap 200mm fast cheap prime suggestions?

In a word no. Cheap and fast are terms that just don’t go together when speaking of telephoto or any other lens for that matter. As with cars so it is with lenses – the fast ones always cost more and usually a lot more. By the way f 3.5 really isn’t all that fast and for all intents and purposes not much faster than f 4. I’m not overly familiar with anything but Pentax lenses so I would agree with those who suggest that a M 200/4 probably meets your criteria best in the Pentax line. I would also suggest if you are looking for speed that neither an f 3.5 nor f4 will make you happy in the long run. The old SMC Pentax K 200/2.5 or an A 200/2.8 would certainly put a smile on your face but they are anything but cheap.
They are, however, fast and will permit shots you just won't get with a slower lens.

Tom G

[stevebrot]

I don't know. but I can see quite high abberations on Vivitar in comparison shots...

My Viv (the one used for the pictures) has sort of a purple/blue haloing wide open. This is gone at f/5.6. The Pentax-M has red/green CA that is not real apparent on some monitors, but enough to actually render a color cast to the lettering on the real estate sign in the second series I posted. The important thing to note is that this type and level of aberration wide-open is not unusual for non-Apo lenses and is not a fault, per se.

My conclusion continues to be that both lenses are very capable performers overall, but if price is a consideration, the Vivitar is a clear winner. I use them both and have no complaints about either.

Steve

P.S. I agree with Tom that neither f/4 and f/3.5 is particularly "fast". A f/2.5 or f/2.8 gives a much nicer viewfinder experience and an extra stop in dim light. What lens you buy is all part of the price, performance, speed, weight, bulk equation.

[tr13]

OK.
As for fast lenses. Looking at them I don't see any reason to go to 200 F2.8 on manual lens. Many of such lenses are softer then F3.5 versions. And prices on many are high.
Concerning viewfinder brighness. I don't see big difference looking through F2.8 and F3.5 lenses for more then few seconds.
As for Pentax lenses. I don't plan to buy new Pentax lenses anymore and never recommend it to anyone. As Pentax went nuts. And you'll be very surprised if you could see profitability of lens business.