[RXrenesis8]

What are the most compact telephoto primes you guys know about? Since most companies nowadays are making fast telephoto primes, and beause fast /= compact it's probably going to have to be older (MF, MA, even Screw-mount) lenses.

In particular I'd like to hear about lenses that are longer than 100mm and smaller than the current pentax kit lens.

Pictures of the lenses would help too!

[Lowell Goudge]

I would think personally, over 100mm the SMC-M primes, i.e. 100/2.8, 135/3.5 and 200/4 are all pretty compact for the focal length. the origonal K lenses, especially the 105/2.8 and 200/4 are much larger by comparison

[klh]

I picked up a Tele-Takumar 200mm for $15 the other day that is impressive for its small size. It is not fast (f/5.6), but IQ seems pretty good. I haven't tried it yet, but it came with a 2x teleconverter.


Takumar/Tele-Takumar 200mm F5.6 Reviews - Pentax Lens Reviews & Pentax Lens Database

[eddie1960]

I would think personally, over 100mm the SMC-M primes, i.e. 100/2.8, 135/3.5 and 200/4 are all pretty compact for the focal length. the origonal K lenses, especially the 105/2.8 and 200/4 are much larger by comparison

Second this I have all 3 and they are compact and perform well. the 100 2.8 in particular is very small for the FL and Speed (5.6cm vs the 8.06cm in length on the DFA100 and 6.75cm on the 18-55 kit) it's smaller than a DFA 50 or a DA55

length on the 3 m's
100 2.8 or 4.0 macro- 5.6cm
135 3.5 - 6.6cm
200 4.0 - 11.1cm

I haven't come across one yet but the m150 3.5 is 7.5cm, the 120 2.8 is 6.3cm (Marc Sabetella raves about this one). never seen an m 85 f2 for sale but it's the smallest at 4.6cm (not cheap though)

M lenses in general are all very compact for their FL

[RXrenesis8]

Aah, yes the M series seems to have a few of the more medium telephoto lenses the A series seems to have forgotten! I am looking into the 150 a bit more right now even...

The Tele-Tak demonstrates some of the qualities I'm searching for, but is still a bit on the long side (physically). I remember seeing some 5.6 lenses that were absolutely tiny compared to even these M series lenses.

[Just1MoreDave]

The S-M-C Tak 150/4 is about 3/4" (18mm) longer than the kit lens.



The M135/3.5 is just about exactly the same length as the kit. S-M-C Tak 105/2.8 is a bit shorter.

[Wormtographer]

I like to carry my M-150 f/3.5 for emergency tele shots--fits in any of my bags. Very economical for space.

Otherwise I carry my Cosina Voigtlander 180 f/4. Not quite as compact as the 150, but has that awesome bokeh.

Both will take a TC no problem. Love to pair them with the SMCP-F 1.7X AF

-W

[Marc Sabatella]

You might be interested in my recent "M" series medium tele shootout:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/137220-shootou...ml#post1443290

These lenses are all somewhat smaller than the 18-55, with the 100 of course being the smallest. I'm still loving my 120, but assuming you aren't interested in wild goose chases, the 135 is probably the most sensible choice of these. I haven't ever used, or even seen, the 150, but on paper it looks like a good choice too if you specifically want more length but are unwilling to go up to the 200.

You can find pictures of any of these lenses on this site:

Pentax Telephoto Prime Lenses

But also check out the first post on my "shootout" thread.

BTW, I see you've specifically said "primes", and far be it from me to discourage anyone from going that way. But since you implied you're willing to accept an f/5.6 prime just to get it smaller, I have to put in a plug for the DA50-200, which held up quite well against all three M's in my shootout.

[8540tomg]

I'd agree with Marc and Lowell above.

Any of the M series lenses between 100 and 200 mm would suit your criteria. The same lenses in the A series would do as well, They are M series designs for the most part with auto exposure. They are more expensive as well. Not sure if there is an A 150 but there is an: A 100/2.8, A 135/3.5 and A 200/4.

Tom G

[Blue]

The M 120mm/2.8 weighs a mere 270 grams and its dimensions are 63 x 63mm.

[Kim C]

The 120/2.8M has always been a somewgat underated lens. I shal be sorry to see mine go in a week or so's time. (However, I can't really justify keeping both the K and M versions and I prefer the balance of the K versions on the KX and LX.)

I always found it had that extra bit of reach over the 100 and nearly a stop on the 135. Of that range the 135/3.5 M was always my least favourite. The K version is very good but I think Pentax built the M version to a bit of a budget leaving the 2.5 K for performance.

The 85/2 was very compact, it felt much smaller and lighter than the 50/1.2. I used to use it a lot but then I managed to get a K 85/1.8 and although bigger and heavier, it is a much better performer. With the arrival of the Zeiss, I almost wish I had kept it as a travel 85. I think the Zeiss will get a lot more use than the 85/1.8 now.

In M42, I think my favourite was the Fujinon 100. A bit more compact than the Takumar (about the same size as the M 100) but just as good a performer.

Kim

[RXrenesis8]

Any of the M series lenses between 100 and 200 mm would suit your criteria.

Well, you'd think that! But try to think outside of the (Pentax) box. Yes all of the M lenses 100-150 are moderately sized. (the 200 is a bit bigger than what I'm going for) but I could just as easily get a modern prime, the DFA 100mm WR and that's about the same size/weight.

If I were to say: 170mm and above, what would your answers be?

[8540tomg]

Well, you'd think that! But try to think outside of the (Pentax) box. Yes all of the M lenses 100-150 are moderately sized. (the 200 is a bit bigger than what I'm going for) but I could just as easily get a modern prime, the DFA 100mm WR and that's about the same size/weight.

If I were to say: 170mm and above, what would your answers be?

Compact primes above 170mm eh.

In the Pentax line the A* 200/2.8 is smallish for its focal length. The K 200/2.5 is my favourite MF lens of all and is probably a little hefty for your criteria. The new DA* 200/2.8 might do as well.

Outside the Pentax box the Tamron SP 180/2.5 is fairly small and reportedly great but not AF..

The SMC Pentax M* 300/4 and A* 300/4 might fit the bill.

Tom G

[Blue]

Compact primes above 170mm eh.

In the Pentax line the A* 200/2.8 is smallish for its focal length. The K 200/2.5 is my favourite MF lens of all and is probably a little hefty for your criteria. The new DA* 200/2.8 might do as well.

Outside the Pentax box the Tamron SP 180/2.5 is fairly small and reportedly great but not AF..

The SMC Pentax M* 300/4 and A* 300/4 might fit the bill.

Tom G

The Tamron 180/2.5 is 800g or about 28.2 ounces and while it is compact for a fast tele in this focal length, it is a serious lens. Without the hood, it is about 4.7 inches long or ~ 119mm. It is also relatively hard to come by. The Pentax A* 200/2.8 is 850 grams and 138mm in length, but also has another 20mm in focal length. This is about the only manual focus lens in the range I would consider replacing my Tammy 180 with.

[Kim C]

Whilst the 200/2.5, 200/2.8 and 300/4 lens are excellent, they are not really "compact and smaller than the current kit lens" as the OP asked for

The closest in size would be the 200/4 M. About an 1" longer than the 50-200 fully retracted and about the same diameter without the hood. The Taks and the K versions are all bigger.

Kim