Lightest 200mm setup you know?

Brady Eklund

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
Messages
55
Location
Eau Claire, WI
Format
Medium Format
This week I shot the US Open with a real unusual 200mm setup that was the lightest 200mm I could scrape up in 135. The results were surprisingly good despite the lens being in a poor condition. What's the lightest 200mmish setup (w/ or w/o teleconverters) you've shot?
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,085
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
An Olympus OM-10 or OM-20 with a Zuiko 200mm f/5 would probably qualify.
Never used that combination, but I sold a few of each.
 
OP
OP

Brady Eklund

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
Messages
55
Location
Eau Claire, WI
Format
Medium Format
Noted. I'll have to weigh mine and compare. I'll probably go into work sometime this weekend and we have a good scale. I do love my OM-1 and OM-2, but the lenses aren't super cheap.
 

chip j

Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
2,193
Location
NE Ohio
Format
35mm
I got a plastic 70-210 Phoenix in Canon FD mount recently--light as a feather. Brand new in the box--$14! (ebay, some ship).
 

Chan Tran

Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
6,824
Location
Sachse, TX
Format
35mm
I used to have a Nikkor 200mm f/4 AI. It's small and when pairing with a small Nikon the combo is small.
 

ciniframe

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
803
Format
Sub 35mm
I've got the OM-1 plus 200 f5 Zuiko also, only paid $30 for mine on ebay. The combo is right at 2 lbs. or 890 gm. for our metric friends.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
53,085
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format

apoglass

Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
33
Format
Medium Format
The small excellent Cosina Voigtlander 180mm f/4 APO-Lanthar weighs 485g.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,665
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
Try a Pentax 200mm f4 SMC Takumar M42 mount. Small, fairly light, can be adapted to most camera systems and a darn sharp lens with very good color rendition.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,705
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
I have the 200 F4 in M42, with adaptor works on a Phoenix K mount body, very light, also the Chinon CE3 or 4, not light weight but compact.
 

thuggins

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
1,144
Location
Dallas, TX
Format
Multi Format
I have read that the Zuiko 200f5 is the smallest/lightest 35mm lens in that focal length. It is a lovely little lens and gets used far more than the 200f4.
 

Ap507b

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
184
Location
Surrey, UK
Format
35mm
Thing that put me off the F5 Zuiko was that I have a 100-200mm Zuiko zoom of the same aperture & I find the focusing screen focusing aid blacks out quite often. Never really took to the lens. Worry about focusing problems made me go for the F4 version even though the compactness of the F5 one was tempting.
 

nyoung

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
388
Format
Medium Format
Pre AI converted 200/f4 nikkor on an FM is close to weightless. Cheap too
 

dynachrome

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
1,759
Format
35mm
The funny thing about 200mm lenses is that some of the old slow ones are not that small. The 200/4.5 MC Rokkor is larger and heavier than the 200/4 MD Rokkor. Konica and Asahi made 200/5.6 pre-set lenses but those aren't very small either. The Canon 200/4 New FD focuses to 1.5 meters or almost five feet. That's not as close as the Vivitar 200/3 Series 1 which gets to four feet but the Canon is much lighter. I actually think the older 200/4 Canon FD SSC is sharper than the New FD version but the SSC is heavier. I think there was a Sigma 200mm f/4 or f/3.5 Mini-Tele but I haven't seen one in a while. The 200/4 Pentax SMC-M is fairly compact and goes well with the small MX or ME Super cameras. You could try a 200/4 Konica Hexanon with a TC-X camera. There were probably some T-mount pre-set slow 200mm lenses if you can find one. The Spiratone name comes to mind. Many manufacturers made lenses for Spiratone.
 

cooltouch

Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2009
Messages
1,677
Location
Houston, Tex
Format
Multi Format
There are probably many examples of older being bigger and heavier than newer. The Nikkor 200mm f/4 comes to mind. The old pre-AI lens is much larger than the newer AI and AIs variants. Sharpness wise, I dunno, but my vote would be for the newer ones.

I have a couple of old metal-ribbed focusing collar Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 lenses. To get that extra half a stop they had to produce a pretty big lens. Big and heavy. But performance wise, there's no comparison between it and, say, the Canon nFD 200mm f/4 -- these two lenses I have compared and the Canon blows the Vivitar away, especially at wider apertures. For that matter, I suspect that any of the Vivitar S1 70-210 zooms would blow away the old Viv 200/3.5. Some of the old glass has to be admired for what they accomplished -- massively built, etc., but they should stay in retirement, IMO, as mine do.
 

dynachrome

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
1,759
Format
35mm
The 200/3.5 Vivitar Fixed Mount lenses are decent performers if you have one in good condition. I think I prefer the 200/4 Nikkor QC to the more compact 200/4 'K' and AI models but they are all good. My older 2nd version 20cm f/4 is not quite as good and does not focus as close. I like the 200/4 Canon FD SSC but when I use a Canon FD 200 now it's usually an f/2.8. I have two 1st version 200/2.8 New FDs and one 2nd version 200/2.8 New FD. Some of my other favorite 200s include the 200/3.5 Auto Rokkor/MC Rokkor/MC Rokkor-X, the 200/3.5 Konica Hexanon and the 200/3.5 Sigma with IF. I consider the 200/4 SMC Pentax-M and 200/4 Zuiko to be not too bad closed down a little but not great. The older 200/4 Pentax Super Tamukar/S-M-C-T lenses are quite good. When I'm in the mood for carrying something heavier I will take a 180/2.8 Nikkor or 200/3 Vivitar Series 1 or the 200/2.8 Soligor.
 

Theo Sulphate

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
6,489
Location
Gig Harbor
Format
Multi Format
Lightest has to be this: Canon Rebel G (500N) with EF 75-300/4-5.6 III USM (supposedly their worst lens - it does feel cheap -- but image quality is acceptable).

Amazingly light outfit.



The FD 200/4 SSC is much heavier. FDn version is probably lighter.

 
Last edited:

RichardJack

Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
331
Location
Long Island, NY
Format
Multi Format
As far as weight I have 4 setups that are pretty compact and light:

Olympus OM2 w/ 200mm f4 Olympus lens

Minolta XG9 w/ 200mm f4 MD Rokkor

NIkon FA w/ 200mm f4 AIs Nikkor

Pentax Spotmatic F / 200mm f4 SMC Takumar

If you were to ask about image quality, it would be the Nikon hands down. I have always managed to get better images holding a heavier body steadier with a lighter lens, a heavy lens on a light body is trouble.
 

cliveh

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
7,540
Format
35mm RF
I would question why you want a lightweight version? Extra weight will dampen vibration and as for teleconverters, you would be better off using the correct focal length lens for the job.
 

PGillin

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Messages
82
Location
Windsor, Ontario
Format
35mm
Nikon AI 200 4 and the Takumar 200 4 both come to mind.
My newly-acquired Komura 200 3.5 is MUCH smaller than the adaptall 200 3.5, but a bit disappointing in sharpness and contrast.

I would recommend an AI-s or AF-d 180 2.8, which is bigger than a 200 4 will be but is still only moderate in size and weight. You won't forget it's there, you also won't throw your back out carrying it. Although I use an 80-200 more the 180 is my favorite tele. Built-in hood, ED glass, works on everything from an F to the newest pro bodies (with AF, in my case), and is generally popular enough that second hand prices aren't insane. Also, being a 2.8 there's no problem at all putting on a 1.4 tc, giving you a 180 and a 250 which is a nice bracket it you're expecting to shoot around the 200mm mark.
While I have shot lighter setups, this is the lightest rig I routinely shoot. IMO it's more versatile than a 200 4 and still much lighter than a 2.8 70-200 or 200 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…