Lightest 200mm setup you know?

[Pioneer]

Vivitar V3800n K Mount = 445g
SMC Pentax-M 200/4 = 405g
Total package w/o film = 845g

A bit over 1.8 pounds. Not sure it is the lightest but it is certainly close.

The lens gives very, very good image quality, is small for a 200mm and comes with its own slide out metal hood. The camera is surprisingly solid and easy to use with center weighted metering, 1/2000 max shutter speed, timer, mirror lockup when used with timer and a 1/125s flash synch. It is an entirely manual kit.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Vivitar V3800n K Mount = 445g
SMC Pentax-M 200/4 = 405g
Total package w/o film = 845g

A bit over 1.8 pounds. Not sure it is the lightest but it is certainly close.
...

Not bad at all. My choice was Rebel G (400g) and EF 75-300 III (480g) = 880gr.

You may have the winner.

 

[RichardJack]

I triple the recommendation for using a Nikon 180mm f2.8, it might be slightly heavier but much sharper. Stick it on a FA or FE2 and your set.

 

[Pioneer]

I triple the recommendation for using a Nikon 180mm f2.8, it might be slightly heavier but much sharper. Stick it on a FA or FE2 and your set.

My god man! Are you trying to tear this man's arm off?

Nikon FE2 = 550g
Nikkor 180/2.8 = 880g
Total Pkg w/o film = 1,430g

You aren't even in the ballpark.

Besides, it isn't a 200mm and it is no sharper than the wonderfully petite, Pentax-M 200/4.

I will never understand you Nikon guys. The 180/2.8 is touted as a true classic with you guys but on anything but the F series it is a front-heavy, unwieldy monstrosity that requires huge, 72mm filters. Only a Nikon guy could love it.

However, you do have one thing going for you. It is faster by one stop.

EDIT - I forgot...Ken loves it.

 

[cooltouch]

I'm mostly a Canon guy, but I consider the Nikon 180/2.8 ED to be one of the best lenses ever made. To me, it's well worth the additional weight. I expanded my gear kit to include Nikon back in about 1989 and I acquired a 180 ED soon afterwards. I liked that lens so much, it rarely left my F2. The combined weight of the F2 and 180 ED wasn't even anything that occurred to me. But I can understand why someone else would consider it to be a bit much.

 

[Pioneer]

I'm mostly a Canon guy, but I consider the Nikon 180/2.8 ED to be one of the best lenses ever made. To me, it's well worth the additional weight. I expanded my gear kit to include Nikon back in about 1989 and I acquired a 180 ED soon afterwards. I liked that lens so much, it rarely left my F2. The combined weight of the F2 and 180 ED wasn't even anything that occurred to me. But I can understand why someone else would consider it to be a bit much.

All in jest I assure you.

I too owned this lens for a couple of years. I am definitely a Pentax guy, but I consider it to be a terrific lens. But even on my F6 it was still a front heavy lens.

I finally sold it because it didn't get much use with the Pentax-FA* 200/2.8 around.

EDIT - Another front heavy lens that uses even larger 77mm filters!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I'm mostly a Canon guy, but I consider the Nikon 180/2.8 ED to be one of the best lenses ever made...

Agreed. I last used it on an FE2; never really paid attention to the weight or balance. If it becomes annoying, I can lighten it by removing the sticker.

 

[Minoltafan2904]

My personal 200mm combo :
Minolta X-700 + Tamron 103A 80-210
Camera body : 505g
Lens : 634g
Total 1139g ( 2.5 lbs )
Not excessively heavy in my opinion, and the 103A is awesome..

 

[PGillin]

My god man! Are you trying to tear this man's arm off?
Nikon FE2 = 550g
Nikkor 180/2.8 = 880g
Total Pkg w/o film = 1,430g

You aren't even in the ballpark.

Besides, it isn't a 200mm and it is no sharper than the wonderfully petite, Pentax-M 200/4.

I will never understand you Nikon guys. The 180/2.8 is touted as a true classic with you guys but on anything but the F series it is a front-heavy, unwieldy monstrosity that requires huge, 72mm filters. Only a Nikon guy could love it.

The AF-D version is a little lighter FWIW.

I often wish they had made it take 77mm filters, to match the 20-35 and 80-200 2.8 AF-d lenses....

For ultimate weight/IQ on Nikon the ED 200/4 is a good choice, but then you lose more with TCs and the 180 is just so good.

 

[grommi]

Let's remember the OPs question:
"What's the lightest 200mmish setup (w/ or w/o teleconverters) you've shot"

You have to beat this convenient and affordable combo:

Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 5 with LD Di II Tamron AF 4-5.6/55-200 Macro (yes, works fine wide open on full frame 35mm film) at 630g together for about 60 €.


BOOH by Imagesfrugales, on Flickr

Add a Sony SAL1855 (18-55mm, usable full frame up from 24mm) and another 160g for 30 € and you have the lightest 35mm setup with excellent quality and barely 800g and less than 100 €. Furthermore add a 1,7/50 AF-Rokkor if you need a fast lens.

 

[Pioneer]

Let's remember the OPs question:
"What's the lightest 200mmish setup (w/ or w/o teleconverters) you've shot"

You have to beat this convenient and affordable combo:

Minolta Dynax/Maxxum 5 with LD Di II Tamron AF 4-5.6/55-200 Macro (yes, works fine wide open on full frame 35mm film) at 630g together for about 60 €.


BOOH by Imagesfrugales, on Flickr

Add a Sony SAL1855 (18-55mm, usable full frame up from 24mm) and another 160g for 30 € and you have the lightest 35mm setup with excellent quality and barely 800g and less than 100 €. Furthermore add a 1,7/50 AF-Rokkor if you need a fast lens.

I believe we have a new leader!! A Minolta/Tamron combo at 630g!

 

[blockend]

All way too big. The Pentax Espio 200 is surely it?

 

[Finny]

What's the lightest 200mmish setup (w/ or w/o teleconverters) you've shot?

Pentax MX with SMC 200/4.0

 

[grommi]

All way too big. The Pentax Espio 200 is surely it?

Sorry, I thought we are talking about usable cameras. Have you seen my reloaded disposable camera with the homemade 4x converter?

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Pentax Spotmatic with 200 5.6.

Nikon body of your choice and 200 4.0 AiS. Nikormats are great. F2 is my fav of the line

 

[Alan Johnson]

Canon Rebel Ti + 55-200 EF 4.5-5.6 +Lens cap & hood + batteries (2002-) 710 grams.
This Canon lens is designed to cover the full 35mm frame, unlike the 55-200 Tamron mentioned above which is I believe a crop sensor APS-C lens.

 

[nsurit]

My answer to the OP's question would be an Olympus OM single digit camera body and the OM Zuiko 200mm f5 lens (which I no longer own.) If the question were which 200mmish lens would you use with a 35mm body to photograph things like the US Open, my answer would be different. I would want something that was fast, sharp and easy to operate and that didn't weigh a ton. My choice would probably be an Olympus OM 2S or some other OM body and the Tamron SP 180mm f2.5. This lens has internal focus, fits the palm of my hand perfectly, produces incredibly sharp images, is fast and is a little heavier than the f5, however the advantages, in my opinion, far outweigh the disadvantages. The combination comes in at 1340 grams. lighter is not alway better. Bill Barber