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.
Wes Gibbon wrote:....
bfitzgerald wrote: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?