Sony 55-210mm vs Sony 70-350mm Lens Comparison
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Head to squarespace.com/arthurr to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code "arthurr"
Buy the new Sony 70-350mm here: amzn.to/2PCEySB
or on B&H: bhpho.to/30KHgss
Buy the Sony 55-210mm here: amzn.to/2sFAS9Z
or on B&H: bhpho.to/2PAQ4hr
FILMED WITH:
Sony A6400: geni.us/Better...
Sigma 56mm: geni.us/Portrait
Tripod: amzn.to/2O5PJTO
-------------------
Gear That I Use & Recommend:
CAMERAS:
For Photo & Video
▸ Sony A6100 (My Favorite) - geni.us/MyFavo...
▸ Sony A6400 (Better) - geni.us/Better...
▸ Sony A6600 (Best) - geni.us/BestAPSC
▸ Sony A7C (Full Frame) - geni.us/FullFr...
For Video
▸ Sony ZV-E10 (Good) - geni.us/ZVE-10
▸ Sony FX30 (My Favorite) - geni.us/BeastASPC
APS-C LENSES:
▸ Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 (My Favorite) - geni.us/BestZoom
▸ Sony 11mm F1.8 (Best Ultrawide) - geni.us/BestUl...
▸ Sigma 16mm F1.4 (Best Wide Angle) - geni.us/Popular
▸ Sigma 30mm F1.4 (Affordable Street Lens) - geni.us/Street
▸ Sigma 56mm F1.4 (Best Portrait Lens) - geni.us/Portrait
FULL FRAME LENSES:
▸ Sigma 20mm F2 (My Favorite) - geni.us/FFSigm...
▸ Rokinon AF 14mm F2.8 (Best Ultrawide) - geni.us/Rokinon
▸ Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 G2 (Best Do-Everything Lens) - geni.us/TamronV2
▸ Sigma 85mm F1.4 ART (AMAZING Portrait Lens) - geni.us/SHARP85
▸ Sony 50mm Macro (The Only Macro I Own) - geni.us/SonyMacro
AUDIO:
▸ Zoom F3 (Love this Recorder) - geni.us/zoomf
▸ Audio-Technica AT875R Mic (What I Use) - geni.us/at875rmic
▸ DJI Mic (Best On-The-Go) - geni.us/djimice
▸ Acoustimac Sound Panels (Must-have) - geni.us/soundp...
LIGHTING:
▸ SmallRig RC220D (Great Value) - geni.us/rc220d...
▸ SmallRig RC220B (My Key Light) - geni.us/rc220
▸ Sofirn SP33 V3 (Best Mini Flashlight) - geni.us/bestfl...
NICE-TO-HAVE ACCESSORIES:
▸ Feiyu Scorp Pro (Big Gimbal) - geni.us/scorppro
▸ Zyihun Crane M2S (Travel Gimbal) - geni.us/cranem2s
▸ Atomos Ninja V (Recording Monitor) - geni.us/ninja5
▸ SanDisk SD Cards - geni.us/sandisksd
▸ Sony ECM-B10 (Camera Mic) - geni.us/ecmb10mic
Complete Gear List:
▸ kit.co/ArthurR
-------------------
Disclosure:
Most of the links above are affiliate links, which means at no extra cost to you, I will make a small commission if you click them and make a qualifying purchase. If you want to buy something else, you can also use this link to Amazon:
🛒 Amazon - geni.us/shopar...
-------------------
Supporting The Channel:
▸ If you wish to support the channel with a donation, you can donate via PayPal here: paypal.me/arth...
▸ Buy me a coffee here: www.buymeacoff...
▸ Follow me on Instagram: / arthur213
-------------------
Professional & Sponsorship Inquiries:
For professional and sponsorship inquiries, please email me at arthur2@live.com
There a huge amount of telephoto zooms on the market. The vast majority of them are sharp at the short end and very disappointing at the long end of the focal range. The Sony 70-350 is exceptional in that it is very sharp at the long end. Which is why I bought it, and so far I am certainly NOT disappointed.
Cheers
exactly, often overlooked
How do you like it 2 years later if you still have it? I’m deciding still lol
How it's performing with videos?
It really is an incredible lens. I shoot with other wildlife photographers that are much more seasoned than me and used sigma sport 600mm lenses on full frames. They are pretty shocked a lot of the time by how good the 350mm lens is from sony. It stays sharp as a razer all the way down its range. 900 dollars isa good deal for this if you ask me. love it
The 55-210 is a great useful travel lens. Surprised how much I go to it when we are on vacation. Takes good shots and won't break the bank if its damaged.
I hate this lens so much.
@@bozzie4not going to elaborate on why that is, huh.
18-300 is the definitive travel lens
yeah, i pair it with my 11mm, if i feel like i may want some tighter shots. it's small enough that it fits in my small camera bag (unlike my sigma 70-200, which goes in my backpack). and like you said, it's not a big deal if it gets damaged. i got mine for $100.
"So I've shot my wife, she's holding our little boy but I cut his head off a little bit because he was too short..."
Sounds kinda creepy without a context :D
Where are the cooking shots from that segment?
😱 😂
I could have sworn he said "HER little boy" hmmmmm. Hopefully she didn't hear that either 😅
10:11 for who doesnt have time
I just wish you showed the field of view comparison between 200mm and 350mm. Zoom range is a factor for many so it'd be nice to see the difference :)
I have had the 55-210 for several years now and I have to say, I have never been very happy with the results I get. I bought the 18-135 last year, and I have been extremely happy with the sharpness of that lens. I expected the 70-350 to be as sharp as the 18-135 but I can't say it is. However, it is a lot better than the 55-210, especially in low light, as you have shown here. I shoot a theatrical performance of my daughter and the shots I got with the 18-350 were not disappointing, unlike those of the 55-210. My only gripe with the 70-350 is the size and weight is just a bit on the high end for my preference, but I think I am going to keep it. I would have like to have paid a little less but there is really nothing out there that gives me the zoom range this lens gives me for the size.
I'd prefer 18-105 F4 G over the 18-135
To be honest, I was expecting the 70-350mm to completely blow the 55210 out of the water. The differences in pic quality aren't all that drastic, but the price difference is. Good video tho.
Considering the extra zoom range I get from the 350 compared to the 210, I don't think the price is all that bad, but yes, I would have liked it to be at in the $600-700 range.
How about the video result?
I think the autofocus improvements and edge-to-edge clarity are pretty significant, but personally I can't justify 700-800 for one lens.
Nice comparison. One other comparison that I think would be interesting is this 70-350mm lens vs. the 70-200 f4 FF lens on an APS-C camera. The used market on the 70-200 f4 is quite similar in price to the new 70-350 lens.
...and next spring Tamron 70-180mm f2.8.
@@subu9983 true, but 180 vs 350 is still quite a difference. Especially as the sony is still cheaper
From the RGB flare you can immediately recognize the sigma 56mm f1.4 😁
really?
Signature of that lens!
@@ArthurR Could you get rid of it by using the hood?
@@taufik5232 Yes, you can.
I was going to say: Oh, really?!
That would put it off my shopping list, but the lens hood would only cure it to a certain degree depending on the angle of the light, yes?
After 20 months of owning it, I'm now selling the 70-350. I'm generally very happy with the lens, it just saw too little use. For the few tele pictures I took, the 55-210 would have been sufficient. I'll certainly buy a tele zoom again. Hopefully someone comes out with a 70-200 f2.8 (or f4, if really compact) in the near future. Otherwise, I'll go back to a used 55-210 if I need a tele.
An aps-c tele zoom at f2.8 would be a dream
Hello, can you do a comparison between the 55-210 and the 18-200? Thank you.
I use this lens for Ir photography. In my point view, it’s not so bad for what I use it for and for what it’s worth. I enjoy watching your videos and thanks for sharing and making these videos.
Was looking forward to this comparison, thank you! I’ve been watching your videos for years, and I really appreciate your channel! In the future, I think it would be nice to include or add a real-world comparison of autofocus speed and accuracy, as this is especially important for a telephoto lens that is likely to be used for wildlife or sports. Sharpness, while certainly noticeable, did not show quite as much improvement as I had hoped, so I’m holding out on a purchase of a new telephoto until I can get a better idea of the focusing capabilities.
The real big difference between these two lenses is how much faster and accurate the focus is with the 70-350. The 70-350 uses Sony's XD Linear Motors which makes a world of a difference if you are using it for continuous tracking of fast moving wildlife. If don't require a very accurate focus system, then I would definitely save your money and just get the 55-210.
The 55210 is a crazy piece imo considering the price (or even not considering the price)
I have a 55-210. And i have to say its a suprisingly good lens. Its very good in portraits and some bigger animals. It can give you very very sharp images. Realy good images but it works very well on short distances. So in you are about 5-10 meters from subiect. You can sometines get a premium feeling results. But not always of course. And its sharp especially in the beggining. From 55 to 80-90. Then softer i think. Vut im suprised with some shots which i took with this. ;)
I completely agree with those who ask why do you shoot at ISO 1000 and high shutter speed? Even for not-moving portraits 1/320 is too fast and not needed. Then, to put both cameras at f8 and ISO 1000 (on an apsc sensor) and compare sharpness does not make too much of a sense. What kind of a difference would you expect to see? Except this, I really appreciate your work and videos, you helped me alot with your advices!
What funky rainbow flare in your opening shot.
0:12 was there a pot of gold at the end of that 🌈???
Thats a flaw of the sigma 56 f 1.4 lens when used without the lens hood
I'm using a third option - the A-mount Sony DT 55-300 mm F4.5-5.6 SAM lens, with an LA-EA1 adapter on the a6400. Works pretty well autofocusing at the far end (near to far takes a second), and cost me $250 for the lens + adapter combo that weighs 570g. Pretty sharp alternative to the 55-210mm.
jenesuispasbavard really? I’ve got this combo(but LA-EA2) but rarely use it because of the AF speed and hunting quite a lot.
@@lmball Yeah LA-EA2 is *very* different from the LA-EA1. It uses its own 15-point autofocus system, and completely bypasses the camera's AF.
Watching this on my phone it doesn't seem like that 1000$ gets you 800 more dollars in quality.
Braden Pryor agree. The new costly lens only perform slightly better in the corner of the pics. The center is quite the same to me.
@@stang8913 Sometimes it really shows in this review. But with most complaints about the 55-210, depth of field is the issue. 200 meters is not infinity with a long zoom.
The difference in corner sharpness is significant, especially considering the shots were at F8. That being said, with the 70-350 you are getting an additional 140mm in telephoto zoom, way better build, silent linear (fast) autofocus motors, better lens coatings and elements, etc. If you held both in your hand, you'd feel a significant difference. The 55-210 feels very cheap in comparison. If you use a telephoto often, the 70-350 is unquestionably worth it. And Ive found most sony lenses hold their value well, so you can use it for several years and sell it later on for an insignificant loss.
@@ArthurR you should think about doing a magnifier review. True about the extra focal length. I recently picked up a sigma 30mm because of your review
From what I've read elsewhere, it's when you use different apertures. The 70-350 allegedly has consistent sharpness from f4.5 all the way to f16 whereas the 55-210 (which I own) is soft at f4.5 and gets sharper the closer you get to f8 (at 55mm) or f11 (at 210mm), and stopping it further down gets softer again but with harsher grain.
Any thoughts on Sony 18-200? Is it me, or is it softer than 55-210?
Thank you Brother. I confuse which lens I will Buy. But I think both lens is almost same lens . 210 lence price is lower than 350 . But working is almost same.
I already have the 18-135 for everything else, now just gotta toss away the 55-210 and somehow get the 70-350.
F4?
@@ChrisParayno 18-105 is F4.
I got it with Amazon prime, 18 months no interest so I don't feel that bad getting it. I am also getting the A6100 body just so I can use it with the silent shutter. The a6000 is just too loud and once my wife tried the silent shutter on our new a6400, she could not stand the shutter sound of the A6000 or even the A5100, which is relatively quieter.
The Sony 55-210mm is a no-brainer as a travel lens.
Toto Tata it takes pretty darn good photos too.
Agree, I like the size. And also as portrait lens.
pizzablender I travel with my 55-210 and Sigma 16. The others usually stay in the car.
@@alexnelson8 I just ordered a Sigma 16. I hope I like it ;)
pizzablender it lives on my camera. Best prime you can get.
Great comparison always top quality content from you! I wish however that you would also compare the lenses at maximum focal length, 210 at 210 vs 350 at 350. I own the 210 and would like to know what the difference in focal length would feel like and also how much more detail I would get with the extra zoom if I upgraded.
That's what I would like to know also, maybe the 70-350 is soft on the corners at 350. I have the 55-210 and for me, that's just fine.
If I should pay three times the amount, I would expect a better result, than what I have seen here.
from India , subscribed ur channel.. bcoz ur video clarity, quality , content.. its Lit.. thanks 4 the complete detail abt sony mirrorless APS-c details :)
So for an amateur, a much cheaper lens is a better solution. It also has good photo quality
While almost comments are about sharpness, zoom power!
Did you keep up with the man of this tutorial talking about the color contrast or shift due to the lens differences even in the same brand
It's not the Algorithmic equation of color interpretation between brands that we all talk about!!
But here's also the effect of the lens mounted on your Camera body as well!!
This type of knowledge we know after we buy, try , get confused then we figure it out!!
Thanks a lot
Lol that 55-210 can be had for $100 bucks everyday on ebay and the other one is $1000 it should blow the cheap one out the water but it doesn't i dont think.
Technically that's not how most things work. It's always like the $100 gets 90% job done but to achieve the other 10% you have to shovel another $900. It's always like that.
@@liuby33 or you can be Photoshop wizard to get the 10% done or even 90% done.
350mm vs 210mm alone makes huge difference
Wonderful, helpful video for enthusiasts! I have the Sony A6600 camera. I have traveled for years with the A6000 and loved the 55-210 lens (as an enthusiast). After seeing how much longer and heavier is this 70-350 lens I appreciate the small size and incredible price of the 55-210 even more. That said I love zoom lenses and know I would use the massively longer reach of this new 70-350-almost 2x my old 55-210. Arthur, have you tried the Sigma ? to 400 lens with an adapter for the emount camera? I believe that lens is much cheaper than this sony lens. Thanks!
It would be interesting to set the micro focusing up inside the the camera for the 55-210
70-350 OMG I love this lens. It's almost perfect. Almost, cause I really miss AF limiter switch on the side (0-3m/3m-inf. etc.). Still, It's my favourite lens.
I would like to see a comparison between the Sony 70-350 vs Sony 18-105mm
I used the 18-105 that I borrowed from a friend and I hated the results I was getting compared to the 18-135. I have not compared it to the 70-350 though.
How good is 70-350 for bird photography? I'm using 55-210 currently with sony alpha 6100 which gives okay to decent pictures of birds at a particular distance. The edges are not sharp but atleast I can identity the bird colours and features
I own the 70-200 F4. But I think the extra 150mm would be nice. Especially for some "wildlife" shots. Would the change be worth it? A comparison would be very interesting. Why is there no 1.7 ord 2 TC for the 70-200 F4? That would solve the problem. btw: great channel! First address for APSC information. Greetings from Germany, stay healthy!
The Volume of Value on the 55-210mm is miles ahead. The price is $700 cheaper - and you get a comparable picture that is half the weight.and less bulky. A No brainer to choose which is the smarter option.
It depends on what you intend to use it for.
If you need fast & accurate AF tracking, and want the extra sharpness (needing to crop, for example); the 70-350 will be better.
If you just need a tele lens for sceneries, slow moving/ non moving subjects, then the 55-210 should suffice.
All you need is the 18-105 F4, the 70-350 and some smaller prime lenses like the 35mm 👍
16-55 + 70-350 + 35 f1.8 is a nice combo
I would've liked to have a focus limit switch on this new lens as it can struggle to focus on my a6000 in some lower light situations when zoomed in. I have to zoom back to 70mm in order for it to acquire focus. It's otherwise a fantastic lens and I am enjoying using it. Maybe the auto focus works better on the newer a6xxx bodies.
I have both the 70-350 lens and the a6000 but have not tried it on my a6000, only on my a6400. Maybe I will try it to see how it compares.
Nice video. I would like to get a zoom lens for my Sony A6000. I'm shooting concerts in small venues mainly. Would you recommend the 55-210? To work in bigger events like arena shows to get photos from the Photo pit? Thank you.
I can live with the 55-210mm :) Good video
Do 70-350mms vs FE 70-200/300mm
Another nice comparison. Thank you
In the UK, the 55-210mm is £185, and the 70-350mm is £830.
the 55-210mm has a much better value proposition.
You can get the 70-350mm for £669 from online in uk 👍
4:44 and 6:23 .. the best aperture for the 55 210 would be at f 9 or 10. It would make the photo sharper
F11 Is sharpest for me
They're both great lenses😃 sony👏👏👏
Could you help to compare the following in the Sony APSC camera?
1) Sony E 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS
2) Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS
3) Tamron 70-300mm F/4.5-6.3 Di III
4) Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS
I am thinking of Buying (2) instead of (1), full frame with similar price...
Although (3) half the price, I am worrying about (3) do not have stabilizer as I am having A6000.
Great if there is some photo comparison.
This a definitely a lens worth the money. Very stable and defocus is amazing imgs.love/SonyLens It has given life to my old camera ..an nex5t. The image is sharp.
another fantastic video :D
i love my 55-210 .. its really good & so so cheap ..
good!
What about comparisons fully zoomed? I take a lot of birds with the 55-210, and want to know how the 75-350 does with this. Very disappointing.
What lens would you recommend for indoor college sports on the a6400? It basically requires low-light telephoto, so am I stuck saving my pennies until I can afford the 70-200 f2.8?
AJ Fast telephoto would be really expensive... I mean come on, 70-200, f2.8??? 2000 bucks? 😐
I think the 55-210 is definitely sufficient for that task. I only paid $110 for my copy so I wasn't expecting much, but I find myself reaching for it as much as my Sigma 16!
Yeah if you go to Best Buy at the right time. I picked up the Sony 55-210mm on sale about a month ago for $150.00! No complains. But sorry, this video was kinda a flop. I mean, $1000.00 dollar lens vs a $250.00 dollar lens??? And it’s a “G” lens on top of that.
Nice comparison and I love the way you explain😂 I've been using my α6000 since 2015 with its kit lens and still okay for me. But I really wish I have the money to buy new lenses maybe one of these in your video
If you do purchase, try out an 18-105pz first. You can buy used at B&H or KEH very reasonably and new for less than $600. With Clear Image turned on in the camera, you'll get out to about 140-150mm with it and a constant F4 . Try before you buy via a rental. It's a great 2nd lens for the 6000, 6300,6400,6500 and 6600.
@@rubbrdux I recommend the 18-135. Best all around lens you can get for the Sony a6XXX.
@@osverduzco I'm sure that one is good as well. Either one is a great addition over and above the kit lens.
Thanks bro
I have a 70350lens too, I think high resolution lens. Thank you
, your nice movies.
May I ask: I have the 55-210 (49 dia) it works well with Sony VCL-DH1758 1.7x Tele Conversion Lens (58 dia) with a 49-58 step-up ring. Will the 70-350 (67 dia) accept the mount of the 1.7x tele with a 67-58mm step down ring ?
if you wanted to zoom in on a person at 80 metres ...say a surfer while standing on the beach . is 210mm enough zoom ? or would you say you need more ?
I’d reckon you would need more. At that distance, 210mm would get an okay overall view, but I think the extra reach would provide more options in framing the shots. The main concern however, is more to focusing speed and tracking accuracy. I don’t think that 55-210 is good enough for action shots. You might get properly focused shots sometimes, bur not at the rate the 70-350 will give you (depending on the camera body too, of course).
@@saifaldin_ thank you 🤙
@@3000KTM 👌 I’m using an A6400 with the 70-350 g. You can track a face 100 metres away with this setup.
Any reason why they're shot in 16:9? You're cropping some of the corners by shooting that way and for a test, they should be there.
@@prashantgaikwad2180 I was talking about the test photos.
the 70-350mm is great but the price difference is huge and definitely much bigger than the difference in quality
For my Sony A6400 I am looking for a good tele lense. Among Tamron 28-200, Sony 24-240 and 70-350.. which one do you reccommend considering the fact that my camera is an APS-C camera without inbuilt ibis.
55-210 unless you make big bank then the other one
Thanks for this video
Isn't the 70-350 a full frame lens. The 55-210mm is an apsc lens, so explains the corner softness of the apsc lens. Only using the centre of the lens of the 70-350mm lens. My money is on the 55-210mm for use on an apsc camera which you are using to demo these lenses.
The 70-350 is not a FF lens, it’s designed for apsc. The one for FF (and looks very similar) is the Sony 70-300.
Can you recommend a tripod for the s6500 with the 70-350mm lens, say for birding or for night sky images?
멘프로토가 좋아!
Would this be a decent beginners bird photography lens?
yes! very well..
I don't know but there are times when the 210 is sharper than the 350 and vice versa.
It's obvious that the results that you get depend on how you use it.
Would it be fair to say that for the average casual viewer he/she would notice absolutely no difference with print outs at 6 x 4 and/or 10 x 8 ??
Спасибо большое за сравнение!
Hey Arthur do you film all your recent youtube videos with the 16 1.4?
No, Ive been using the Sigma 56mm mostly since I am still putting together my studio room and therefore recording outside a lot.
@@ArthurR Thanks Going to find some more reviews on this lens now lol but i already have ziess 55. Wonder if they are comparable.
@@DanielConstant00 They are comparable, but the Sigma 56mm is better. I did a comparison of those two.
Sir plz make a video With sony 210mm vs 135mm zoom lens test. image & video test.
Will the 70-350 work on sony alpha 7M2?
It will (in crop mode).. you’ll end up with a 10mp image instead of 24.
i’ve got 55-210 just in 150$ it’s very compact and nice to shot tele phone in bright light condition. the 350 is also nice lens but it’s price is 5 times than 210…
5 times it is. Not to mention that you won't be using the lens as frequently as you would expect, so a less expensive option is always a practical choice.
Thanks Arthur, please also make a comparison of the 70-350 against an adapted Canon 55-250
Love the video, I learned a lot. My question is: How did you get F8 on a lens that's 4.5 to 6.3?
4.5 to 6.3 is the minimum aperture, when zoomed in the minimum will change from 4.5 to 6.3 the maximum will stay the same
@@oakleycundall Oh ok
notification squad.
For the price of SEL70350G, I could get five (5) SEL55210s and the older lens is extremely compact and more versatile.
Looking at thousands of beautiful sample photos in Flickr, the SEL55210 offers unsurpassed value for money. *$200*
Attach the 210mm to Meike's macro extension tube and it's gonna be party time. 🥳
In terms of value for money the 55-210 wins the day.
To be honest this video is a bit like comparing a Toyota to a Mercedes. You get what you pay for. Yes, the Toyota delivers the goods, but of course the Mercedes will be quieter and go faster. But you pay 3x more for the Mercedes.
Hey y’all is this Technology Mafia?
Completely different price range, the comparison isn't fair i think.
I think for video it is smarter to buy 55-210.
Have a look at the flickr group: www.flickr.com/search/?text=Sony%2055-210 Some fantastic images by very talented photographers. The photos are a credit to them and the humble lens itself! So really a great buy for such little money! £700 extra is just wasted for many on the 75-350! For that, you could get the 18-135 and maybe the Sony 35mm F1.8 OSS too, and have money left for some Champagne to celebrate!
I find more use for the 55-210 in unclogging my toilets instead.
oh! no!~!
I had the 55-210 and it was trash. Slow, inconsistent AF, poor bokeh, and softish, even at F/11. Not worth picking up at any price, as it's a waste of time shooting it and hoping to get good image quality. Got rid of it quick, and am currently using the Canon 55-250 STM, which performs like a pro lens in comparison in all measurable specs.
I agree. I too think the Canon 55-250 STM is a better lens. Saddly, my Canon SL1 was no match for the Sonly a6000 and now my a6400.
I would not bother with the 55-210 - it is just too frustrating to look at its flaws. I will just save my money a little bit longer and get the much nicer lens.
Comparing apple on orange... 3 time the price of the 55-210 mm... Not very interresing...
Depends on what you expect. As least you get a view on what the differences are, considering price differences. Everyone can determine for him-/herself, but at least you have more information. Sometimes cheaper lenses are +- equal to more expensive ones, sometimes they are not.
@@stefanterbekke8506- okay, but where is the 18-200 then ? Why not take the 70-200 F4 FE G master ?
@@stefanterbekke8506 It's just like comparing the A6100 and 6600... Why not take the best APSC body VS the A6600 ? Not the cheaper one VS the top of the line... In real life you don't compare a VW to a Ferrari...
I doubt anyone expected the 55-210 to win given the price difference. That's not really the point, though. Sometimes it's interesting to just see *how much* the more expensive option wins by. There certainly have been cases where you end up paying 3 times as much for...very little difference. Not saying that's the case here, but it's still worth investigating to make sure that expensive lens is actually worth what they're charging.
1st
AYO!
Why do people have to talk about the "look" first. Matt vs glossy, get over it.
The 55-210 is complete garbage, unless you want an average picture similar to an IPhone. When zoomed out at or pass 170, it’s blurred. Cheap junk.
I just bought a Sony A6600 (Body only), I'm looking for a good lense for taking portrait photos and video...I seen you speak highly of the Sigma 56mm...is this lens what I need
hungrydickens Yes it is my favorite portrait lens.
@@ArthurR Thanks ordering it now
I own a 55-210 and it is sufficient enough even in professional settings, use it in a wedding , marching band, etc. Anywhere you need a little reach ... Of course for its price it has its limits if the intention is to capture sharp image from a faraway subject then this is not the lens for that... But with right techniques and proper light 55-210 really shines
Arthur, your comparison shots does not make much sense when you introduce noise setting camera at ISO1000 and ISO5000. I would like to see a test done at base ISO100, and maybe comparison photos shot on some buildings with easy to see details.
Great comparison video. The 55-210mm is a great lens for the price. But the 70-350mm is giving what you pay for.
I have both lenses. For the 70-350, I need it because I will take a safari trip and a couple of cruises next year; this lens will definitely help me while I am sitting on the safari jeep trying to take a picture of lions sleeping under the shades of a tree far way or standing on the cruise ship sun deck trying to capture the image of a castle on the far away mountain ridge. For 55-210, I bought it purely because it costs me only $150 (brand new) at Best Buy at the time -- cheap and handy. I have no regret buying both lenses.
for that safari trip the 350 is gonna fall short. get a sigma 150-600 you wont regret it!
Not rethorical: why would you bring the 55-210 with the 70-350 beeing an option? Isn't it better in like everyway?
Thanks for the review. I can see you have compared both lens set ~200mm. However, It would nice to see a comparison of Images (preferably portrait) at extreme lengths on each lens ... framed such that the Pic is nearly captured similar (you will need to go walk further away from subject and by trial, such that it matches to 200mm picture captured - I'm Sorry, if I am asking you too much !). This gives an idea of comparable sharpness of each lens at its extreme focal length, say at F8 :)
Considering the weight, the 55-210mm is a much better lens. Hope that Sony will upgrade it soon.
Not as impressive as 16-55 G. 55-210 is sharp in the center, and that's good enough for non landscape uses.
Cheap birding lens.
1655G should be paired with Tamron 70-180 2.8.
How about compared to the FE 70-300, im using this on my a6300
Sigma's 56mm capable of casting the bifrost
Been waiting for this comparison of these 2.
The price gap is so much different
Right now it is $350 vs $900, but with the 70-350 you are getting an additional 140mm of telephoto zoom, way better build, linear motors, better AF, coatings, and lens elements. Plus its sharper.
@@ArthurR It is the result that counts. 55-210 focuses a bit slow, that is true. Is the new one a lot better?
The flaring is better with the new lens, but again, not immensely so.
@@pizzablender It's all about how much money you have to spend I think. If you really care about telephoto work and will use the lens a lot I think the 70-350 will be worth the money to you. If you don't want to spend a tonne of money because you don't do much telephoto or just can't pay $900 the 55-210 will likely be better for you. You get about 80% of the capability for a third of the price.
Yup kit vs not. Not a fair comparison.
@@ChrisParayno not a "fair" comparison but the only real go-to options in the e-mount world for lowest price and still usable lol
Are you shooting a program mode or ap pri?? ISO 1000 is an odd choice with the light I see here.
Great review. I just got the 70-350mm for 800 usd.