| Author: | | Veteran Member Registered: January, 2013 Location: Kansas City, KS Posts: 1,612
5 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 2, 2016 | Not Recommended | Price: $70.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | compact, lightweight, sharpness, rendering | | Cons: | contrast, color, all the inconveniences of a fixed focal length | |
Here's my Flickr album with all of my images from this lens: CLICK HERE.
I bought it used from eBay, actually one of the first lenses I bought when I started my collection, but I've never really put it through its paces, and even after this (most) month, I still feel like I could learn some things about it.
It's a solid M lens, well constructed and responsive. Nicely dampened focus ring that goes on for miles and miles, so it was a little inconvenient to have to crank the thing around from infinity to MFD, when I was ever in that position. The aperture ring has half-clicks from 4 all the way up to 32, but I never stopped it down past f/16 for my purposes. The lens has a built-in slide-out hood, which did improve contrast noticeably. The hood on my particular lens is adorably and amateurishly engraved with the name "Wilber Havens". I'd like to know who he is, but I'm sure I'll never find out. ;-)
The lens doesn't disappoint with sharpness and rendering - it's a solid performer, but not remarkable. Contrast and color were not as dependable, but images responded well to PP. The CA was readily available in all high-contrast situations, but Lightroom knocked it down, and it was actually less intrusive at the most usable (or, at least, my most-used) apertures, f/5.6 to f/11. The bokeh was pleasant enough for me, when I could conjure it, but I'm not much of a bokeh connoisseur, so my opinion's not worth much.
The FOV was, frankly, shocking. I'm not a keen telephoto shooter and I gravitate more towards wide-normal lenses. I don't want to be stuck at 200mm for a month ever again! lol! But, to be honest, the lens was easy enough to handle and the MFD was graciously ~2m/6ft, which was pretty manageable.
Ultimately, I was not inclined to like the focal length, and I have no other fixed 200mm lenses to compare it to, so this was a pretty blind experimentation on my part. Mr. Havens may have loved the lens enough to get his name emblazoned on it for eternity, but if I am ever in a situation where I think I might need the extra reach of a telephoto, I'll definitely be packing my A70-210/4 or my Kalimar 60-300/4-5.6 before tying myself down to a fixed focal length, even with the dependability and build quality of the M lenses.
| | | | | | | Junior Member Registered: July, 2017 Posts: 42
4 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 13, 2020 | Recommended | Price: $90.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Inexpensive, sharp | | Cons: | Moderate CA | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Value: 8
Camera Used: Pentax K-3II
| |
I have been using this lens strictly for astrophotography. Star shapes are good and CA is moderate when stopped down to f/5.6. This lens is very easy to use with Astrotracer because of its small size. Here is an astrophoto I took with it (tracking by Astrotracer):
 | | | | | Pentaxian Registered: September, 2013 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,070
4 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 12, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $38.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Somewhat small in size, reasonably good image quality, good build quality | | Cons: | Takes a little more time to use | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: K30
| |
I have tested this lens on my K30 in bright as well as cloudy conditions, and conclude that it is usable at f4 but really starts to sharpen up and gain significant contrast one click over to f5.6. For this reason I am not sure it has much of an advantage over a typical autofocus zoom that starts at f5.6 at its 200mm end. Based on my testing against my Pentax F 80-200 f 4.7-5.6, they were very close in image quality at comparable f stops at both near and far distances and with 100% crop viewing. The M 200mm may have a slight advantage in sharpness and appears that it may be resolving the full 16 mp at the click between the f5.6 and f8 marker on the aperture ring. At f8 both lenses will resolve all of my K30's megapixels. Advantages this M 200mm may have? Of course the extra stop of light is there if needed, but remember that manual focus lenses have the benefit of hard stop focus at infinity, whereas most autofocus zooms can pass infinity in manual focus mode (thus making manual focusing in the dark much more difficult than a manual focus lens). It is still a rather small lens at nearly the same size as the 80-200 I have (but both are bigger than a Pentax 50-200mm zoom). The 200mm f4 is built like a tank, focuses very smoothly, has a built in hood, and if you are willing to take the little extra time to manually focus it and deal with stop down metering with the green button, it can impress you. But remember that using proper technique is paramount in order to use this lens to its fullest, and a viewfinder magnifier helps. The colors it renders are great, and as another reviewer mentioned the blues are very deep and vibrant. The bokeh is good, and purple fringing is surprisingly very minimal! My lens shows a little sign of wear on the body, and has a little scratch nearing the border of the front element, but other than that it is very clean and I don't mind keeping a spot in the camera bag for it (considering it cost $38, including shipping).
Below are links to some heavily cropped samples showing what I am able to squeeze out of this lens. I do post process my images, and the lens was stopped down near or at f8 in these photos, but I didn't keep track of which were which:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adudenamedjosh/38463039961/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adudenamedjosh/20091608882/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adudenamedjosh/20105003621/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adudenamedjosh/19912848469/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adudenamedjosh/17478894406/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adudenamedjosh/17988730908/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adudenamedjosh/18108190741/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adudenamedjosh/16884975213/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/adudenamedjosh/17318956279/in/dateposted-public/ | | | | | New Member Registered: September, 2016 Posts: 3
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 28, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Great performer, even at F4 | | Cons: | None at this price | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Olympus OM-D EM-1
| |
When I switched from Pentax to micro4/3 this together with the pentax m 50mm F1.7 were the only two lenses I kept. I had 10+ legacy lenses, most of them m-series. Though beautifully crafted, they were all made redundant by modern glass; the so very impressive olympus 12-40 mm F2.8 pro zoom together with Sigmas 60mm F2.8 prime.
This and the 50/1.7 couldn't be replaced, though.
I use it on the em-1 with a pixco focal reducer ("speed booster"). It's an optic adapter that concentrates the full frame image circle rendered by the lens into a smaller area, effectively reducing the focal length by a factor of 0,72 = 144mm. A positive side effect is that you also gain a full stop of light (google "focal reducer" for the theory behind all of this) turning the lens into an F2.8. In practice with micro4/3's x2 crop factor due to the smaller sensor, this lens then becomes a 144 x 2 = 288mm F2.8 full frame equivalent!
The whole package with camera+battery grip+lens weighs in at 1,200 grams. Compare that to a full frame Canon or Nikon 300mm f2.8, where the lens just by itself weighs twice as much!
As a last positive note, it looks pretty awesome mounted on the camera.
Image quality? Holds up very well compared to modern lenses, magnifications posted are 100% crops.
All of this at a price of $120 (lens+focal reducer). Sure I don't have AF, but a Canon L 300mm F2.8 costs $6,000. I'm very happy.
 | | | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: September, 2010 Location: Venlo Posts: 163
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 6, 2013 | Not Recommended | Price: $47.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | build quality, low price | | Cons: | disappointing IQ, color rendition | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 6
Camera Used: K5
| |
I bought this used lens as an alternative for my DA 55-300mm, for the moments that I hope to squeeze out some extra image quality and when working slowly. If I compare the Takumar 2,5/135mm and the Pentax K 1.8/85mm with the zoom lens at the corresponding focus positions, the old primes win hands down. This is what I expected from the M 200mm as well, but I was disappointed. There is no reason to change the zoom for the 200mm for an occasional high-quality shot.
Test images were taken with the camera on a tripod, mirror lock-up and the zoom automatically and manually focussed, for comparison.
The 200mm copy I own is less sharp than the zoom in the middle of the image, for probably all apertures. The edges are slightly better. The color rendition is blueish, cold. At the edges the color fringing is similar to the zoom for in-focus objects. Out-of-focus objects have much stronger fringes.
On average, I like the images taken with the 55-300mm zoom better. So probably the M 200mm will be added to the set of "not used anymore" lenses. Apparently not all old primes are a steal, not even for so little money  | | | | | Pentaxian Registered: November, 2011 Posts: 4,310
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 2, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $115.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Compact, light, excellent color rendering, uniform image quality across the frame | | Cons: | Good, but less than ultimate sharpness | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-x
| |
I bought this lens from KEH, where it was rated "EX," as a consolation prize when I was unable to obtain a Voigtlaender Apo-Lanthar 180/4. The M200/4 does not have the outstanding image quality or close focusing of the Voigtlaender, and is not quite as compact, but for a tiny fraction of the cost, it represents amazing value. It is lighter and more compact than other lenses of comparable focal length. Although I do not use such a long lens very much in my style of photography, the M200/4 is small and light enough to justify a place in my bag anyway, and is very useful for those occasions that do demand a longer tele.
The color rendering is superb, especially for blues, and the image quality is uniform across the whole APS-C frame. The lens has enough central sharpness to make manual focusing moderately easy, despite the maximum aperture of f/4. I find the built-in hood very convenient - it is reminiscent of the hood on the DA 35 Limited Macro. Indeed, the build quality of the lens is above reproach.
Here are a couple of samples of what it can do:
"Country road"
"Cherry blossom time"
 | | | | | Forum Member Registered: October, 2017 Location: Lindsborg, Kansas Posts: 89
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 9, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $70.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Small, Lightweight, Excellent Handling | | Cons: | None | | Sharpness: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-70
| |
A few months ago I purchased a used Pentax M 200mm f/4 lens. I had a gap in my lens line-up between 135mm and 300mm, so I figured this would be a cheap solution (it was only $70).
When the lens arrived it was in like-new condition, and a few test shots around town confirmed that the image quality was decent… but it really wasn't a lens that I expected to use a lot.
However, I recently had a soccer match to shoot that started at 1:00 PM on a blazing hot day with the sun almost directly overhead: miserable conditions for trying to get good pictures. Because I didn't have high expectations for the match I decided to shoot the first half with the 200mm, just to see what it could do. When I reviewed the shots later, I was astonished at the spectacular images that I got with it!
The lenses I usually use for field sports are the Pentax F* 300mm f/4.5 and the Rokinon 85mm f/1.4. Compared to these lenses, the 200mm is much smaller and lighter, and the improvement in handling is definitely noticeable. This ease of handling is one reason why the lens is working so well for me. And 200mm on a crop sensor (equivalent to 300mm on a full-frame sensor) is a really good focal length for field sports.
The 200mm is also surprisingly easy to focus; much easier than the 85mm despite that len's bright f/1.4 aperture. It's so easy to focus that, at times, it feels like I'm using an autofocus lens! It should be noted, however, that using manual-focus lenses for fast action is a skill that has to be learned. I spent 20 years honing that skill back in the film era, so what is easy for me probably won't be easy for someone who has only used autofocus lenses. But, if you are willing to put in the effort to learn to use it, this lens will certainly deliver great results.
This is rapidly becoming my favorite lens for field sports. Not too bad for a 40-year-old manual focus lens!
 | | | | | Junior Member Registered: July, 2016 Posts: 49
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: August 8, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | In the right light it is perfect. | | Cons: | none | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: k3ii
| |
I cannot sing this lens' praises enough. I picked it up from a good lens dealer and it was in perfect shape. Everything worked wonderfully and it was light and compact enough that I could take it anywhere. Everything on the lens feels very well-made and premium.
Image-wise this is a perfect lens for its focal length. If you nail your focus correctly and stay within the lens' limits (don't try and shoot something half a mile away or some silliness) you will find no issues at all with your images. Being f4, it's faster than a lot of other old manual lenses and you will be surprised at just what you can shoot with the lens. I've done sports, birding, and landscapes with it - the key is nailing that focus.
For the money you won't find a better 200mm manual. I take it with me everywhere I go.
 
  | | | | | Forum Member Registered: February, 2016 Location: Moab, Utah Posts: 90
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 18, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp, color rendering, contrast | | Cons: | bokeh | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
Typical perfect build quality and usage from the old Pentax primes. The military wishes they could build tanks this tough. Smooth and snappy like you expect and desire.
Very sharp. I don't keep lenses with soft corners and this is a definite keeper. Usable for most things at f4 (but you better be dead on critically focused) and tack razor crisp at 6.3 and smaller. I don't need the 2.8 at 200. There's never enough depth of field for anything I want to shoot, and any 2.8 lens I have ever used isn't actually usable at 2.8 anyway, so why bother carrying the extra 4x the weight? I suppose you look cooler with a 70-200 2.8, but aside from that, what are you actually gaining in usable images? At least that's how I feel. Sports shooters will likely disagree for focusing reasons, but then they aren't using manual focus lenses as first choice are they. With live view and super sensors of modern cameras, there's no need for f2.8 for almost anybody. This lens is a serious bargain for under a hundred bucks and will help you get higher quality images than you ever could with a modern, haphazardly constructed zoom.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: September, 2010 Location: MD Posts: 1,029
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 18, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $38.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | compact, solid, built-in lens hood, Pentax M character | | Cons: | needs f5.6 or greater | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Camera Used: K-30
| |
Typical Pentax M prime lens with all it's delicious characteristics. Solid and smooth, and I appreciate the built-in lens hood.
At f4, it's almost not worth using since I got soft, glowing images with lots of green CA. Much improved one click down (5.6) and best at f8 +/- a step or so. Still quite nice at f16. Compared to my DAL 55-300 shot at 200mm, it may not be quite as sharp or contrasty, but it's a bit better across the frame. Attached pics (sorry for cat pics  ) have minimal pp.
  | | | | | Junior Member Registered: December, 2013 Location: Johannesburg, South Africa Posts: 40
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 23, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Light & oh so crisp! | | Cons: | For a 200 tele......none! | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K10D
| |
I recently attended a wedding & was too lazy to take a bunch of lenses.
The last wedding I attended I used my 135 mm.
This time I thought I need to practice more with the 200, but this meant having to force myself to work around the problem of not being able to get in real close.
Well let me tell you I was so impressed......firstly I could stay right back & still capture the ring exchanges, then when we went out onto the lawn, the 200mm allowed me to stay out of the official wedding photographers' way.
Did a shoot two days ago down at the beach of my kids Boggie board riding in the shore break......check this out!
My son has actually been complaining that all I ever want to buy is prime lenses & why? So I took along my 75-300 Soligor zoom, took some shots & then switched to the Pentax 200mm tele.
Admittedly it was drissling & very overcast, but compare the loss of colour in the Zoom photo to the tele, & also the loss is sharpness!...... Photos don't lie!!!
Soligor 85-300 f5 Zoom:
Pentax 200mm f4 Telephoto
 | | | | | Senior Member Registered: January, 2012 Posts: 103
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 3, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $45.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp, inexpensive | | Cons: | Some CA | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 9
Camera Used: K-01, K-r
| |
I agree with the previous user who also compared this lens to the DA-L 55-300, with a few caveats. Caveat number 1 is the price - while the DA-L routinely fetches over 200 bucks, this baby can be had for less than $50. Caveat number 2 is that if you are looking for a good long lens, then the DA-L is only mediocre at longer focal lengths anyway. Indeed, in my quest for the ultimate inexpensive birding lens (side note, I'm beginning to realize there is no such thing as an inexpensive birding lens, LOL!), I have come to the conclusion that pretty much all reasonably priced long zooms are soft at the 200-300mm range. The DA-L is no exception. It is a great lens at 200mm, but almost unusably soft at 300mm.
But this review is not about the DA-L! This lens (SMC Pentax-M 200mm f/4) is another champ in the M series of lenses from decades gone by. It is built like a tank, focus and aperture are super smooth, and it is a joy to use. One wonders why it's so stinkin' hard to find new lenses of this build quality in today's age. I know there are plenty of great lenses out there that are made with plastic bodies. And I know that they have the advantage of being lighter. But come on...! Just use one of them for a day or two and then switch to this baby... I'm sure you'll agree that, as the saying goes, they just don't build 'em like that anymore.
IQ wise, I'd call it good to very good. It's not perfect, as there is a little bit of CA creeping in at wider apertures. It's not bad, but it's there. It is very sharp too - maybe not quite as sharp as I expected it to be considering it is a prime lens, but still pretty good.
To illustrate my earlier point vis a vis long zooms, check out the following comparison:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/94603499@N04/8937018271/
The top shot is the DA-L 55-300 zoomed all the way to 300mm. As you can see, it is very soft. This is just not acceptable for good wildlife photography.
The middle shot is the DA-L 55-300 zoomed to 200mm and then cropped in Photoshop.
The bottom shot is the SMC M 200mm f/4 zoomed to 200mm and then cropped in Photoshop.
You can see at 200mm, the two lenses are both pretty good. The DA-L is slightly sharper and has less CA, but they are close. And please remember the price difference!
The bottom line is that, for long shots, you're better off either 1) Forgetting about using 300mm on your DA-L (or other superzoom) and cropping, or 2) Buying an SMC M 200mm f/4 and cropping.
If you're on a budget (and who isn't?), then the SMC M 200mm f/4 is a great option at a very reasonable price, and that's why I'm giving it a 9.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: February, 2010 Location: Bærum, Norway Posts: 101
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 15, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $70.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Build Quality | | Cons: | IQ isn't all that good, Flare | |
Frankly I think the IQ of my DA 50-200 WR is better at 200 mm (at least in my copies). Add to that MF and manual exposure (wich really isn't for me..) I find the 50-200 WR a better deal.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: May, 2016 Posts: 3,723
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 17, 2021 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | lightweight, image quality | | Cons: | CA, moderate sharpness | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-1II, K-3II
| |
I've had this lens on the k3ii a few years ago and sold it, on apsc a 55-300 made more sense with all the modern conveniences. Got a second one for the K1ii and I'm finding it much more useful, I'm using it for landscapes and abstracts.
The main advantages over other vintage lenses in this range (had fa 80-320, have vivitar s1 70-210 for example) are the combination of nice image quality, build quality, and compact size; with the others it's often pick two of these features. It's not bitingly sharp, but the images are pleasing with nice color and moderate contrast, quite unlike modern rendering. Chromatic aberrations aren't bad, but it's one area that could be a little better.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: May, 2015 Location: Hampshire Posts: 892
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 19, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | It is a Pentax lens | | Cons: | Not special enough | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 9
Camera Used: K-5
| |
I was disappointed with my initial results with this lens. Using a 300mm lens on the birds in my back garden was a little unwieldy and I had liked some of the images provided by a Chinon 200mm F3.5 so when the opportunity came to get this at a good price I did.
It seems quite sharp through the apertures I have used this at, until cropping, the feather detail was not quite as sharp as the Chinon images which surprised me. Still, early days, tweak the camera settings and with better light.......
CA is better controlled by the Pentax, the Chinon shows more purple fringing and also some green. The Pen tax shows some red! Unless it's me.
I really wanted to give a lot of 10's for this lens, maybe my copy is not 100% as it left the factory.
 | | |
;)
;)
