Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Which would be the best small 200mm?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:30 pm    Post subject: Which would be the best small 200mm? Reply with quote

Hi guys!

It's been a long time since my last visit.

This time I'm looking for a compact and sharp 200mm lens for my NX300M.

I think it should best be an f4 as the f2.8 or normally to big for my taste. My 50-200 zoom lens isn't bad a tall but it needs to be stopped down to f6.3-f7.1 to get sharp.

Any recommendations? I own Konica AR, Minolta MD, Canon FD and Nikon Ai adapter but would ad another one if it's worth!

Cheers,

Karhallarn


PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolta MC/MC or Nikkor AI-S 4/200mm

Last edited by calvin83 on Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:23 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Disclaimer: I haven't owned any of these (yet). The smallest 200mm is probably the Olympus OM 200/5 (at least, I haven't heard of a smaller one). At a slightly shorter 180mm, the Leitz Elmar-R 180/4 and Meyer Telemegor 180/5.5 are quite small (Elmar-R is short but not as light, Telemegor very light but not as short). Smallest of all is the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar 180/4, but it's very expensive. All of which doesn't really answer your question directly - I have no idea about 200/4 lenses - but perhaps still useful to know.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have the Meyer Telemegor f/5.5 lenses and they are indeed small, but need to be stopped down even further for sharpness. I also have the Rokkor 4/200 which is good from f/4 and light enough even if not particularly small. The Topcor 5.6/200 is small and a very good performer (despite what you might read). The Rokkor and Topcor are about equal at wide open, with maybe a slight edge to the Topcor.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Topcor 5.6/200. Anything else that can match it in performance is twice the size. It's sharper wide open at 5.6 than many faster 200s are stopped down to 5.6.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are some zooms that are smaller than the fixed focals.
Tokina SD 70-210 is tiny by comparison with most 200mm lenses and is cheap in FD mount
Sample attached
There are probably others
OH



Tokina next to Takumar 3.5/200



Last edited by Oldhand on Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:37 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leica R 180/3.4 APO is very good.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yesterday I took a bunch of Pentacon's with me when I went for a walk, it nearly killed me. Today I wanted to travel light so I loaded up with mid range Takumars, and for telephoto I took the old Pre Set 200 / 5.6 which is maybe a fraction of a gram lighter than the f4.
I was not dissapointed, it's a great lens, and so is the f4.
I've got a few other 200's that are f3.5 and not particularly heavy, compared to the Pentacon, but they are newer - 1970 1980 -Chinon, Photax, Prinzflex type third parrty lenses which are OK, but not a patch on the Tak's.
I looked at an Olympus 200 / 4 and it was really nice, compact and light, but full of fungus. I'd certainly get one when I see a good one.


PostPosted: Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

+1 Tele-Takumar 5.6/200

Small lens weighs 370g compared to 550g for 4/200.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
+1 Tele-Takumar 5.6/200

Small lens weighs 370g compared to 550g for 4/200.


There's a version of the Minolta MD 200 f/4 which only weighs 400 g instead of the usual 520 g. Have a look at this entry in the Minolta SR mount lens database. Considering you already own a version of the Minolta, you can judge if it's performance suits your needs and then look for the lighter one. But there are a lot of other good ideas in the thread Smile


PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The tamron adaptall-2 200mm f3.5 is pretty compact, 540g and pretty sharp and has the twin adavantages over those topcors/telemegors/oddball olympuses or rokkors etc of being readily available and cheap!


PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Had to Zuiko 200/4, pretty good lens, now have the Minolta New MD 200/4 (last version) it has 6 aperture blades versus 8 on the Oly, both have a neat built-in hood, I don't see a big difference in performance but it feels quite a bit lighter and the focus is smoother too.
It just seems nicer to handle overall.

APO-Lanthar 180/4 is way above these lenses (smaller, considerably sharper, much less CA, much better minimum focusing distance) but it is rare, therefore extremely expensive. I might look for one yet again, although I hated the reversed focus rotation.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also vote for the Leica Elmar-R 4/180. Excellent lens, relatively compact and one of the most affordable Leica-R-lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SMC Pentax-DA 50-200mm F4-5.6 ED is 255g. hard to beat that...

Perhaps the E-Zuiko AUTO-T 200mm f/4.0 as it is 515g ?


or the Tamron 200mm f/3.5 Model 04B 540 g


Or as strange as it sounds, the Canon EF 100-300mm f/5.6 L is light, at 695g.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 23, 2015 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As several others said, leica elmar-R 180mm f4. It is very small, same size as most 135mms and affordable. The only other one I am aware of to compete on size is the uber expensive voigtlander 180mm f4. All the others are larger as far as I know (granted both are 20mm short).
(I tried and rejected the Konica 200mm f4 on route to the elmar as it was too long)


PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The takumar 5,6/200, the fuji 4,5/200, the retina schneider 4,8/200 andf a lot more good lenses. I understand that you will use the lens near F/8 to 11.

To use wide open or so, between the F/2,8 to 4,5, perhaps you will need a very, very good lens; the more cheap should be the apo telyt 3,4/180.

Here, in the forum, there are very good pics taken by Orio with that lens.

Horacio.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you all for the responses!

I've got a lot to think about now!

Actually I want to use the lens wide open!

As you all got so much good advice, how about a good 24mm wide angle for Astroshots?


PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Samyang/Rokinon 24mm F1.4.,sharp and with good coma correction.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The smallest lens I have in the 200mm ballpark is the Elmar 180mm. I have the MC 200mm f3.5 and it's a tank of a lens, beautiful to hold and heft but it aint compact by any means.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Karhallarn wrote:

Actually I want to use the lens wide open!



The tamron adaptall 200mm f3.5 04B isn't so hot wide open IME - softer and tends to show pf/fringing.

If you are thinking of f3.5 - f4.5 in terms of aperture for your shots, then the SP Adaptall 63B 180mm f2.5 is a fast premium lens which will really deliver at those f's, being already closed down a stop. But it's a hefty 800g, uncommon .. and about 10x the price of a 4B!


PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jupiter-21m 200mm/f4. It cheap, bright, kinda sharp. 8 leafs aperture(circular saw shape).


PostPosted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tamron 5.9/200 - very small and light for a 200mm
Also quite nice for being only a triplet

http://m42lens.com/m42-lens-database/1179-hanimex-tamron-200mm-f-5-9-22


PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tried several 200mm lenses since it's my favorite range and the FD 80-200mm f4 L is the best: light weight, compact, close focus, flexible and very sharp from wide open. It's the only zoom lens I keep in my collection and also the best bargain I've found ($85). I suggested this lens for my friend and when he used it on his A7, it outperformed other primes Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Karhallarn wrote:
Thank you all for the responses!

I've got a lot to think about now!

Actually I want to use the lens wide open!



I have tested quite a bunch of 180mm / 200mm lenses both on 16MP APS-C as well as on 24/36MP FF:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sony-af/objektiv-vergleiche/220-200mm-firenze-2008
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/333-sony-a7r-ze-1-8-55mm-mc-1-4-50mm-mc-2-8-21mm-mc-4-200mm
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/338-nex-5n-und-minolta-200mm-teleobjektive

Two of them are outstanding; both can be used wide open on FF 24MP cameras:
1) Minolta MC / MD 200mm 1:4
2) Minolta AF 200mm 1:2.8 APO G

Neither the Canon New FD 4/200mm nor the New FD 4/80-200mm do match them (unpublished test results).

Stephan