| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
donald dump
Joined: 11 Nov 2012
Posts: 25
Location: eu
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:38 pm Post subject: small 200 mm |
 |
|
donald dump wrote:
Wondering, if there is any other very small and light 200 mm like Takumar A or M series. If anyone has some suggestions, i´d like to see.
Obviously Takumars are very good quality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
Contax Tele-Tessar 4/200 is quite small and lightweight.
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Topcon RE Auto Topcor 5.6/200 is probably the smallest 200mm I have found, and it is one of the best too, razor sharp at all apertures with high contrast, very strong colours and a fair bit of pop.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dsmlogger
Joined: 14 Apr 2010
Posts: 178
Location: Athens, Greece
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dsmlogger wrote:
Olympus Zuiko 200mm f/5 is significantly smaller than its f/4 counterpart and I've found my copy to be very sharp and contrasty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aanything
Joined: 27 Aug 2011
Posts: 2187
Location: Piacenza, Italy
Expire: 2014-05-30
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aanything wrote:
(Tele) Takumar 5.6/200 is extremely light, and rather good.
_________________
C&C and editing of my pics are always welcome
Samples from my lenses
My gear
My Flickr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11027
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
| Aanything wrote: |
| (Tele) Takumar 5.6/200 is extremely light, and rather good. |
+1 Built well too!
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 29545
Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
| Aanything wrote: |
| (Tele) Takumar 5.6/200 is extremely light, and rather good. |
+1 Built well too! |
Ok but the O.P. asked if there's any other 200mm lens like the Takumar... 
_________________
Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11027
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
| Orio wrote: |
| visualopsins wrote: |
| Aanything wrote: |
| (Tele) Takumar 5.6/200 is extremely light, and rather good. |
+1 Built well too! |
Ok but the O.P. asked if there's any other 200mm lens like the Takumar... |
OP asked for "200mm like Takumar A or M series" -- maybe OP does not know about the small M42 5.6/200 Takumar or M42 5.6/200 Tele-Takumar. 
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wuxiekeji
Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Posts: 213
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
wuxiekeji wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
| Orio wrote: |
| visualopsins wrote: |
| Aanything wrote: |
| (Tele) Takumar 5.6/200 is extremely light, and rather good. |
+1 Built well too! |
Ok but the O.P. asked if there's any other 200mm lens like the Takumar... |
OP asked for "200mm like Takumar A or M series" -- maybe OP does not know about the small M42 5.6/200 Takumar or M42 5.6/200 Tele-Takumar. |
OP ... OP ... OPPA TAKUMAR STYLE ...
_________________
Canon EOS 6D | Canon EOS 60D | Canon EOS-M | Voigtlander Nokton 1.4/35 | Zeiss Distagon C-Y 4/18 | Zeiss Distagon ZF 2/28 | Samyang 1.4/35 | Zeiss Planar C-Y 1.4/50 | Zeiss Planar C-Y 1.4/85 | Zeiss Makro-Planar C-Y 2.8/100 | Zeiss Sonnar C-Y 2.8/135 | Nikkor ED Ai-S 2.8/180 | Canon FD SSC Fluorite 2.8/300 | Tair-3S 4.5/300 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tromboads
Joined: 29 May 2012
Posts: 1655
Location: Melbourne AU
Expire: 2015-10-01
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
tromboads wrote:
no no no its
OP.... OP. OP OP OP!
OPPA 'Kumar Style.
Literally just got a SMC 200 f4 today. Probably realistically getting on the verge of hand held fun.
I have a 138 and 150mm Tak... (both the same size really) and well. they feel like a 50mm next to the 200.
200mm on the left, 150mm on the right. Note BW is to deal with CA 
But I digress..
Or do I.. oh that was the point. @ 150mm I'm getting a good range, and it's tiny.
Wait that's still not really helpful is it. You looking for something smaller then a 200mm Tak M, K Lens? I think that bacon sandwich I had for lunch went to my head. 
The Nikon 200mm AS/AI whatever its called f4 would just about be the smallest tele I have ever seen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NewStuff
Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Posts: 847
Location: Wales, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
NewStuff wrote:
How does the Pentacon 200/4 compare to that Takumar lens (I've never seen one in a picture I can get scale from)?
_________________
Too many to list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aanything
Joined: 27 Aug 2011
Posts: 2187
Location: Piacenza, Italy
Expire: 2014-05-30
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aanything wrote:
| NewStuff wrote: |
| How does the Pentacon 200/4 compare to that Takumar lens (I've never seen one in a picture I can get scale from)? |
I have no photo of the two together, since I owned them at different times, but the pentacon weighed around 600gr (58mm filter), and the 5.6 takumar around 350 (49mm filter). Smc Takumar 4/200 is 550 g.
_________________
C&C and editing of my pics are always welcome
Samples from my lenses
My gear
My Flickr |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 4569
Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
| Orio wrote: |
| visualopsins wrote: |
| Aanything wrote: |
| (Tele) Takumar 5.6/200 is extremely light, and rather good. |
+1 Built well too! |
Ok but the O.P. asked if there's any other 200mm lens like the Takumar... |
the O.P. says Takumar like M and A series which is not clear:
Pentax lenses made in M42 are called Takumars ( edit after Peterqd's comment further down: with the exception of a few lenses in K mount also called Takumar, a budget line of lenses generally not recommendable ) while 2nd and 3rd series of the later Pentax lenses in K mount are called Pentax M and A.
When referred to Takumars one usually thinks of the Super, S-M-C and SMC Takumars which are rather small but not light lenses. The f4 200mm Super, S-M-C and SMC Takumars are optically the same and weigh 550 grms. The first K mount Pentax lenses, the Pentax K lenses are usually optically the same as these Takumars and of about the same weight.
The M and A are usually smaller, specially lighter, the f4/200 are optically different and only weigh 405 grms.
The Tele Takumar or simply Takumar Aanyhthing and Visualopsins refer to is a f5.6 early preset lens in M42 which are as sturdy full metal lenses as the later Takumars but usually smaller and lighter than even Pentax M lenses. The Takumar f5.6/200mm at 370 grms is the lightest of all made by Pentax and must be among the smallest and lightest 200mm SLR lenses available
_________________
my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections
Last edited by kuuan on Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:53 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 4569
Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
| NewStuff wrote: |
| How does the Pentacon 200/4 compare to that Takumar lens (I've never seen one in a picture I can get scale from)? |
maybe these photos give you an idea, photo incl. the preset f5.6, second from right, and a Takumar f4, far right:
http://retina2a.up.d.seesaa.net/retina2a/image/07110321.JPG?d=a1
or see here a photo of the f5.6 preset compared with an also small OM f5/200:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1069830
_________________
my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 7448
Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
Donald, be very careful when you talk of Takumars. The original Auto-, Super-, S-M-C and SMC Takumars with M42 mount are very good quality. But for some really dumb reason, Pentax later decided to use the Takumar name for a range of cheap lenses with the K bayonet mount, and these are quite poor indeed, the so-called "Non-SMC" range.
When you mention Takumar M and A lenses, I'm afraid you leave us confused. Do you mean lenses with K mount or M42? The Pentax-M and Pentax-A K mount lenses are quite small and very good quality, but they're not Takumars! 
_________________
Peter - Moderator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008
Posts: 6602
Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
Yashinon DX 200/4
Its smaller and lighter than the Super Takumar 200/4, and about as good.
For the smallest and lightest possible 200mm prime, how about the old Tamron 200/6.3 T-mount ? A rare lens though.
http://forum.mflenses.com/old-tamron-200-6-3-a-mini-wundertute-t8203,highlight,%2Btamron.html
_________________
I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 7794
Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
I've got four 200's here, all very close to 6 inch fully extended, the slimmest are the SMC Takumar f4 and the Soligor f4.5 at 2.5 inch, the Photax f3.5 and the Prinzflex f3.5 are 2.75 inch diameter. There's no real difference, except for the weights - Photax 742g, Prinzflex 658g, Takumar 568g and the Soligor 482g. Which surprised me, the Soligor is the lightest but it doesn't feel flimsy.
The best glass is the Takumar, followed by the Photax, Soligor and Prinzflex. The fastest is the Photax and the Prinzflex, but these are tripod lenses so the speed doesn't matter to me.
I tend to use the Takumar the most, it's a very good lens. But I'm not at all dissapointed with the Photax or the Soligor. The Prinzflex is very average, but looks lovely in silver.
_________________
LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Posts: 1974
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
Canon FDn 4/200 is only 440 gram and 12cm long.
_________________
Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I don't know how much the Topcon 5.6/200 weighs but it's much smaller than all four of those 200mms David shows.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57865
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
| dsmlogger wrote: |
| Olympus Zuiko 200mm f/5 is significantly smaller than its f/4 counterpart and I've found my copy to be very sharp and contrasty. |
+1 and Nikon 200mm f4 not big either.
_________________
-------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
donald dump
Joined: 11 Nov 2012
Posts: 25
Location: eu
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
donald dump wrote:
Oops - will be a really interesting weekend to read and check all these fine comments carefully - thanks a lot for all, specially kuuan and peterqd for exact pentax facts - pentax is not my strongest point, but it´s luck to learn every day something new...
I have some small problems with my 200 mms - 200/4 zuiko´s front part is in some way loose and there is something (screw???) inside the lens. Have to take it to service, because glasses are fine.
Pentacon 200/4 bokeh king is cosmetically fine and work well in short distances, but no good further and terrible ca. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tromboads
Joined: 29 May 2012
Posts: 1655
Location: Melbourne AU
Expire: 2015-10-01
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
tromboads wrote:
You inspired to me to take my 200mm Tak out today. (more dumb photos here) Handheld it's ok. Probably wouldn't want any more weight... but it wasn't that bad with K10 hanging of the end.
Bokeh Shmookeh. Get yourself a Tak 
Last edited by tromboads on Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 4569
Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
| donald dump wrote: |
Oops - will be a really interesting weekend to read and check all these fine comments carefully - thanks a lot for all, specially kuuan and peterqd for exact pentax facts - pentax is not my strongest point, but it´s luck to learn every day something new...
I have some small problems with my 200 mms - 200/4 zuiko´s front part is in some way loose and there is something (screw???) inside the lens. Have to take it to service, because glasses are fine.
Pentacon 200/4 bokeh king is cosmetically fine and work well in short distances, but no good further and terrible ca. |
good luck finding the right one and with your Zuiko
Peterqd mentioned Auto Takumars. I believe the first 'Auto Takumars' were produced starting 1958, only one year after the first 'Takumars', preset lenses in M42 for the 'Pentax AP'. The f5.6/200 in question most likely would be from the late 50s and may say 'Tele-Takumar', by 1962 it was Super Takumar and by 1971 S-M-C
_________________
my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
