Smallest, cheap, telephoto?

[cgustav]

Hi there,

I'm going to travel soon and I realized I might need a telephoto.
Considered is not my main lens of choice, and I'll be use it sparsely, I'd be fine with a cheap, acceptable lens.
Probably what matters most is how small the lens is, as I can't take too much weight with me.

I'm going to be use this on the A6000.
Is there a good, small 200mm out there? (I guess 300mm is asking too much?)

[WolverineX]

Olympus OM 200mm/5

[iangreenhalgh1]

Topcon RE Auto Topcor 5.6/200, Pentax Takumar 5.6/200, those are about the smallest.

[jamaeolus]

I agree Ian, either of those. Both good, both small and both cheap. 40 to 50 USD. My take is that the Takumar is more likely to be a good user as Topcon tend to have mechanical issues, though optically they may have a very slight edge.

[marcusBMG]

tokina SD 70-210mm. Only smaller 70-210mm (that I know of) is the tamron adaptall 58A but I think the tokina is better and more convenient - no need to get a mount.
There are also similar tokina 80-200mm esp this one which reviews much better (but the discrepancy in ratings I am inclined to be sceptical about they are pretty similar lenses).
The tokinas can be found in a variety of mounts, examples in obsolete ones like MD, OM , CFD can be picked up for peanuts.

[luisalegria]

I have the Tokina SD 70-200
I agree its pretty good.
Maybe not quite up to the Takumar mentioned, which I had some years ago, but its an academic question for the most part.
The Tokina is a very practical lens, if you like zooms.

[Roka]

Slightly larger and heavier (70 grams) than the Takumar 200mm f/5.6 is the Canon nFD 200mm f/4. I have this lens and find it quite comfortable on my a6000. The advantage is a faster lens. If you're going to consider it make sure it's the new FD (nFD) f/4 as there were many versions of this lens of which this is, by far, the lightest. There are 2 currently on that auction site for $45 and $65.

BTW, here's a recent photo I took with that lens on my a6000. I liked it so much I made it my avatar

[WNG555]

+1 on Roka's recommendation.

Canon's nFD 200mm f/4 is remarkably small for a 200 f4. The image quality is first class. If it's a telephoto prime, then this one is it.

[ckshene]

The Nikon AIS 200mm f/4 is another excellent choice. The AI version is a little buckier.

CK

[cgustav]

Thank you all!

I was expecting ideas and it seems there are several options indeed, good budget, good lenses
I was checking on eBay and then I realized something very simple: as usual, most copies are from Japan and guess what? My trip is to Japan!
So, at this point I could just stop by some local shops in Tokyo and buy something over there.
I guess there must be plenty of choices.
Did you guys have had any experience buying used gears in Japan?

P.S. Nice shot Roka!

[Rick1779]

[buerokratiehasser]

75-200/4.5 "Small Pipe" it even has SonyA mount!

Sigma 70-210 UC is compact but it sucks, Low Contrast

Soligor 100-300/6.7(!)@200 pumper zoom, hollow, needs f8/lots of light

I'd take (my) mirror 500/8 but it isn't easy picking out the right one, or using it properly (probably better on a6000)

[Aanything]

[Pancolart]

[Oldhand]

Another vote for either the Canon FDn 4/200 or the Olympus F-Zuiko Auto-T 5/200.
Both are cheap and have excellent optics.
The Olympus is smaller physically and a few grams lighter, but they are both lightweights at around 450g.
And they both come from Japan . . . yay!
OH
#1


#2

[bornbad]

I fall in love with my Pentax M* 300/4 (A* is equal), its as small as a 300 mm could get.
Nice colours and bokeh...but it`s not cheap by no means.

Optics
Optical Formula 8 elements in 7 groups
Aperture Range f/4 ~ f/32
Number of Aperture Blades 8
Minimum Focusing Distance 4.0 m

Mechanics
Filter Diameter 77 mm
Maximum Diameter 84 mm
Length 132 mm
Weight 825 g

Accessories
Cap plastic clip-on cap, 77 mm
Fitting Hood(s) built-in hood

[stevemark]

In addition to the Canon nFD 4/200 IF and the Olympus 5/200mm you might consider also the last to versions of the Minolta MD 4/200mm ("MD-II" and "MD-III"). They are 400g and 410g. Optically they are as good as the better known Canon & Nikon 4/200mm lenses, but slightly inferior to the earlier (heavier [515g]) Minolta MC-X/MD-I 4/200mm.

Here on my website you'll find some information about the different Minolta 4/200mm lenses:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/176-minolta-200mm-f4

Stephan

[WolverineX]

size comparison of Oly 200mm/5 to 120 film box

[Oldhand]

Took this about ten minutes ago at our back door.
Olympus 5/200
OH


#1

[jamaeolus]

[quote="Oldhand"]Took this about ten minutes ago at our back door.
Olympus 5/200
OH

That is a way cool spidey photo!


Another lens that might warrant consideration Konica 200 F4

[WNG555]

Spider-Man would be proud!

That Oly f/5 is sharp!

[jamaeolus]

[quote="Roka"]Slightly larger and heavier (70 grams) than the Takumar 200mm f/5.6 is the Canon nFD 200mm f/4. I have this lens and find it quite comfortable on my a6000. The advantage is a faster lens. If you're going to consider it make sure it's the new FD (nFD) f/4 as there were many versions of this lens of which this is, by far, the lightest. There are 2 currently on that auction site for $45 and $65.

BTW, here's a recent photo I took with that lens on my a6000. I liked it so much I made it my avatar



That is an awesome photo.

[Oldhand]

Thanks fellas.
To give the Canon FDn 4/200 equal billing with the Olympus 5/200, here is one that I took about fifteen minutes ago in the back yard.
OH


#1

[Pontus]

Nice samples! If it wasn't for the price, I'd recommend the Minolta 250/5.6 mirror lens.

[calvin83]