Which would be the best small 200mm?

[Karhallarn]

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

[calvin83]

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

[glaebhoerl]

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.

[woodrim]

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.

[iangreenhalgh1]

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.

[Oldhand]

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

[Lightshow]

Leica R 180/3.4 APO is very good.

[Lloydy]

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.

[visualopsins]

+1 Tele-Takumar 5.6/200

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

[VLR]

[marcusBMG]

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!

[padam]

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.

[LucisPictor]

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

[vroger]

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.

[Dazey]

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)

[papasito]

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.

[Karhallarn]

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?

[calvin83]

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

[cyrano]

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.

[marcusBMG]

[Analog lex]

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

[std]

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

[Langstrum]

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

[stevemark]