I accidentally found this lens at a pawn shop for $80…after using it awhile on my a7iii, i discovered that the colors on it is really beautiful, unique and has great character. This lens is totally overlooked , I love this lens
This is an underrated lens. I initially had this lens but sold it seeing other reviews and bought the expensive 70-350 lens. After a year when I was going through my photo gallery , I saw that photos rendered by this lens were somewhat special, especially the colours and character , and then I have bought it again 😅. It might not be as sharp as 70-350 but still I think the softness in photographs adds to a character.
@@allwynrajkumar5975 It outperforms it in terms of image quality and aperture. It is overall a much better lens, except for telephoto range, it's noticably shorter compared to the 55-210mm
You can make good photos with it, i noticed this while browsing for examples of photos that i took with this lens when I was trying to sell it. It has flaws,, at 200 at lower light, it is better to switch to manual focus. A second flaw is that mold likes a glue that is used to glue to front elements, so you have to be careful when you buy it used.
Is it normal that the barrel is a little loose. The barrel moves a little when you point down the camera. I just got it last night used and I accidentally grab the end of the lens when I picked the camera and the barrel extended from pulling the end of the lens instead of rotating the ring. Idk if I broke it myself
You mean that you can pull the internal tube out with your fingers? Yeah thats normal. For a moment I thought you meant that the internal tube has wiggle room around it.
@ no I men if I just point the camera down. The lens will extend out a bit. From 55 to 70 without touching. It doesn’t really create problems for now but I’m a bit worried. Also btw do different copies have different image quality? I know it wouldn’t be a super sharp lens, but my copy seems very soft. I see other reviews their lens seems really sharp with good contrast. I shoot in broad daylight it looks ok, but I expect a slight,y better quality. It get worse when I started going into only 1600 iso. details are gone. Is it normal? I would d keep the lens if it is normal, but if it is a bad copy, I might replace it
Thank you, I use this lens for few years already and one question: I got old A7s without stabilization, will OSS work in lens even without camera support?
Thanks so much for this, but, I have to ask you. I didn't see THAT much difference in the sharpness comparison on screen anyway, between the two. Maybe a slight difference that I can tell. Is it THAT much better and I'm just not seeing it on my monitor?
Keep in mind, this video is 1080p (2.1 megapixels). His camera is 24.3 megapixels, so by the time we see it, we are only seeing 8.6% it's original size. So, for example, an image that looks fine here on TH-cam might look very blurry if you tried to print an 8"x10" photo.
This lens is very bad in image quality for most uses. I've found that with a macro filter out front (Raynox 250), it comes into its own as a macro lens. Sharp enough up to F/18, with AF fast enough to keep up.
Technically yes, but it is an APS-C lens so you only get cropped pictures. I wouldn't recommend it. You cheapest alternative is to look at Tamron's 70-300 or 28-200
@@gamebuster800could you possibly send me a link of the one you’re talking about? I’m just now getting into photography with the a7iii that I got for Christmas and I don’t know much about all of this stuff.
As @gamebuster800 pointed out, this lens is for APS-C cameras, so it is not ideal for your camera. I'm afraid full frame cameras are not my area of expertise so I cannot give recommendations.
I have yet to try either one of these lenses, but I am contemplating picking up the 18-135. The extra bit of zoom range and the small form factor makes it more interesting to me than the 18-105. Of course the 18-135 does not zoom in as closely as the 55-210mm, but the general zoom range is simply impressive. The Image quality also looks better than the 55-210mm, but like I said, I must try it for myself first.
Having shot indoor concerts before, I'd say not a chance. The lighting is usually poor, and they move around a lot, and you are likely to be hand-holding the camera. Overall a mix for very blurry photos (or at least very grainy photos with super high ISO settings). The challenge can be a good experience, pushing your skills as a photographer though. Unless the concert is classical or something, where the musicians are seated, and the area is well-lit.
You'll need heavy NR indoors. I use a Tamron 150-500, which is 6.7 at 500, requiring ISOs between 6400 and 25,600 when the performers are moving fast. DXO takes care of that noise.
@@reviewrattlesnake , colloquial use of terms does not make it the right ones. For instance, frets are the space between the wires, called fretwires. Engines are in internal combustion vehicles, not motors. Bolts use nuts to fasten and screwns are pointed and self-tap their holes but people incorrectly call bolts screws. Again. colloquial is not usually correct
It's a telephoto zoom. Just like there are wide angle zooms, standard zooms, and super zooms. There needs to be a differentiator beyond just the word "zoom", because zooms come in multiple focal length ranges.
I accidentally found this lens at a pawn shop for $80…after using it awhile on my a7iii, i discovered that the colors on it is really beautiful, unique and has great character. This lens is totally overlooked , I love this lens
For 80$ this is a must have, im a little jealous! ;)
@@reviewrattlesnakebought mine for 50 lmao
Unbelievable 😭😭😭😭😭
This is an underrated lens. I initially had this lens but sold it seeing other reviews and bought the expensive 70-350 lens. After a year when I was going through my photo gallery , I saw that photos rendered by this lens were somewhat special, especially the colours and character , and then I have bought it again 😅. It might not be as sharp as 70-350 but still I think the softness in photographs adds to a character.
I made some really nice photos with the lens too. I actually no longer own it, as I bought the 18-135mm instead.
@@reviewrattlesnake thanks, how does it compare to this lens ?
@@allwynrajkumar5975 It outperforms it in terms of image quality and aperture. It is overall a much better lens, except for telephoto range, it's noticably shorter compared to the 55-210mm
Thank you so much for getting straight to the point about the lens you’re amazing ❤
Thank YOU for your nice comment!
Great video just got back from vacation with the lens first time using it must say it came in handy got some nice images with it
You can make good photos with it, i noticed this while browsing for examples of photos that i took with this lens when I was trying to sell it. It has flaws,, at 200 at lower light, it is better to switch to manual focus. A second flaw is that mold likes a glue that is used to glue to front elements, so you have to be careful when you buy it used.
Easy-to-follow commentary with no decorative talk.
i am a beginner and decided to buy A6100! would you recommend this lens for me? or should i find another one?
Is it good for low light videos on Sony ZV E-10?
No
Is it normal that the barrel is a little loose. The barrel moves a little when you point down the camera. I just got it last night used and I accidentally grab the end of the lens when I picked the camera and the barrel extended from pulling the end of the lens instead of rotating the ring. Idk if I broke it myself
You mean that you can pull the internal tube out with your fingers? Yeah thats normal. For a moment I thought you meant that the internal tube has wiggle room around it.
@ no I men if I just point the camera down. The lens will extend out a bit. From 55 to 70 without touching. It doesn’t really create problems for now but I’m a bit worried.
Also btw do different copies have different image quality? I know it wouldn’t be a super sharp lens, but my copy seems very soft. I see other reviews their lens seems really sharp with good contrast. I shoot in broad daylight it looks ok, but I expect a slight,y better quality. It get worse when I started going into only 1600 iso. details are gone. Is it normal? I would d keep the lens if it is normal, but if it is a bad copy, I might replace it
Thank you, I use this lens for few years already and one question: I got old A7s without stabilization, will OSS work in lens even without camera support?
yes it will!
@@reviewrattlesnake Thank you!
Good review. Thanks.
Thank you for your nice comment :)
Thanks so much for this, but, I have to ask you. I didn't see THAT much difference in the sharpness comparison on screen anyway, between the two. Maybe a slight difference that I can tell. Is it THAT much better and I'm just not seeing it on my monitor?
Keep in mind, this video is 1080p (2.1 megapixels). His camera is 24.3 megapixels, so by the time we see it, we are only seeing 8.6% it's original size. So, for example, an image that looks fine here on TH-cam might look very blurry if you tried to print an 8"x10" photo.
@@jimbojibberjabber8304 sometimes you can see it, sometimes you can't.
This lens is very bad in image quality for most uses. I've found that with a macro filter out front (Raynox 250), it comes into its own as a macro lens. Sharp enough up to F/18, with AF fast enough to keep up.
Does this lens work with a6100 ,I've found a cheap second hand one in good condition for £90
Yes it does!
Works with all E- type a6xxx series
Does this fit zv-e10?
Yes it will
is it good for photographing the sun at sunset or for photographing the full moon?
Perhaps a little bit more telephoto range would be better suited. Alternatively you can always crop into the picture after you made it.
@@reviewrattlesnake thank you for the information. keep up the channel you are doing great!
Does this lens work on a Sony a7iii?
If it’s e mount yes
Technically yes, but it is an APS-C lens so you only get cropped pictures. I wouldn't recommend it. You cheapest alternative is to look at Tamron's 70-300 or 28-200
@@gamebuster800could you possibly send me a link of the one you’re talking about? I’m just now getting into photography with the a7iii that I got for Christmas and I don’t know much about all of this stuff.
As @gamebuster800 pointed out, this lens is for APS-C cameras, so it is not ideal for your camera. I'm afraid full frame cameras are not my area of expertise so I cannot give recommendations.
Hello! Would it be fine for a Sony alfa 7 II?
Thanks!
can you use this lens to shoot videos?
I tried it and it looks good on my a6400
would you recommend this or the 18-105 f4 or 18-135 305-4.5? I am using 7r3 and wanted a lens for a new body a6100 which without ibis.
I have yet to try either one of these lenses, but I am contemplating picking up the 18-135. The extra bit of zoom range and the small form factor makes it more interesting to me than the 18-105. Of course the 18-135 does not zoom in as closely as the 55-210mm, but the general zoom range is simply impressive. The Image quality also looks better than the 55-210mm, but like I said, I must try it for myself first.
Is this good for outdoor basketball?
No, an actual basketball will be better for that.
Is it good to shoot portraits of performers on stage in a concert?
Open air concerts? Sure! Indoors its most likely too dark.
Having shot indoor concerts before, I'd say not a chance. The lighting is usually poor, and they move around a lot, and you are likely to be hand-holding the camera. Overall a mix for very blurry photos (or at least very grainy photos with super high ISO settings). The challenge can be a good experience, pushing your skills as a photographer though.
Unless the concert is classical or something, where the musicians are seated, and the area is well-lit.
You'll need heavy NR indoors. I use a Tamron 150-500, which is 6.7 at 500, requiring ISOs between 6400 and 25,600 when the performers are moving fast. DXO takes care of that noise.
It is, technically, a zoom lens while telephoto is normally prime.
That is news to me.
@@reviewrattlesnake , colloquial use of terms does not make it the right ones. For instance, frets are the space between the wires, called fretwires. Engines are in internal combustion vehicles, not motors. Bolts use nuts to fasten and screwns are pointed and self-tap their holes but people incorrectly call bolts screws. Again. colloquial is not usually correct
It's a telephoto zoom. Just like there are wide angle zooms, standard zooms, and super zooms. There needs to be a differentiator beyond just the word "zoom", because zooms come in multiple focal length ranges.
What about macro??
No, not at all. The minimum focus distance I believe was 1 meter.
Does it work with a7c
noooo
Of course it does, but it requires you to put the camera in crop mode.
heavy vignetting unless you enable apsc crop
Vs Tamrom 18-300
Does it fit on a a6100
Yes it does.
@@reviewrattlesnake ah thx man