Telephoto for A6xxx

Will James

Will James

Messages
526
Name
Will
Edit My Images
No
Last year I finally parted with my 10 year setup (Canon 500D, Sigma 17-50, Tamron 70-300 VC and 50 1.8) in exchange for a Sony A6500, Sony 16-70 and Sigma 30 1.4, with a view I’ll decide on a telephoto later.

I’m super happy with the setup except for missing having a telephoto lens. In the last 10 years I only used the Tamron 70-300 5-10% of the time but was so glad I had it when I did use it as I’ve got photos I really like (monkeys in Ubud forest in Bali for example). I’d hate to think I could go on a trip and be missing longer focal lengths to capture special moments.

With options limited to £150ish for the 55-210 or >£700 for the 70-300 / 70-350 I feel like the no brainer option is to go with the 55-210, however I would be disappointed if it is not as good as the Tamron 70-300 I had on the Canon (disregarding the shorter length).

With the little use it would have (zoos and some landscapes deserving a crop), I also struggle to bring myself to spend £700 or more for something I may use only a handful of times a year. A
pro of the 70-300 would be if I ever upgrade to an A7iii, but I don’t see why I would invest in FF glass when I don’t even know if I’ll ever go FF...(I could spend a lot just in case of a ‘what if?’)

Have any of you had a good experience with the 55-210 and find it adequate for your needs?

Any general advice welcome
 
Hi
I had the 55-210 on my A6600 but traded up to the 70-350 last year and it really is a step up in image quality along with the extra focal length.
Agreed it is not a cheap lens (not by my standards anyway) and I think you’ve already hit on the issue of whether you would use it enough to justify the cost. In all honesty mine hasn’t seen a lot of use but my plan is to pair it with my recently acquired Tamron 17-70 and only take these two on holidays in future.
If you haven’t already done so there’s a couple of comparison videos of the 2 lenses on YouTube which might help, only one that comes to mind at the moment is by an American guy called Arthur R but do a search on Christopher Frost, he’s always good for quality lens reviews.

Rob
 
Rno7552 said:
Hi
I had the 55-210 on my A6600 but traded up to the 70-350 last year and it really is a step up in image quality along with the extra focal length.
Agreed it is not a cheap lens (not by my standards anyway) and I think you’ve already hit on the issue of whether you would use it enough to justify the cost. In all honesty mine hasn’t seen a lot of use but my plan is to pair it with my recently acquired Tamron 17-70 and only take these two on holidays in future.
If you haven’t already done so there’s a couple of comparison videos of the 2 lenses on YouTube which might help, only one that comes to mind at the moment is by an American guy called Arthur R but do a search on Christopher Frost, he’s always good for quality lens reviews.

Rob
Click to expand...

Hi, thanks for the reply.

Were it not for the limited focal length vs the 70-350, would you have kept the 55-210? I.e. was the image quality good enough for you. Having looked on Flickr at 55-210 images some of them seem sharp enough to give an overall good quality image, for £150 quid used it seems like great value.


Good idea to pair the 17-70 with the 70-350, all that range from two lenses!

Will have a look at vids, thanks, however I find they are rarely unbiased....
 
I have the 55-210 on my A6000 as part of my 'travel/holiday' camera set - the priority for me is maximum versatility, minimum size / weight, while keeping the IQ / controls, etc.

I'm happy with it for the price - it's certainly possible to get good images with it, but I'd probably upgrade to the 70-350 if price wasn't a factor.
 
Will James said:
Were it not for the limited focal length vs the 70-350, would you have kept the 55-210? I.e. was the image quality good enough for you. Having looked on Flickr at 55-210 images some of them seem sharp enough to give an overall good quality image, for £150 quid used it seems like great value.
Click to expand...

Yes I probably would have, I was happy with the image quality but wanted the extra reach.


Will James said:
Will have a look at vids, thanks, however I find they are rarely unbiased....
Click to expand...

Totally get that but in fairness Christopher Frost has a good reputation for thorough and unbiased reviews. He has reviewed so many lenses over the years that it would be impossible for him to be influenced by manufacturers IMO.
 
I bought the 70-350 mm last week for my A6600 and expect to use it for wildlife once we can get out shooting again. This will give me longer reach than I have for my Canon 5D4 as I never felt I could justify buying a long lens for this particularly as they are so heavy. In comparison the Sony 70-350mm is quite light.

Dave
 
Sounds good.

Out of interest, why not go for the 70-300 G to give you flexibility if you ever go to full frame, or are you sure you’re not going to FF?
 
Will James said:
Sounds good.

Out of interest, why not go for the 70-300 G to give you flexibility if you ever go to full frame, or are you sure you’re not going to FF?
Click to expand...

I already have a Full Frame Canon EOD 5D Mkiv which is excellent but too heavy. I will keep this for now and maybe just use it for studio work or when I know I will not have to carry it more than a few metres. I will not be going FF for the Sony or I would have started out that way but the combined weights of cameras with lenses are just as heavy as for my DSLR.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top