Sony 55-210 quality / alternatives

Hi all,

Quick Question, which has probably been asked many times before, but I can't find the threads;

Actually how good is the basic kit 55-210 E lens? I read all sorts of wildly varying mixed reviews of it.

& also do any superior alternatives exist? I've found a nice looking A-mount 55-300 SAM, but that obvs needs an adapter.

I'm an enthusiast not a pro but image quality & fast AF are really important to me. Its for an A6000.

If you can point me to any relevant threads rather than answer afresh I'd also appreciate it.

Many thanks

Leonardo101 said:

Hi all,

Quick Question, which has probably been asked many times before, but I can't find the threads;

Actually how good is the basic kit 55-210 E lens? I read all sorts of wildly varying mixed reviews of it.

& also do any superior alternatives exist? I've found a nice looking A-mount 55-300 SAM, but that obvs needs an adapter.

I'm an enthusiast not a pro but image quality & fast AF are really important to me. Its for an A6000.

If you can point me to any relevant threads rather than answer afresh I'd also appreciate it.

Many thanks

Click to expand...

If IQ is important, do not take the 55-210, which is very soft at 210mm. I bought three different copies of that lens and used it on multiple cameras with the same result.

I would recommend the 70-350G, which is sharp and fast to focus. You can find it used for 500€ and this lens will definitely make you happy.

Hiya,

Great advice thanks!

I hadn't come across the 70-350 yet so will definitely go down that route.

Best regards

Softness of 55-210 on long end is well known, no direct experience on my side though. I can recommend Sony 70-350 as much better alternative.

TAMRON 18-300 мм F3.5-6.3 Di III-A RXD VC B061Sony E

Martin_99 said:

Softness of 55-210 on long end is well known, no direct experience on my side though. I can recommend Sony 70-350 as much better alternative.

Click to expand...

I have direct experience and my copy of the 55-210 isn't bad at all at 210. I don't use it that often anymore, but for hiking it's nice to have as it's so light.

The long tele zooms are big, also cost more. If you need a daily use, longer zoom than 16-50, maybe 18-135 would do it for you, small enough, good AF, good images through this lens. When I compare images from 18-135 at 135 vs the ones at 210 from 55-210, the ones at 135 look better to me zoomed in to get the same screen viewing size as from 210.

I took my 55-210 on an African safari a few years ago. It was adequate and its relatively small size was appreciated, but if I have an opportunity to go again I'll definitely take my 70-350 (which I bought after my return).

Yes 7-350, or 100-400 Sigma, and Tamron has some good lenses as well. Much more than the 55-210, but you need to spend money for a decent lens at that length.

Leonardo101 said:

Hi all,

Quick Question, which has probably been asked many times before, but I can't find the threads;

Actually how good is the basic kit 55-210 E lens? I read all sorts of wildly varying mixed reviews of it.

Click to expand...

The long end is decent when stopped-down to f8, but it's not great at 210mm. In the middle of the zoom range, it's pretty good! I haven't used mine in ages, because usually when I want 200mm, I want more, so, I eventually looked for 300mm lenses.

It's a budget lens with good AF (I think there was a firmware update to improve that) that works better than people give it credit for. I've used it even indoors to photograph stage events, where it's fine, if the stage is lit well -- you just have to tolerate a bit higher ISO than some other lenses.

Leonardo101 said:

& also do any superior alternatives exist? I've found a nice looking A-mount 55-300 SAM, but that obvs needs an adapter.

Click to expand...

Since tele lenses are so expensive, a used lens can still be a good deal, even if you have to buy an adapter. But the A-mount 55-300 SAM that I tested was not too good at 300mm, which is where I would end up using it most of the time. Over the years, I have looked at a few old tele lenses, and they were mostly not that good. The 100-300 APO, however, is pretty good, and it's fairly cheap these days, last I looked.

But, it's just a matter of time before you want more. More range and/or more quality. It seemed to me that a lot of people liked the Sony 70-350, which I bought used, saving a bit over new (but still not cheap). While I still haven't put it through a formal test, it seems really sharp, and is probably more than enough for what I need.

Leonardo101 said:

I'm an enthusiast not a pro but image quality & fast AF are really important to me. Its for an A6000.

If you can point me to any relevant threads rather than answer afresh I'd also appreciate it.

Click to expand...

Here are the results of my testing for tele lenses:

Test Chart Results (computingbits.com)

Looks like I didn't test the 300mm lenses at 200mm, but I'd bet that the 55-300 SAM would be better than the 55-210, over that range. It was mostly that I wanted good quality at 300mm that turned me off of this one. It also could have been that one example, and another 55-300 could be better. If you can test it out, that would be a good idea.

Leonardo101 said:

Many thanks

Click to expand...

Hiya,

Thanks so much for all your advice, extremely helpful indeed.

Cheers all.

Leonardo101 said:

Hi all,

Quick Question, which has probably been asked many times before, but I can't find the threads;

Actually how good is the basic kit 55-210 E lens? I read all sorts of wildly varying mixed reviews of it.

Click to expand...

I had 55-210 for a Nex-5T, bought new, but in three years it had fungus, spread on the inside of the front group made of two elements. It was not exposed to moisture, or high humidity.

Leonardo101 said:

& also do any superior alternatives exist? I've found a nice looking A-mount 55-300 SAM, but that obvs needs an adapter.

I'm an enthusiast not a pro but image quality & fast AF are really important to me. Its for an A6000.

Click to expand...

On 5T I had only 16-50 and 55-210. In 2020 I wanted 24 MP and the fast autofocus of the released A6XXX in 2019. So I got new A6100 on sale for $578 with a used 18-135 that turned out to be good. Then I got an used A5100 for small factor and 24 MP with both 16-50 and 55-210 in a kit, good deal on eBay, thinking to sell the lenses. I compared the pictures of 18-135 at 135 to the 55-210 at 210. I prefer the 18-135 lens. Last year I got 70-350 for more reach, but it's bigger and I don't use it much. 18-135 is well ballanced on A6XXX, it has 7.5X zoom from 18 to 135 and pictures look good throughout the zoom range. I recommend it instead of 55-210.

Leonardo101 said:

If you can point me to any relevant threads rather than answer afresh I'd also appreciate it.

Many thanks

Click to expand...

TAMRON 18-300 мм F3.5-6.3 Di III-A RXD VC B061Sony E

+

OLYMPUS TCON-17X

dgsjsj said:

TAMRON 18-300 мм F3.5-6.3 Di III-A RXD VC B061Sony E

+

OLYMPUS TCON-17X

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65643103

Click to expand...

The t-Con works nicely on the 55-210 as well.

Dennis Bayer said:

The t-Con works nicely on the 55-210 as well.

Click to expand...

and the Nisi 58mm close up filter on the the 55-210 gives you 1:1 macro at 210mm.

IQ isn't at nice as the sel70350g+sel90m28g, but it won't cost ~$1500 either.

Zooms tend to vary a lot.

I found a decent copy of the 55-210 OSS.

My DT 55-300 SAM was sharper than every other lens, but I am sure some copies are not very good. I never found a sharp Minolta 100-300 APO after trying half a dozen of them. I had sharper 75-300's. I recommend the native Tamron 70-300 RXD instead of adapting these.

I purchased the a6000 in the first year of its release and months afterward, purchased the 55-210. The results were underwhelming and I never warmed to it. Eventually, I sold it.

In the last year or two, I saw some very fine photos taken with a 55-210mm lens posted in this forum, proving (to me) that good results are certainly possible with this lens. Sample variation? Maybe. Maybe, the photographers submitting the photos maximized the potential of this lens and got better results!

Jim

piticoto said:

The long tele zooms are big, also cost more. If you need a daily use, longer zoom than 16-50, maybe 18-135 would do it for you, small enough, good AF, good images through this lens. When I compare images from 18-135 at 135 vs the ones at 210 from 55-210, the ones at 135 look better to me zoomed in to get the same screen viewing size as from 210.

Click to expand...

The 18-135 is an excellent lens. No comparison to the 55-210, which I think is one of the worst lenses available. The 18-135 @ 60mm and somewhat stopped down is as good as the older Sigma 60mm f/2.8 prime.

ml6 said:

piticoto said:

The long tele zooms are big, also cost more. If you need a daily use, longer zoom than 16-50, maybe 18-135 would do it for you, small enough, good AF, good images through this lens. When I compare images from 18-135 at 135 vs the ones at 210 from 55-210, the ones at 135 look better to me zoomed in to get the same screen viewing size as from 210.

Click to expand...

The 18-135 is an excellent lens. No comparison to the 55-210, which I think is one of the worst lenses available. The 18-135 @ 60mm and somewhat stopped down is as good as the older Sigma 60mm f/2.8 prime.

Click to expand...

The maximum aperture of this lens decreases quickly, though. I think from around 55-60mm it is F./5.6, so it is only usable outside in bright conditions. I sold the 18-135 after some months and replaced it with a 2.8-zoom.

I had the 55-210, it was okay in good light, but even at it's sweet spot, photos looked soft and lacking in detail. I ended up getting the 70-350 and selling the 55-210 for less than half what I paid for it.