
Does light have weight? Newton thought so. He supported the corpuscular theory of light, regarding it as comprised of particles with small but finite mass. He concluded that such particles would be influenced by a gravitational field. So, using his laws of motion, we can calculate how gravity would bend such a light beam.
Curving paths
It is a surprising fact that the motion of an object orbiting a massive body such as the Sun is independent of the
mass of the object. By Newton's laws, the motion is governed by the equation

The red orbit is elliptical, the blue orbit is hyperbolic. In between, the green orbit is parabolic. (Image by Stamcoe CC BY-SA 3.0)
where
Let's start by considering an asteroid approaching the Sun from a great distance. From Newton's laws we can calculate that if the asteroid's kinetic energy is small the asteroid will be captured by the Sun's gravity and it will follow an elliptical orbit, returning repeatedly to its initial position. We'll assume
that the asteroid is approaching the Sun with high energy, so that it traces out a hyperbolic orbit, passing by the Sun once, never to return. This orbit has the equation

The trajectory of an asteroid (at point A) moving past the Sun (at point S) on a hyperbolic orbit.
When the asteroid is far from the Sun it moves with speed
The angular momentum is the linear momentum,
These quantities
We can use these expressions to deduce the amount by which the Sun deflects the asteroid from its initial path, the angle
Note that the mass of the asteroid does not influence its trajectory. The deflection angle
Putting it to the test
A remarkable series of observations during the solar eclipse in May 1919 confirmed that light passing close to the sun is deflected by its gravitation. A star near the edge of the Sun appears to be slightly further away in the sky from the Sun when compared to its position when the Sun is absent. This effect is observable during a total eclipse: photographs of the sky are compared with photographs of the same region when the Sun is elsewhere and a difference in the apparent positions of the stars can be seen.
The actual path of the light from a star as it is bent by the Sun, and the apparent position of the star as a result (Image NASA)
Albert Einstein had recently discovered the general theory of relativity and his theory also predicted the Sun would deflect the path of light. According to this new, and at the time, not-widely-accepted theory, the distortion of spacetime due to the presence of the massive Sun resulted in a bending angle of

Headlines about the results in the New York Times in 1919
twice the value of the deflection angle predicted by Newton's laws. This is a small angle but it was well within the then-current techniques of astronomy. The stage was set to put the two theories to the test.
Two expeditions set out from Britain, one to the Isle of Principe off Africa, the other to Sobral in northern Brazil, both on the path of totality of the eclipse. Sir Arthur Eddington, who took part in the former expedition, described the observations and conclusions (you can read his report on the expedition and find our more from Cosmic Times). The observations at Principe gave an estimated deflection of 1.61+/−0.30 arc seconds, in excellent agreement with Einstein's prediction. The Sobral results provided further confirmation. The astronomical observations in Principe and Sobral could not be reconciled with Newton's theory, and a scientific revolution ensued. This experiment catapulted Einstein into world fame and he has remained an icon of science ever since.

The illustration to accompany coverage of the eclipse in the 22 November edition of the Illustrated London News
About this article

Peter's mathematics blog is at thatsmaths.com.
Comments
Weight? Or mass?
I will avoid the obvious pun that of course it has no weight: it's light!
But inasmuch as "weight" is dependent on the existence and magnitude of an external gravitational field, would not the correct term be "mass"?
Does light have weight?
So?
Does it?
Or does it not?
Does light have weight?
You have written in regard of Einstein's theory "The observations at Principe gave an estimated deflection of 1.61+/−0.30 arc seconds, in excellent agreement with Einstein's prediction. The Sobral results provided further confirmation. The astronomical observations in Principe and Sobral could not be reconciled with Newton's theory, and a scientific revolution ensued."
This does not accord with my understanding of what happened. The results from Sobral were closer to Newton's predictions (half the deflection angle of Einstein's) but the discrepancy was later attributed to defects in the Sobral telescopes.
The bending of "space-time" *might* explain why a passing photon or comet's pathway would be deflected, but it goes not explain why a stationary (relative to the earth) object should fall towards the earth.