I've been using the 55-210 on a documentary recently, and it's actually a great lens. Using with my Sony a6400, it's got tons of character, and as long as you're not relying on low-light situations, I think it's a great tool, especially for filmmaking. I think this lens gets a really bad rap, to say that you can't get great art out of it is simply not true. As you say, just practice. Get those 10,000 hours in. Thanks for a great review, as always
Hi. Im also a teacher. Just got the 55-210 for school sport shooting casually. The sample shot you put in the video is what expected for this price. Those white bodied lenses just to expensive for casual shooter like me. Keep on the good work. Love your videos.
I’m an amateur who is trying prepare to do high school football videography work this upcoming season. Will the 55-210 get the job done or should I go for a more expensive lens? I can afford to pay higher if necessary but would prefer not to get way above the 55-210 price range I’m seeing unless there will be a huge difference
Just received my new 70-200mm f/4 G OSS lens and I have already started to modify it... First, I put the lens hood back in the box and use a generic, round, black, 72mm, screw-in lens hood. Since I shoot with APSC cameras (A6400 and A6500) I don't need a giant hood like that supplied by Sony. I shoot with two cameras and carry one camera with a shorter focal length lens on a Peak Design strap and carry the second camera with the longer lens attached in a holster case at my left hip. I have been doing so for years with the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and use a generic screw-in filter in that lens also. Makes it very easy to get the camera in and out of the holster. The 72mm hood has a 77mm thread at the front on which I use a 77mm lens cap - easy on and easy off! Since the hood can screw directly into a 72mm CPL, I can rotate the CPL by just turning the hood. No vignetting at all with the APSC format and this hood will protect the front element quite well. Also the lens is no where near as obtrusive looking with the smaller black hood. Second, I have replaced the tripod ring with an after market black milled aluminum ring. The advantage of the after market ring is that the foot is grooved to accept an Arca Compatible clamp. I don't have to add an extra plate to mount my lens on the tripod or monopod A/C clamp...
At first glance at your pictures, I can't spot any difference between the 55-210 vs 70-200 f4 in broad daylight sports action. Maybe so in pixel peeping I could tell the difference at 100x zoom crop. But as far as the normal shots, barely noticeable at all. Maybe you could do another test in low light if the f4 aperture of 70-200 has significant benefit over the 50-210 kit? Thanks anyway, this video justifies how good the 55-210 is at a low price alternative I'm considering buying it one of these days.
@@laurencegr9978 I now own the Sony 55-210mm, I got bought it used about 2 months after this comment. As far as my experience goes with the 55-210 lens, it is soft at the longest end at 210mm when wide opened at f6.3 aperture (I shoot mostly birds and crop them in Photoshop at considerable frame width) . I tend to close down at f8 or f10 even in broad daylight to get sharp details of the birds' eyes and feathers. I never own a 70-210mm F4 and I think I'd skip that to get the new Sony 70-350mm soon for birding purposes. But I'm assuming by this comparison video review that the main advantage of the 70-200 f4 you get sharp and detailed shots wide opened at f4 all throughout the range, over the 55-210mm f4-6.3 which needs to be closed down as you reach the telephoto end.
I got a very good deal on this lens on eBay for $100 it was used but when I got the lens I couldn't even tell that it was use it look brand new.. but it's a pretty good lens. But I can definitely understand it's not as sharp as that 70 to 200
I am upgrading to the 70-200 F4 today. The kit lens is ok but the focus can be a bit hit and miss. I use the 18-10-5 F4 G lens as my main walkabout lens but I need something better when I take portraits or need the longer reach. I am going to sell the 55-210.
I like your review it doesnt discourage aspiring photographers out there.. if there is down side of a lens you gave us a lighter side of it where we can use the potential of the cameras...
Facts yo i want the 70-200 so bad but i dont want to drop a mortgage payment on it lol i dont make money from photography. I just found the 55-210 for 115 so im gonna go that route and hone the craft.
Good video. I like the 55-210 as far as kit glass is pretty good. I have been selling cameras for 25years and have seen it all. Sony has changed the game with the mirrorless cameras and in camera processing. I started shooting Sony exclusively 4 years ago ditching my nikon gear big lenses heavy dslrs. Haven't looked back the 55-210 at f8 is pretty good for most of what I shoot.
Awesome video. I will be shooting track & field soon and I really need a good lens for it. I want the gmaster but it’s too expensive. So I’m going to get the 70-200 because of this video
Awesome video as always Danny! Very well explained. I have been contemplating buying the 70-200 f4 for a little bit now and I think I’m going to pull the trigger after watching this. Now I’m curious have you tried the 70-200 f4 with the Sony a7iii in low light? My goal is to buy both the 70-200 f4 with the Sony a7iii and it would be used in low light quiet often. Keep up the awesome content! 🤝👏🏻
70-200 f4 is sharp wide open. Great lens for traveling and shooting kids sports. The 55-210 is somehow frustrating because of the softness that you get even after you get used to its perks. I am interested to see how the 70-300 performs on apsc sensors. It can be a good starter for wildlife and sports for those who are on the budget or try to find a good long range lens that won't break the bank. Cheers Danny.
I have a love-hate emotion about the 70-200 F4. Bought it and sold it and today I re-purchased it. Knowing it's strengths and weaknesses, I think I will keep it for a long long time.
The 55-210 is a pretty darn good value today if you can find one for less than retail which is around $350. For me paying $150, it delivers great images for the money.
It's actually a sharp lens if you look at the charts and sample photos on Flickr. It's just that the 70-200 is faster and bigger. Bigger lens = more professional. 😂
Hi mate, im a fan of the channel and i absolutly love your content, with that being said i have a question. can you please let me know what improvement in therms of lenses would you recomend for Sony A6000? A the moment i have the SEL55210 for outdoor sports and a bit of close wildlife, and an manual MD mount Minolta 50 mm f1.7 manual focus for portraits.what do you think?regards Bob.
Where would place the Sony 24-240 in terms of sharpness? I had great results this winter with the 6500 shooting in HS hockey rinks. The versatility the lens combined with the 6500 auto focus and stability allowed for great shots, once I mastered the best settings. Hopefully, my spring/summer soccer pictures will be as good. In high school sports one can often get really close to the action and being able to shoot with a 24mm was sweet. Many of my shots were sub 70mm for sure
For me, when I had the “not terrible” i took less photos because i had less of a success rate. I traded that lens in for the G 18-105 F4 and while I sacrificed distance, the number of photos I thought were good went up a lot! I know I’m not a great photographer, but if when I have a great lens, I can pretend!!! My next lens will be the 70-200 F4 without a doubt!!
70 -200 2.8 would be the best lens for people who live in northern states as well. Actually, it's a must have. Clouds and lower light conditions are most of the year.
Great video! Really enjoying these sports/fast action videos! Hopefully you will make some more. Most videos on UA-cam are all to do with landscape and portraits. So it's a nice change 👍and the photography I also shoot...
The fact of 55-210mm being designed natively for crop sensor, and 70-200 for FF sensor, I wonder whether the effective focal range between them is different on a crop camera, like a6500. In other words, the 70-200 capture a object closer than 55-210mm? Thanks in advance.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. cropfactor applies to both lenses equally. meaning, take whatever lens, NO matter what lens, put it at 100mm 5.6, and you get roughly the same Image @@catho6785
Joshua Mack - I really respect Tony Northrup as knowledgeable - he is the one that says if you multiply length, you multiple aperture too for crop vs full frame - ua-cam.com/video/f5zN6NVx-hY/v-deo.html
Love that you don’t give the 55-210 a hard time. We all know the 70-200 will be better but how much better is it? That’s the question that was pretty well answered in this video. Nice work.
I really wish that there was a telephoto lens with a Sony E-mount that was light weight, yet has a decently wide aperture (say f/2.8) and very good to excellent IQ. A 135mm prime lens would be great! This is well within the realm of possibility, I have a Canon 135mm f/2.8 SF lens which if it had a Sony mount would be fine for my use. I recently purchased the 55-210mm Sony kit lens but will be re-selling it on eBay. The weight and size is fine but, its IQ is just not good enough, the AF is iffy and the aperture range is abysmal!
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.
The 70-200 F2.8 with 1.4x is good. I haven't gotten great results with the 2x on the F2.8 model. I'd have to shoot more with the 100-400 with a telconverter to get a better feel for it.
Yes, video and stills. In crop mode on my A7R3 it will give an equivalent FOV of 27-157mm. Sure it won't deliver the compression of a true 157mm but considering that the lens costs less then half of the 70-200 f4 plus it has powerzoom that can come handy in videos, it becomes a possible alternative. I't give up some compression and reach for more video flexibility and more money in my pocket. With the same money needed for an 70-200 F4 I could buy a 18-105 + a Moza Aircross and accessories. Now the point is: how the image quality of the 18-105 compares to that of the 70-200 F4?
I used both lenses and I accidentally injured someone with the 70-200. they should get out of the way though, when they see people who are carrying zoom lenses like this. Guess I'll stick with the 55-210 and smaller prime lenses.
Thanks bro 🙏🏾 this video really helped me I was trying to decided between these two because I’m shooting kids flag football and you definitely just help me make my decision to go with the less expensive 55-210mm until I can drop 1600 on the 70-200 2.8. 🙌🏾 I really appreciate you!!
lol not much of a difference for the buck ( Sony GMASTER) I would of rather go with a SIGMA LENS half the price and you can’t really tell the difference between the SIGNA & GMASTER LOL 😂
Sony 70-200 F4 (Affiliate Links)
B&H: bhpho.to/2AWZKZo
AMZ: geni.us/fOTsnyi
Sony 55-210 F4.5-6.3 OSS (Affiliate Links)
B&H: bhpho.to/2JQnsen
AMZ: geni.us/FHIFF
Sony a6500 (Affiliate Links)
B&H: bhpho.to/2jvr5LT
AMZ: geni.us/PXO8Kuj
I've been using the 55-210 on a documentary recently, and it's actually a great lens. Using with my Sony a6400, it's got tons of character, and as long as you're not relying on low-light situations, I think it's a great tool, especially for filmmaking. I think this lens gets a really bad rap, to say that you can't get great art out of it is simply not true. As you say, just practice. Get those 10,000 hours in. Thanks for a great review, as always
Hi. Im also a teacher. Just got the 55-210 for school sport shooting casually. The sample shot you put in the video is what expected for this price. Those white bodied lenses just to expensive for casual shooter like me. Keep on the good work. Love your videos.
And i managed to buy this at around USD175 new. So it is quite cheap.
when I bought my sony a6000 the sony 55-210 was included as one of my kit lenses.
I’m an amateur who is trying prepare to do high school football videography work this upcoming season. Will the 55-210 get the job done or should I go for a more expensive lens? I can afford to pay higher if necessary but would prefer not to get way above the 55-210 price range I’m seeing unless there will be a huge difference
Just received my new 70-200mm f/4 G OSS lens and I have already started to modify it...
First, I put the lens hood back in the box and use a generic, round, black, 72mm, screw-in lens hood. Since I shoot with APSC cameras (A6400 and A6500) I don't need a giant hood like that supplied by Sony. I shoot with two cameras and carry one camera with a shorter focal length lens on a Peak Design strap and carry the second camera with the longer lens attached in a holster case at my left hip. I have been doing so for years with the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and use a generic screw-in filter in that lens also. Makes it very easy to get the camera in and out of the holster. The 72mm hood has a 77mm thread at the front on which I use a 77mm lens cap - easy on and easy off! Since the hood can screw directly into a 72mm CPL, I can rotate the CPL by just turning the hood. No vignetting at all with the APSC format and this hood will protect the front element quite well. Also the lens is no where near as obtrusive looking with the smaller black hood.
Second, I have replaced the tripod ring with an after market black milled aluminum ring. The advantage of the after market ring is that the foot is grooved to accept an Arca Compatible clamp. I don't have to add an extra plate to mount my lens on the tripod or monopod A/C clamp...
At first glance at your pictures, I can't spot any difference between the 55-210 vs 70-200 f4 in broad daylight sports action. Maybe so in pixel peeping I could tell the difference at 100x zoom crop. But as far as the normal shots, barely noticeable at all. Maybe you could do another test in low light if the f4 aperture of 70-200 has significant benefit over the 50-210 kit? Thanks anyway, this video justifies how good the 55-210 is at a low price alternative I'm considering buying it one of these days.
There's a small difference in low-light. You should have at least F2.8 for a zoom like that for under low-light situations.
@@laurencegr9978 I now own the Sony 55-210mm, I got bought it used about 2 months after this comment. As far as my experience goes with the 55-210 lens, it is soft at the longest end at 210mm when wide opened at f6.3 aperture (I shoot mostly birds and crop them in Photoshop at considerable frame width) . I tend to close down at f8 or f10 even in broad daylight to get sharp details of the birds' eyes and feathers. I never own a 70-210mm F4 and I think I'd skip that to get the new Sony 70-350mm soon for birding purposes. But I'm assuming by this comparison video review that the main advantage of the 70-200 f4 you get sharp and detailed shots wide opened at f4 all throughout the range, over the 55-210mm f4-6.3 which needs to be closed down as you reach the telephoto end.
55-210 is a very soft lens but...it allows me to reach further than my 18-105.
I also have 18-105mm and now i am thinking of buying some tele is 55-210 good enought for sam kiteboarding photos?
I got a very good deal on this lens on eBay for $100 it was used but when I got the lens I couldn't even tell that it was use it look brand new.. but it's a pretty good lens. But I can definitely understand it's not as sharp as that 70 to 200
I am upgrading to the 70-200 F4 today. The kit lens is ok but the focus can be a bit hit and miss. I use the 18-10-5 F4 G lens as my main walkabout lens but I need something better when I take portraits or need the longer reach. I am going to sell the 55-210.
Thanks for the review...just what I needed. Will the 55-210 fit the a6300 also?
I like your review it doesnt discourage aspiring photographers out there.. if there is down side of a lens you gave us a lighter side of it where we can use the potential of the cameras...
Facts yo i want the 70-200 so bad but i dont want to drop a mortgage payment on it lol i dont make money from photography. I just found the 55-210 for 115 so im gonna go that route and hone the craft.
55-210mm also good I'm using this lens😊
Hi can you please compare 55-210 and 18-105 I am in confusion in both which one is best for the price, I am casual and wedding photographer
I'd love to hear you talk about sports photography vs. other forms of photography as far as making money is concerned
Fantastic review! Your demo images and videos are the highlights. Can you say if any of these lenses can be used with the Sony teleconverters?
Good video. I like the 55-210 as far as kit glass is pretty good. I have been selling cameras for 25years and have seen it all. Sony has changed the game with the mirrorless cameras and in camera processing. I started shooting Sony exclusively 4 years ago ditching my nikon gear big lenses heavy dslrs. Haven't looked back the 55-210 at f8 is pretty good for most of what I shoot.
Awesome video. I will be shooting track & field soon and I really need a good lens for it. I want the gmaster but it’s too expensive. So I’m going to get the 70-200 because of this video
LOVE my 70-200 f4 on my a6000! Keep smashing it Danny!
Thanks!
Winner is 55-210
Awesome video as always Danny! Very well explained. I have been contemplating buying the 70-200 f4 for a little bit now and I think I’m going to pull the trigger after watching this. Now I’m curious have you tried the 70-200 f4 with the Sony a7iii in low light? My goal is to buy both the 70-200 f4 with the Sony a7iii and it would be used in low light quiet often.
Keep up the awesome content! 🤝👏🏻
I love my 70-200 f4 paired with my a7III. I cranked my ISO to 5000 and the photos come out awesome.
70-200 f4 is sharp wide open. Great lens for traveling and shooting kids sports. The 55-210 is somehow frustrating because of the softness that you get even after you get used to its perks. I am interested to see how the 70-300 performs on apsc sensors. It can be a good starter for wildlife and sports for those who are on the budget or try to find a good long range lens that won't break the bank. Cheers Danny.
Well, G lenses are built that way.
I have a love-hate emotion about the 70-200 F4. Bought it and sold it and today I re-purchased it. Knowing it's strengths and weaknesses, I think I will keep it for a long long time.
Wouldn't it also make sense to consider the 70-300? I'm thinking about it for my APSC.
Yup. I'll have to get another vid on that.
Great review! Quick question, is the Sony 55-210mm compatible with the Sony A7?
Fair review... 👍👍👍 thats right technique ... Perfect Review
The 55-210 is a pretty darn good value today if you can find one for less than retail which is around $350. For me paying $150, it delivers great images for the money.
It's actually a sharp lens if you look at the charts and sample photos on Flickr. It's just that the 70-200 is faster and bigger. Bigger lens = more professional. 😂
Hi mate, im a fan of the channel and i absolutly love your content, with that being said i have a question.
can you please let me know what improvement in therms of lenses would you recomend for Sony A6000? A the moment i have the SEL55210 for outdoor sports and a bit of close wildlife, and an manual MD mount Minolta 50 mm f1.7 manual focus for portraits.what do you think?regards Bob.
Where would place the Sony 24-240 in terms of sharpness?
I had great results this winter with the 6500 shooting in HS hockey rinks. The versatility the lens combined with the 6500 auto focus and stability allowed for great shots, once I mastered the best settings. Hopefully, my spring/summer soccer pictures will be as good. In high school sports one can often get really close to the action and being able to shoot with a 24mm was sweet. Many of my shots were sub 70mm for sure
I haven't tried that lens. I might check it out.
For me, when I had the “not terrible” i took less photos because i had less of a success rate. I traded that lens in for the G 18-105 F4 and while I sacrificed distance, the number of photos I thought were good went up a lot! I know I’m not a great photographer, but if when I have a great lens, I can pretend!!! My next lens will be the 70-200 F4 without a doubt!!
Question I have a 70-200 for my Nikon and looking for a telephoto lens for my Sony is 55-210 good or buy another 70-200
70 -200 2.8 would be the best lens for people who live in northern states as well. Actually, it's a must have. Clouds and lower light conditions are most of the year.
Great video! Really enjoying these sports/fast action videos! Hopefully you will make some more. Most videos on UA-cam are all to do with landscape and portraits. So it's a nice change 👍and the photography I also shoot...
Can you please compare the 70-200 f4 with the 70-300 g? I can't find any solid comparisons
I'll try
The fact of 55-210mm being designed natively for crop sensor, and 70-200 for FF sensor, I wonder whether the effective focal range between them is different on a crop camera, like a6500. In other words, the 70-200 capture a object closer than 55-210mm? Thanks in advance.
Nite runner a 70-200 would be roughly 105-300 (assuming it’s a 1.5 apsc sensor) but the aperture goes up also by same amount, so it’s no longer f4
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. cropfactor applies to both lenses equally. meaning, take whatever lens, NO matter what lens, put it at 100mm 5.6, and you get roughly the same Image
@@catho6785
Joshua Mack - I really respect Tony Northrup as knowledgeable - he is the one that says if you multiply length, you multiple aperture too for crop vs full frame - ua-cam.com/video/f5zN6NVx-hY/v-deo.html
You are trying to be my favorite channel again.
hi how does the 18-200mm compared to the 55-210?
Danny. What is that song at the very end of your video? I have been searching all over for that song.
Queen of Mars by Nahra
Is the Sony 55-210 lens compatible with an A7III?
Love that you don’t give the 55-210 a hard time. We all know the 70-200 will be better but how much better is it? That’s the question that was pretty well answered in this video. Nice work.
Excellent video. Thank you
I really wish that there was a telephoto lens with a Sony E-mount that was light weight, yet has a decently wide aperture (say f/2.8) and very good to excellent IQ. A 135mm prime lens would be great! This is well within the realm of possibility, I have a Canon 135mm f/2.8 SF lens which if it had a Sony mount would be fine for my use. I recently purchased the 55-210mm Sony kit lens but will be re-selling it on eBay. The weight and size is fine but, its IQ is just not good enough, the AF is iffy and the aperture range is abysmal!
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.
How is the sony 100-400 vs sony 70-200 f4 or f2.8 with or with out the 2x or 1.4x teleconverter
The 70-200 F2.8 with 1.4x is good. I haven't gotten great results with the 2x on the F2.8 model. I'd have to shoot more with the 100-400 with a telconverter to get a better feel for it.
that1cameraguy thank you for the edvice but can you review the sony 70-300
I did a review on it like 2 years ago, but I'd probably want to do an updated one
that1cameraguy ok thanks
DID you see where Adorama posted a video of the review on the new Tamron 28-75 2.8 then retracted it today!!
I have not, was there something wrong? That's why they took it down?
I’d love to read that review
Thanks for the interesting video. I'd like a similar comparison between the 70-200 f4 and the 18-105 f4 on a full frame camera.
18-105 is a crop lens, do you mean how it performs on video with full-frame.
Yes, video and stills. In crop mode on my A7R3 it will give an equivalent FOV of 27-157mm. Sure it won't deliver the compression of a true 157mm but considering that the lens costs less then half of the 70-200 f4 plus it has powerzoom that can come handy in videos, it becomes a possible alternative. I't give up some compression and reach for more video flexibility and more money in my pocket. With the same money needed for an 70-200 F4 I could buy a 18-105 + a Moza Aircross and accessories.
Now the point is: how the image quality of the 18-105 compares to that of the 70-200 F4?
I think they’re pretty much in the same ballpark, aside from the fact that you lose megapixels in crop mode.
I used both lenses and I accidentally injured someone with the 70-200. they should get out of the way though, when they see people who are carrying zoom lenses like this. Guess I'll stick with the 55-210 and smaller prime lenses.
Athletics pics are cool. Thanks for the review
nice comparo bro!
What about the Sony 70-300?
I'll have to do another vid on that. It would have been too much to test in a short time for me.
that1cameraguy please do a 70-300 vs 70-200😬😬😬
Thanks bro 🙏🏾 this video really helped me I was trying to decided between these two because I’m shooting kids flag football and you definitely just help me make my decision to go with the less expensive 55-210mm until I can drop 1600 on the 70-200 2.8. 🙌🏾 I really appreciate you!!
Sony 55-210... lets save
Toller Vergleich. Meiner Erfahrung nach ist das 55210 zum Teil sogar sehr scharf, wenn man es am helllichten Tag und nicht bei 210mm nutzt.
Any word if sigma our Tamron see going to make an e mount 70-200. I really want the f2.8 but not for $2500
Nothing yet unfortunately
I felt like the biggest fault of the 55-210 was the focus.
Minolta "Beercan" 70-210 is way cheaper and a lot better built.
My God why so much noise?
lol not much of a difference for the buck ( Sony GMASTER) I would of rather go with a SIGMA LENS half the price and you can’t really tell the difference between the SIGNA & GMASTER LOL 😂
I refunded my 55-210 because the 70-200mm f4 blew the doors out of that lense. Well of course it's $1k more lol
FIRST