Sony 55-210 - How good is it, really?

[bfitzgerald]

Unfortunately, Sony seem to have a policy of producing cheap kit-type lenses and very high quality and eye-wateringly expensive lenses (often made by Zeiss, usually large and heavy), but nothing in between.

That's been an issue for Sony for some time now.
There is nothing wrong with budget glass (every maker has some and they need it), nothing wrong with high end stuff (amazingly some people are buying that new Nikon 58mm f1.8 even though the shots I've see scream ho hum)
Middle ground is actually where I'm most interested, those f4 zooms, those more reasonable f1.8's of f2's v the hugely pricey f1.4's

If Sony don't pick the ball up Tamron or Sigma will, so it's their loss that's how I see it.
Let's be honest if Sony made a 70-200mm f4 for A mount they'd charge the better part of £1000 for it, which would instantly scream buy the Tamron to me.
If they had a good lens strategy they'd price it at around £650-£700 max.

[Wes Gibbon]

Unfortunately, Sony seem to have a policy of producing cheap kit-type lenses and very high quality and eye-wateringly expensive lenses (often made by Zeiss, usually large and heavy), but nothing in between.

That's been an issue for Sony for some time now.

Hasn't it always been an issue ever since Sony bought the brand?

If Sony don't pick the ball up Tamron or Sigma will, so it's their loss that's how I see it.
Let's be honest if Sony made a 70-200mm f4 for A mount they'd charge the better part of £1000 for it, which would instantly scream buy the Tamron to me.
If they had a good lens strategy they'd price it at around £650-£700 max.

Maybe they can't make a profit at that price so it makes more sense to leave it to the independents who are also manufacturing for the other mounts. Unfortunately, at the moment there doesn't seem to be an alternative in E-mount in the 55-200 range. That's OK if the Sony 55-210 is good enough for what I want from the NEX system but at the moment that is open to question. Of course, there's always the option of using A-mount with the adaptor but that means extra weight and bulk (mainly due to the adaptor and the fact that generally dslr lenses are a bit faster than the E-mount 55-210).

[Vidgamer]

While y'all have a good point about the lack of "midrange" (in quality and pricing) lenses, I'll make the controversial proposal that the kit lenses are good enough that you might see little difference in a midrange lens, and thus the need for a high-end lens. Just look at initial photos and comments about the new e-mount CZ zoom lens. Even when the CZ 24 came out, people compared it to the 18-55 at 24mm, and had a hard time deciding if the CZ was really worth it, if you could hardly tell a difference. The bokeh is better, and you can get a wider aperture, and it probably has better microcontrast, but you'd hope that something would be better for your $1000. That's a lot of "maybe something" for $1000!

The thing is, it seems like you pay increasingly large amounts of money for diminishing returns. Not that I think the kit lenses are perfect, just that I think they are pretty good for zoom lenses and good value.

....

If Sony don't pick the ball up Tamron or Sigma will, so it's their loss that's how I see it.
Let's be honest if Sony made a 70-200mm f4 for A mount they'd charge the better part of £1000 for it, which would instantly scream buy the Tamron to me.
If they had a good lens strategy they'd price it at around £650-£700 max.

Maybe they can't make a profit at that price so it makes more sense to leave it to the independents who are also manufacturing for the other mounts. Unfortunately, at the moment there doesn't seem to be an alternative in E-mount in the 55-200 range. That's OK if the Sony 55-210 is good enough for what I want from the NEX system but at the moment that is open to question. Of course, there's always the option of using A-mount with the adaptor but that means extra weight and bulk (mainly due to the adaptor and the fact that generally dslr lenses are a bit faster than the E-mount 55-210).

The DSLR lens aperture advantage (such as the aforementioned 55-200) is lessened a bit by the SLT adapter, otherwise, maybe I'd be more excited about that route. Well, that and the lack of IS.

So, how do we answer the question of whether or not the 55-210 is good enough?

[Wes Gibbon]

So, how do we answer the question of whether or not the 55-210 is good enough?

To start with, my policy is 'suck it and see'. It does seem that the SEL 55-210 has disappointed some users and at the moment there isn't really an alternative, unless one or more of the 'superzooms' can outperform it over that range. Perhaps Sony can release a Mark 2 which addresses people's concerns.

n.b. when using my A900 I now leave my Sony G 70-400 behind and use a Sigma 70-300 DG OS as I can't tell much difference optically. Maybe the colours are a little better with the Sony and it is much better engineered but so heavy!

[Vidgamer]

I'm trying to be sure to step down a bit. This is uploaded from the camera, so it was downsized. It will not please pixel peepers, I suspect, but maybe I can reupload after some pp.


Untitled by avidgamefan, on Flickr

[Marcell Nikolausz]

I've got recently this lens as Xmas present, so I had only few photos with it. My expectations were not high but it's a pleasent surprise. OK, it requires lots of light and the AF is not that fast but the picture quality is quite good:









Cheers

Marcell

[Birma]

Congrats on the new lens Marcell . That squirrel shot is especially good. You just don't get many squirrel shots around here anymore

[Vidgamer]

Marcell, those look good. Hard to argue with results like that, eh?

[Marcell Nikolausz]

Congrats on the new lens Marcell . That squirrel shot is especially good. You just don't get many squirrel shots around here anymore

We're lucky that we still have a lot in the parks. They are fed frequently so they are not afraid and come close, so taking photos of them is not a big deal. However, it was good to test the lens.

[Marcell Nikolausz]

Marcell, those look good. Hard to argue with results like that, eh?

Thanks, but the conditions were good. Still I'm happy with the results.

[Vidgamer]

Well, if the lens is only good for "good conditions", maybe most of the time that's, well, good enough.


DSC09037_DxO by avidgamefan, on Flickr

I'm not sure that this was the best conditions. This is cropped quite a bit to capture a small bird in a rare (for here) snowstorm. However, results seemed to be good even at f6.3. Only the high ISO (and associated NR) could spoil it. I decided to give it a bit of film effect just to make it more interesting.

Gary

[Birma]

Nice shot Gary. The poor little chap looks well puffed up against the cold

[Vidgamer]

Nice shot Gary. The poor little chap looks well puffed up against the cold

Thanks! To make it even more surprising that the shot is OK, I was shooting through insulated glass. It's surprising how little degradation there is.

Next, I want to try it again but with a teleconverter.

[hrstrat57-RI]

I've got recently this lens as Xmas present, so I had only few photos with it. My expectations were not high but it's a pleasent surprise. OK, it requires lots of light and the AF is not that fast but the picture quality is quite good:









Cheers

Marcell

The above are all brilliant, well done! I will grab one of these kit zooms if I come across a deal!!

[hrstrat57-RI]

I've got recently this lens as Xmas present, so I had only few photos with it. My expectations were not high but it's a pleasent surprise. OK, it requires lots of light and the AF is not that fast but the picture quality is quite good:









Cheers

Marcell

The above are all brilliant, well done! I will grab one of these kit zooms if I come across a deal!! I had a chance to handle one today in the Sony Outlet store in Wrentham, MA. What a tiny little beast it is! About 1/4 the size of my 70-210 F4 Beercan!!