Lightest 200mm setup you know?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras and Accessories' started by Brady Eklund, Jun 17, 2017.

  1. Pioneer

    Pioneer Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,252
    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Location:
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2017
  2. Theo Sulphate

    Theo Sulphate Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,420
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Location:
    1984
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Not bad at all. My choice was Rebel G (400g) and EF 75-300 III (480g) = 880gr.

    You may have the winner.
     
  3. RichardJack

    RichardJack Subscriber

    Messages:
    288
    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
  4. Pioneer

    Pioneer Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,252
    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Location:
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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. :D

    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.
     
  5. cooltouch

    cooltouch Member

    Messages:
    1,117
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, Tex
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.
     
  6. Pioneer

    Pioneer Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,252
    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Location:
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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! :smile:
     
  7. Theo Sulphate

    Theo Sulphate Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,420
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Location:
    1984
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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.

    IMAG5455-1.jpg
     
  8. Minoltafan2904

    Minoltafan2904 Member

    Messages:
    53
    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2017
    Location:
    Balearic Islands, Spain
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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..
     
  9. PGillin

    PGillin Subscriber

    Messages:
    34
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2017
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Shooter:
    35mm
    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.
     
  10. grommi

    grommi Member

    Messages:
    154
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    Location:
    continental
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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 €.

    [​IMG]
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
  11. Pioneer

    Pioneer Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,252
    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Location:
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I believe we have a new leader!! A Minolta/Tamron combo at 630g!
     
  12. blockend

    blockend Member

    Messages:
    2,485
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Location:
    northern eng
    Shooter:
    35mm
    All way too big. The Pentax Espio 200 is surely it?
     
  13. Finny

    Finny Subscriber

    Messages:
    33
    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2017
    Location:
    Northern hemisphere
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Pentax MX with SMC 200/4.0
     
  14. Sponsored Ad
  15. grommi

    grommi Member

    Messages:
    154
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    Location:
    continental
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Sorry, I thought we are talking about usable cameras. Have you seen my reloaded disposable camera with the homemade 4x converter?
     
  16. Ronald Moravec

    Ronald Moravec Member

    Messages:
    1,343
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Location:
    Downers Grov
    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
     
  17. Alan Johnson

    Alan Johnson Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,730
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2004
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2017
  18. nsurit

    nsurit Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,638
    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Location:
    Texas Hill Country
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    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