Lightest 200mm setup you know?

[Brady Eklund]

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]

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.

 

[Brady Eklund]

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]

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).

 

[Paul Howell]

Pentax PZ 30 with 200 KA F4, not AF but meters with the PZ 30.

 

[Chan Tran]

I used to have a Nikkor 200mm f/4 AI. It's small and when pairing with a small Nikon the combo is small.

 

[narsuitus]

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

Marexar--CX 80-205mm f/4.5 zoom lens on Pentax ME body


Pentax ME by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[ciniframe]

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]

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.

An OM-10 or OM-20 is even lighter - although only 80 grams lighter.
And the 200mm f/5? http://omesif.moosemystic.net/om-sif/lensgroup/200mmf5.htm

 

[apoglass]

The small excellent Cosina Voigtlander 180mm f/4 APO-Lanthar weighs 485g.

 

[John Wiegerink]

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]

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.

 

[cooltouch]

The Canon nFD 200mm f/4 is one of the smallest, lightest 200s you're gonna find. It also has internal focusing, which speeds focusing chores. Couple it with a lightweight Canon body, like an A-1 or AE-1 Program, and you've got a nice, light outfit.

 

[thuggins]

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]

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.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

+1 to Olympus setup.

Marcelo

 

[nyoung]

Pre AI converted 200/f4 nikkor on an FM is close to weightless. Cheap too

 

[dynachrome]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[cooltouch]

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

No question about it. The nFD 200/4 is way lighter. According to the Canon Museum, the nFD weighs 440g and the FD weighs 675g.

 

[RichardJack]

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]

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]

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.