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

[Vidgamer]

The 55-210 doesn't get a lot of respect. Is it a "good" lens or not? I think it's kind of a mixed bag -- oddly, it is both good and bad.

I find the lens to be really good at most focal lengths.


Untitled by avidgamefan, on Flickr

But, it is a bit disappointing at 210mm. It doesn't quite have the pixel-level sharpness of other focal lengths, but it still has a lot of detail, along with frequent purple-fringe.


Untitled by avidgamefan, on Flickr

The white heron is not only overexposed (not the lens' fault, of course), but it has really horrible "purple fringe" all around. At 210 and f6.3 (wide open), the lens tends to be plagued with it around the highlights. I don't seem to notice this at other focal lengths. Also, it seems that it loses a bit of saturation. It was overcast, so that didn't help, but still.... I also tried f9 and smaller apertures, and that helps with the blooming quite a bit. Oddly, sometimes I get better results at f6.3, once I remove the PF (perhaps due to a faster shutter speed?).

On the Nex-6, the lens behaves better than on the Nex-5. Response is really fast, and it's useful even in lower (maybe not real low) light, where it might otherwise struggle on the Nex-5. It's really surprised me. If your subject isn't moving too quickly, it can be useful even for low-light events. OSS helps here. (Of course, if you need an f2.8 lens, then you need an f2.8 lens, but I've been able to make do with this one for a lot of uses.)

I'm not sure what the cutoff is for quality on this lens, but it just doesn't seem to be a great 210mm lens -- think of it more like a great 55-180mm, maybe.

[pakodominguez]

Apparently, it performs optically better if you turn off the OSS.
I decided to sell mine in order to get funds for the 70-200 f4, that supposedly will hit the shelves next spring.

[alphaomega]

Vidgamer, forget about using the E55-210 on a NEX-5. It will not focus at the long end. I had to refocus at the short end and then gradually zoom out and re-zoom. Sold the NEX-5. Does sterling work on my NEX-5N and NEX-6. Have not bothered to update lens to combined phase and contrast focus.
I have not encountered the CA problem with my E55-210. Maybe you have a "bad" copy. Neither is mine lacking sharpness at the long end. I consider this lens to be top class.

[Vidgamer]

Apparently, it performs optically better if you turn off the OSS.
I decided to sell mine in order to get funds for the 70-200 f4, that supposedly will hit the shelves next spring.

Well, I think the OSS saved me yesterday for those photos, as I was getting pushed around by winds that were maybe 30mph! I couldn't hold the camera too steady! (I couldn't hold my body steady!) I've heard of OSS harming the sharpness, but that's not really a big complaint of mine about the lens. No, the main thing is that blooming, and it's not all that infrequent that I photograph white herons, it would seem, as that's twice this year. A subject of another color, and maybe PF wouldn't be an issue.

About the Nex-5, yeah, it didn't seem to work as well on the Nex-5 in low light. The PDAF of the Nex-6 (upgrading the FW of the lens too) really seemed to wake up the lens though! I suggest giving that a try.

While it's possible that I have a "bad" one, I always have trouble figuring out what's "bad" vs. what's "typical". One person's "poor" might be another person's "good enough", and while I do pixel-peep and sometimes spend a lot of time in post-processing, I also allow for "good enough". The lens is really good, IMO, at most focal lengths, so I just can't believe that the lens is "bad".

Fortunately, I switched to RAW+JPEG, so I can probably clean that up quite a bit. CA+PF removal, punch up the color, and maybe it'll be pretty good as long as I don't intend to print poster size (which I don't). So, in this case (and similar cases), it's really no harm -- it's fine for small photos. But if I ever do want to print something really large, I'm just saying, I can trust most of my lenses, even my kit lenses to some extent, just not this one at 210 and f6.3 to get the best results.

Maybe there is something to the OSS-is-bad theory. With the wind buffeting me around, the OSS had to have kicked in to save me (OK, OSS-is-good), and OOF areas will be compromised. Hmm. If I'm going to have problems with stabilization, it's going to be at the long end. But then again, in low shutter speeds, I know OSS has really saved me, as well as the windy conditions yesterday, so I can't give up on it entirely. But maybe in other situations, I should consider whether the unsteadiness is harming the result.

[Birma]

No technical analysis, but I've always found it a nice lens and better than my other two telephoto options which are the beercan and the Sigma 70-300 apo dg macro, and I really like the Sigma. .

[bfitzgerald]

No technical analysis, but I've always found it a nice lens and better than my other two telephoto options which are the beercan and the Sigma 70-300 apo dg macro, and I really like the Sigma. .

Not used this lens, but I have shot the beercan extensively..and from what I see here, it's more a 55-200mm budget lens than a top shelf performer.
Reviews I've read and images I've seen don't really shine much, it's a slow lens even for this class (f6.3 top end) as for "bokeh" the beercan has a stellar reputation, this falls far far short of that. The old Minolta isn't a perfect lens, CA can be an issue, it's not tack sharp at f4 top end (but usable wide open absolutely) it's a lot faster, and has wonderful rendering.

Either you had a really bad beercan copy or something else is amiss

[Birma]

You may be right on the quality of my Beercan, and I'm certainly no expert. I've had some very nice close up oof back grounds from the Beercan. Its close focus ability is handy. I suspect the age and experience of my Beercan counts against it compared with a shiney new lens.

[pakodominguez]

Here is a discussion we had some time ago about this lens (SEL55-210)
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... =27&t=6185
I used this lens in a recent trip to Spain, and I'm not that hot about it now. Actually, I don't use it that much, since the 24f1.8 is the lens that I always have on the camera, and the 10-18 is hard to take of the camera once I start using it. For portraits or close ups, I prefer the 50f1.8

[Vidgamer]

I recall when the Beercan was selling for crazy prices, when I wanted to get a tele lens, years ago. It was highly regarded, but mostly for the bokeh. Instead, after pouring over reviews and photos and trying out some other lenses, I got the Tamron 55-200, which actually turned out to be pretty good. It's not that I think the Beercan is bad, but it didn't seem to me that photos were good enough proof of its legendary status; if you were mostly interested in bokeh, it may be worth it though. The Tamron turned out to have pretty decent bokeh itself, and even at 200mm, was plenty sharp, at least for my 10mp A100. I only bought another tele zoom in order to have more reach, not because I was unhappy with the Tamron. In the middle of the range, it was f4 and f4.5, so it was not at a disadvantage to the Beercan for many indoor events.

Fast-forward to Sony e-mount 55-210, and most of the photos I've seen posted from it were excellent. Owners seem to be universally happy, but more than that, the photos that were posted were nice and sharp. Eventually I picked up this one.

Complaining about it being "slow" at f6.3 kind of misses the point of the lens. I don't think anyone's going to claim it's a pro lens, but those who need the speed are more likely to get a FF DSLR with an f2.8 zoom than a Nex. It's f5.6 through the middle of the range, and f6.3 is only 1/3 of a stop more than that. It's not all that much "slower" than typical DSLR consumer zooms, which end up at f5.6 at the long end, but it's smaller and lighter. The compromise is needing to either consider it an outdoor lens, or use another stop of ISO. In practice, with the good high-ISO capability of the Nex, it's less of a problem than you might think. I just wouldn't want to use it in extremely dark situations, but I've even used it in indoor events, so it's not too limiting, at least on my Nex-6.

If you wanted, you could use the Beercan on an EA2 adapter, and only lose 1/3 of a stop, as an alternate to this lens. If I wanted to go that route, I'd use the Tammy instead. I think this is probably the best option right now if you want an even longer lens, though.

Pako, I'm with you, in that I don't use this lens that often. I found that I really do like the wide angles, at least for most of what I do. But occasionally, the different perspective, or the need to zoom-in, becomes useful.

[Mark K]

This is a lens like a kit lens. It seems that only the upcoming 70-200 F5 G will give us a good one

[bfitzgerald]

The Tamron 55-200mm isn't a bad little super budget lens, I think Sony re-badged it twice (last version adding an in lens motor)
So I've no problems with that offering.

Is the beercan over rated? Probably not considering the price it's available at. Hunt around for a decent copy s/h runs you a bit over £100. Not a lot of outlay for a lens like this.
S/H the Canon 70-200mm non IS goes for around £350 odd, I'm not even sure Nikon have an equivalent lens s/h with autofocus.
Simply put, bang per buck older glass or not the beercan is basically unmatched on any other mount (that I'm aware of), even more so when you add IBIS to the mix. So I can understand why it's so popular.
The only other alternative is the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 which is just under £600, older screw drive non VC version..which is a pretty good buy if you need the extra speed, you'll save the best part of £1000 v the Sony.

Rendering is pretty important, least to me if I don't like the images from a lens even if it's a super sharp lens I'm put off by it. Not that I'm a bokeh fuss pot, still I think it's hard to complain about the Minolta in this regard. So it's not merely the slower speed of the Sony, I've not really seen images I'm keen on rendering wise.

[Vidgamer]

The Tamron 55-200mm isn't a bad little super budget lens, I think Sony re-badged it twice (last version adding an in lens motor)
So I've no problems with that offering.

Is the beercan over rated? Probably not considering the price it's available at. Hunt around for a decent copy s/h runs you a bit over £100. Not a lot of outlay for a lens like this.
S/H the Canon 70-200mm non IS goes for around £350 odd, I'm not even sure Nikon have an equivalent lens s/h with autofocus.
Simply put, bang per buck older glass or not the beercan is basically unmatched on any other mount (that I'm aware of), even more so when you add IBIS to the mix. So I can understand why it's so popular.
The only other alternative is the Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 which is just under £600, older screw drive non VC version..which is a pretty good buy if you need the extra speed, you'll save the best part of £1000 v the Sony.

When I was shopping for a-mount lenses, I recall the Beercan going for $150 and later for $250, by the time I was ready to buy a tele lens. Has it fallen back to $150? I agree, at that price, it's a good deal.

While I appreciate that the Beercan is a good performer with good bokeh, the sample photos I saw didn't seem to be all that special, not like the STF. I took a chance on the Tammy, and it actually has pretty decent bokeh, not that it would necessarily beat the Beercan, but not bad at all, and plenty sharp even at 200mm. Over much of its focal length, it's f4 and f4.5, so it doesn't give up much to the Beercan in terms of wide aperture much of the time, and it's more compact and lighter. I think it's a great lens, and crazy for that price. I think for more expensive zooms, you're getting a wider aperture more than anything else. If I needed to be sure to have the sharpest image, I'd use a prime and be done with it; these modern zooms are pretty good for zooms.

Rendering is pretty important, least to me if I don't like the images from a lens even if it's a super sharp lens I'm put off by it. Not that I'm a bokeh fuss pot, still I think it's hard to complain about the Minolta in this regard. So it's not merely the slower speed of the Sony, I've not really seen images I'm keen on rendering wise.

I like good bokeh, myself. The e-mount 55-210 is a mixed bag here. At shorter focal lengths, I think the bokeh is quite good, very smooth. At some other focal lengths, it's a bit more busy, but it's still better than some other consumer-grade zooms I've seen. No, bokeh isn't it's forte, but I think the lens is so much better at the shorter focal lengths in multiple ways that I'm really happy with, but it's tougher to live with at 210.

Minolta seemed to pay attention to things like bokeh, and even consistency of color, and not always making sharpness the only criteria. I have a few old Minolta lenses that I quite like.

Mark, I'm sure you're right that this is "like a kit lens". I've seen people refer to "consumer grade" lenses. I think that such lenses can still perform well when stepped-down, say, to f8, and with quirks such as the center resolution being higher than the edge or corner resolution. But if I can pixel-peep and see good detail at the pixel level, I'm calling it good. With the 55-210, it's mostly good, but I'm still having doubts at least at 210.

[classiccameras]

Consistancy of colour was very obvious back in the SLR 35-mm days. In my camera club on a slide showing night, you would get a slide show from one of the members who had a Canon SLR and Canon lenses. every slide had the same colour match but every now and again a slide would come up that was either colder or warmer that the others, the photographer would say oh, I took that picture on a Vivitar or whatever.. It was quite noticable. Minolta was no different with their Rokkor lenses, they were all or mostly all colour matched. Pentax Super Takumars tended to be on the cold side and Canon FD warm side of neutral. Nikon were about neutral. My Zeiss planars and Tessars were warm.

[Wes Gibbon]

This is a lens like a kit lens. It seems that only the upcoming 70-200 F5 G will give us a good one

Is that the FE lens? It's big and heavy at over 800gm. There are details (including a picture) on Dyxum. Personally, I invested in a NEX system because I was looking for something lightweight for when it's inappropriate to lug my A900 kit around. If there's nothing better in E-mount then Sigma and Tamron both have stabilised telezooms in A-mount which could be used with the LEA2/4 adaptor. I haven't used the E-mount 55-210 enough yet to decide if it's good enough. I've been using it for street and event photography and it hasn't disappointed yet but I haven't used it much at the long end yet.

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.

[classiccameras]

Wes, I agree about the Sony/Zeiss lenses. The 18-55 kit lens for what it is has quite a good optical performance when compared to its counterparts from other camera manufacturers. Its one of the sharpest kit lenses on the market possibly with the exception of the Nikon 18-105.

Actually, at the last open day show at my local dealer it was a Tamron day and their team were there to answer questions and show their lenses. It turns out that Tamron have had a long association with first KM and now Sony, making many lenses for them. Even some Zeiss zooms are made by Tamron. I guess there is a middle ground on lenses and that in my view are high performers at good prices in the shape of Tamron and Sigma. The Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 non VC version is every bit as good in my view as the Zeiss. I recently bought a Sony 18-135 and it really is quite superb for the money.
Pete