Sony 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 OSS lens review with samples
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лип 2024
- Every camera system has a low-budget telephoto zoom option, and this is Sony's, for their E-mount cameras. It covers an APS-C sized image circle. Let's see if its image quality is also up to scratch.
Find it here (Amazon affiliate link):
geni.us/sonye55210
All pictures taken by me on Sony a7r ii and a5100 cameras.
Support me on Patreon! / christopherfrost
Equipment I use for making these reviews and other videos:
Equipment I use to make my videos (Amazon affiliate links):
Canon EOS R5: geni.us/CanonEOSR5Body
Canon EF-RF Adaptor: geni.us/CanonEFtoRF
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 'Art': geni.us/Sigma50mm14Art
Canon RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM: geni.us/CanonRF35mm18Macro
Marumi Fit and Slim CPL Filter: geni.us/MarumiFitSlim77
AudioTechnica AT2020USB+ Microphone: geni.us/AT2020USBPlusMic
Rode Smartlav+ Microphone: geni.us/RodeSmartLavalierPlus
Rode SC3 adapter: geni.us/RodeSC3MicAdaptor
Zoom H1n Recorder: geni.us/ZoomH1nMiniRecorder
DJI Mini 2 Drone: geni.us/DJIMini2FlyMore
Music:
'Opportunity Walks', Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/b... - Навчання та стиль
In my experience it doesn’t work very well after rolling off the kitchen table.
The glass shatters on the inside and won't keep your coffee hot anymore.
I bought this lens with my sony 5R since 2013, and I took a lot of great shots with it, the quality is reliable, I can use it at night and still get sharp photos (with tripod). After I change to A7iii, I sold almost all my APSC lens, but this one still here. I like so much, you can’t ask for more with this price and weight
I use this lense all the time for landscape photography, it's small size and light weight is perfect for an hiking trip while taking photos. I must say that I don't use this lense wide open.
Alhough I also have one, the quality of photos is not as good as yours.
Now I figured out what was wrong: the photographer.
too relatable. I'm still on the kit lens but sometimes I wonder what I'm doing wrong. Not the lenses fault it's my fault :D
I think you've hit the nail on the head with this review, it's price (especially 2nd hand ) makes it a decent option for a telephoto. I've been using it for around 8 months, and if you know it's strengths its a fun lens.
I thought it was a coffee thermo at first glance.
👍🏼😂
1:22 what a compositon and sharp image!
One of my first telephone lens and I love it! I wanted to point out that I think out of all camera reviewers on UA-cam you're one of the best.
Because not only do you give us a comprehensive review on the lens or camera that you're showing. But you always shows us what's the sharpest point of each lens and I really appreciate that.
Love this lens. I got a lot of cool shots while traveling with my a6500. Not the sharpest but definitely the best buddy to the kit lens.
Since I saw your video for the first time in 2015...
In my opinion, You are the best lens reviewer ever...
Well Done Christ 👍👍
Thanks!
The results are better than most would expect
Great review! thank you. The part where tried to capture birds in flight was very helpful.
I have this lens not long ago and its pretty decent for a cheap price. I'm glad that you review this and now I have far better understanding now what this lens is capable of. Will try to stop down with those apertures to get sharper results.
My first lense! ❤️ I had just bought my camera and wanted a starter lense, this fit the bill. I enjoy it for the value it offers and a decent range.
I kind of don't understand the hate in the comments about this lens. The image quality is average, but on par with similar aps-c budget zooms like the Canon EF-M 55-200 and the Fuji 50-230. Build quality is far better than both those lenses. In the segment it represents it's a pretty decent choice.
indeed. The price is on par with 16-50mm, which is abhorrently soft
Sorry, but Canon EF-M 55-200 is noticeably sharper and consistent in all zoom range. Fuji 50-230 in right hands also provides sharper and more contrasty images. This Sony lens is not only soft - it's also of low contract. Images are soft, noisy and low contract and immeditaly show that they have been taken with poor quality budget lens (not all budget lenses are so poor, but this one definitely is).
@@FuckUA-camForHandles Its great for its price, made for amateurs and they didnt see the difference between any of those lenses. You are acting like F1 driver reviewing Prius for an old lady.
F1 drivers never do that.
Shot birds at a bird park with this lens. Most photos turned out pretty decent. Compared to the new g apsc telephoto lens which is more expensive, I think a hobbyists would be contented with such the inexpensive yet workable 55210 lens.
The perfect lens for the starter & occasional telephoto shooter! I had this with me in New Zealand five years ago, and the only thing I would like to change about it would be my knowledge on how to set up the camera (a5000) the best way... Many people buy it in a bundle, but never use it. Then they blame it on the lens & sell it for cheap. Their loss, our win, I'd say. Because of GAS I swapped it with the Sony 70-350 G, which I use as infrequently as my former 55-210mm. I miss the size advantage of the 55-210mm as often as I enjoy the better quality of the 70-350mm, let that sink in for a moment.
I just thought about buying this lens perfect timjng! Thank you
They have a Kookaburra at the zoo where you are? Usually Zoos only get in Cockatoos! Great review as always!
Great review as always! I have the silver 18-200 lens, works pretty much like the 55-210, both of them are great lenses for beginners, specially the 18-200
I used both. I could insist the 18 200 is way better optically (especially the 1st version)
I bought this lens yesterday (used). I enjoyed your video, and I'm a bit disappointed about the lens not being any good to photograph the Red Kites in my area. Wish I had seen your video before purchasing this lens.
I hope you enjoyed the Elan Valley. I am one of the lucky ones and live 1 mile away from the dams.
Awesome review, mate!
Its a great lens that goes well with the 16-50mm kit lens and a6000 series for budget hobbyists who want to travel very light.
Its actually kinda basicly realistically the sony a6000 kit lens
Sony needs to update this and their 50mm.
It's a good lens to keep in your bag just for a little reach sometimes if you know how to use it and don't expect art lens quality!!
I own this lens and though it is slow lens it is light, easy to use and sharp.
Good value for money
do you think so? i own it as well but pictures are never ever perfectly sharp
Could you do a review on Sony 18-200 f3.5-6.3 lens. its similar to the 55-210 but has some range at the short end. so pretty versatile.
would love to see ur review on it.
I love this lens for the tele purpose especially taking pictures of animals.
AF speed and tracking is a game for two. It depends on the camera too. I've shot air show and drift racing event with this lens and a6000 in AF-C and I had no issues whatsoever. Just for try I tested it on A7III and it gets even better. I'm not saying it's the fastest and most accurate AF ever, of course it's not, but I have never observed issues like these in the video. It's pretty decent IMO and definitely beats my FE 50 1.8 which is notorious for bad AF.
I used to have one of these but was never happy with the optical performance at the long end, and eventually sold it after I got my 70-200/4G. To be honest though I think I just had a bad copy, these are cheap enough to be bought again on a whim, maybe I can get a new one as sharp as yours. Solid review as usual.
Can you review the new 7artisans 35mm f1.4 FE lens for Sony full-frame that would be interesting, please?
i bought this lens for like $100 a couple years ago and it's pretty surprising how usable it is
I use this lens on a6300 but it came with my a5100. I agree that focus could be faster in photo but it works perfectly in video. I use this lens to shoot concerts and it works like charm. I use 4x digital zoom to get more reach and even there pushed to 1240 millimeters IQ looks perfect. It is nice and compact and fits in my jacket or deeper pants pocket with a6300 mounted on. This lens is amazing value for money and it punches 5 steps above it's weigh. Just buy it you'll not regret. I seen them go for 70$ now whitch is crazy. If i had just one lens to pick for Sony apsc that would be this lens. I have 4 of them. 😂
How do you turn on and off the image stabilization of the lens
This lens was useless to me because it is too soft wide open. But later I've discovered that it is compatible with Raynox diopter. Pretty handy for macro if you have an OCF on your left hand.
Thank you 😊
I know this lens isn't the best but I've still had fun with it. Especially if you get the "gray market" version, it's pretty affordable.
Its fun having this lens with me on my trips too
I thought about buying this lens many times, maybe one day i will!
Have you already?
What are the first few words you said during this and your last videos?
"Shwmae pawb" - "Hello everyone" in Welsh.
@@tomnicholas8264 Cool! Thanks!
Is it good for portraits?
02:28 that’s what I’ve fucking thought, it’s ugly but affordable 😅. Nice video btw, mate. I’ve been watching your lens reviews for ages
I only clicked to hear you say howdy 🤠 lol I already owned this & it was fairly decent @F5.6
I’m not 100% sure, but I think with this lens A7R2works in contrast detect only mode (no phase detection), it should have much better AF results using a6xxx (newer bodies then a6000).
The manual and autofocus on this felt so bad (especially in the dark, forget about focusing this puppy in the dark) I went with fully manual Soviet lenses. The only good thing about this lens is its image stabilization, which is surprisingly good. I can handhold photos downs to 1/10 (and 1/4 if I'm lucky and really pushing it) at 55mm with its stabilization.
Hi, between this lens and the ef-m mount 55-200 which one do u think is better/sharper? I'm trying to find a system to invest in. canon's 11-22 seems superb but not sure about the other zooms. sony has expensive zooms.
Take a look at my review of that lens - it's not bad :-)
I bought this lens a year ago for my a6000 because I need a cheap telephoto reach and this is the only one and the cheapest native E mount telephoto lens for Sony crop bodies.
As you describe in the video, sharpness isn't as sharp as the more expensive FE 70-200mm G or GM especially in the corner.
Dark aperture of f/4.5-6.3 limits for using this lens at night, low-light, or indoor sports arena.
Continuous autofocus with this lens also not really that great for sports, it's okay, it's enough, but not great.
Sometimes I also found ghosting in my pictures when photographing outdoor sports like soccer or marathon.
i got this lens for like $100. for static images on the beach, it's quite good. actually, one of my favorite pics ever was taken with this and an a6100. i ended up moving to the a7iii and a sigma 70-200 2.8, but this is fine for vacations.
Will this work with my NEX f3?
I guess you get what you pay for, right? For roundabout $150 "as new" it's a great lens, and even the official new price is still just about acceptable, when taking build quality into account.
Obviously it's not comparable with a $1000 prime lens, regarding image quality, but it really seems good enough for what it is!
Did you open with shwmae or is it me?
Do you think this lens would be a better option compared to a used 18-135mm if I already have the 16-50mm and need extra reach for wildlife photography etc. as a beginner? (I'm mainly concerned that the image will be too soft compared to the 18-135mm as this is what I heard)
Yes, it will be better to have the two lenses in my opinion
@@christopherfrost Alright, thank you.
Would love to see you compare this to the fe 70-300mm and the new e 70-350mm
I'd be curious to see how this lens compares to the original (silver) 18-200mm all-in-one lens that was released in NEX5 days as well - not long before this 55-210.
The 18-200 will probably be horrifying
@@christopherfrost Really ? Surprising since it was (until the release of the new 16-55 f2.8 G lens) one of Sony's most expensive APS-C eMount lenses - much pricier than the 55-210 or the 18-105mm. Even pricier than the newer 18-200 LE and the Zeiss 16-70 !
I was just thinking of buying this OMG.
Buy it! I do Street Photography but sometimes I wanna use a tele. It is cheap, light weight ... Do not use it at night, nor even in low light, but during the day it is really worth the money.
Don't do it!!!
I'm using A7rii though..
For a FF it do not make sense ...
Great video. Is it compatible with the Sony a6100?
Yes, it is.
I have A6000 with this lens and wondered about this. So it is the lens that limits the autofocus, not the body? It misses focus on birds like you said. Have not tried people, but on race cars it is okay. Will you review the new 70-350?
Anyone know how this does with video?
What is that greeting at the beginning? What language? I've heard it before in your videos.
'Shwmae pawb' - it's Welsh
@@christopherfrost Thank you, i've learned something new today.
I heard of making coffee thermoses look like lenses but Sony did it the other way around.
Hello, I have a Sony a5000, I like the lense that comes with it. But I was wondering if anyone possibly tell me which lense I could get if I want to take portrait and landscape pictures please.
Sony 35 1.8
Just got the lens. I feel like i’m shakinh so it a bit unclear, how do i get the image stabilized?
It should be on by default, but if it's not there should be a setting in the camera's menu.
I'm new to the channel so I don't know if you've answered this already but why don't you do Nikon lenses?
Take a look at my FAQs video :-)
do you think the AF will improve if pair it with A6400 ?
Almost definitely, but I'd look up youtube videos/written reviews to verify. Others have said it works really well on their more modern camera bodies.
I’m really close to purchasing this lens, but I need to shoot sports footage. Is there a better, similar alternative, or should I just risk the mediocre autofocus?
Sony A6000 camera
If you want something better for sports you'll have to spend a fair bit more money
@@christopherfrost thanks
Others have said that on more modern cameras the autofocus is much better, so I'd look up youtube videos and written reviews with your exact body/lens combo.
There's also the Sony 70-350 which is significantly better quality, but it's also 4x the price new.
Is this lens good for taking photos of aircraft like in the Mach loop?
It sounds like it will work well capturing the moving aircraft in video mode better than photo. I would say it depends on which camera you’re using it on and the additional settings you may have.
I have this lens and it's incredibly sharp on Sony a6000
Can you take nice portraits?
can you advise me the configuration of a sony a5100 to take portátil pictures with this lens?
Thanks I am a beginner
Read your camera's instruction manual, it should tell you all about it
Zoom in as far as you can and make sure the f-stop is as low as it goes. Good lighting and good backgrounds will make a big difference
I wonder if autofocus gonna work better on newer a6400
It actually does ua-cam.com/video/46paTMmTgFk/v-deo.html at around 25:25
@@geopapa80 great find man!
auto focus len?
did you update the lens firmware? mine worked better in CAF after that
Hi Pablo. How do you update that?
@@fabianmac-namara8371look in sony website, its a file you put oj your sd and update from camera with the lens attached
Thank you so much
if only sony can make a lens like the canon 55-250.that lens is razor sharp
They do make sharp lens but for FF. Hahaha. Tamron is making 70-180 2.8 for FE. That should be a keeper
does this lens work with an a7 ii?
If it is a Sony E mount, yes
I had this lens and it is truly bad! There were (probably still are not) no good budget lenses in Sony E mount line up. So I shifted back to canon just because of their perfect Canon 55-250mm IS STM lens - such a great image quality.
Does this lens work with sony aplha 7 ?
Does it have e mount
The silver version looks like a thermos.
Angel Angelov where is danny phantom
Normally, you get the silver version in a kit if the camera is white. Same as the silver 16-50 that is bundled. The lens is ok. Fairly decent for its price. If you are on vacation or need to travel light but not critical in creating large prints, this lens will do as a long FL backup.
It comes in silver partially because it was released in NEX3 and NEX5 days when the silver camera body was popular (I have a silver NEX5). The original lenses (16mm, 18-55, 18-200, and 55-210) were all available in silver for that reason.
Silver is the japanese version black is the western versions
I wanted a review for this about a year ago, bought it anyway. Let’s see how good (or bad) it truly is.
5 months later, how was it?
12 months later, how was it ?
@@wtfgadget The lens was not very good in my experience, it never produced clear/sharp images and the f6.3 telephoto hurt the images brightness a lot. I would not recommend it unless you find a good deal, I feel the average beginner will outgrow it quickly and become quite frustrated with its limitations and end up buying the next model up anyway.
Luckily I was able to sell it for what I payed.
@@orlando9666 and what replacement did you get ?
@@jedemerichjumawan2203 your question, answered lol
Pop lens
Can you stream with this lens
?
Sounds like a very good deal, way better than the equivalent Fuji XC budget telephoto zoom.
And much cheaper than the faster XF 55-200...
As a Fuji user, I'm jelly of this budget option for Sony.
Would this be any good for moon photography?
No probably not as the focal length is most likely to short. I may be getting this lens in a month so I'll see!
Elliot North Hey did you end up getting this lens? If so is it any good for moon photography? Thanks
I just got one on eBay for 95 bucks 💯
I think, all focus problems presented in this video are not problems of this lens, but of the body used with this lens. "Brain" of focusing is not in the lens, but in the body. Try to use some top APS-C body and I think, it will focus perfectly.
Auto-focus sucks on the A7R II. He really needs to change that camera to a Mk III if he ways to review Sony lenses.
Looks like a thermosflask
Oh god it's killing me! What does he say at the start of this video and manay others???????????
Shwmae pawb - translates to 'Hello everyone' :)
@@Synth_DIY Thanks mate. Had never heard that in Australia.
😅
The only lens I ever bought twice and sold twice cause it's so bad.
Oops...
I sold mine and kind of want to buy it again too 😅
lol
what was the problem with it? I have 16-200mm f3.5-6.3 and quite like it. Same issue with vignetting but it's not that strong, sharpness and contrast are decent
@@melfarus It's soft as hell. You can use your mobile phone instead. I got the 24240 - years ahead IMHO
your a5100 is not very good for this kind of cheap lens, u should try at least A6100 and above.
Should be much better!
Why do you think the image quality in my tests on the 24 megapixel a5100, shot at ISO 100, would be any different from those on the a6100?
@@christopherfrost no，I mean the autofocus，because I have a6000 and a6400，the AFC mode is so different when I tracking the subject such as those birds or fast moving subjects.... a6000 has the same autofocus function as ur a5100..... so
@@simonyang79 So what you're saying is that whenever Sony bring out a new camera, I should buy that camera and re-test all these all old lenses and re-publish all my reviews, just in case there's a slight improvement?
ITS NOT AS TERRIBLE AS I THOUGHT
I had one of these and I returned it for my refund less than 24 hours later. It was as sharp as a spoonful of peanut butter.
Hi
First!
Slow autofocus, heavy chromatic abberation, soft image, ugly. sold. one of the worst lenses i ever had.
Gukin the chromatic aberration is the worst
What a ugly lens 😦
This lens is known as a sorry Sony APS-C lens around the forums, UA-cam, image examples. AVOID AT ALL COST.
another crap kit lens from sony. so many people fall into the trap of buying this together with the 16-55 while they could get a better lens that would cover 18-105 and they wouldnt have to change lens all the time
i usually love most of your reviews, but in all honesty, who gives an entire turd about this lens and it's performance?
People who are interested in buying it
I do
i got it on amazon for 130€ NEW. fucking steal i tell you.