Jump to content

elliot_7rN4

Members
  • Content Count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About elliot_7rN4

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    England, UK
  • Interests
    Photography
    Hiking
    Kayaking
    Surfing
    Swimming
    Motorbikes
    Travel
  1. Thanks both for the replies. Some great advice. I think I'll save some money and go for the 55-210!
  2. Hello all, This is as much a travel question as a lens question. So I've done the research and the main points are 350 is sharper, has better contrast, less aberration, incredible zoom the 210 is ~1/4th the cost new and can easily be snagged at 1/6th the cost used in excellent condition 350 has better build quality and weather sealing 210 is half the weight of the 350 I only just bought my A6400, and currently I have just the SEL1670z (16-70 zeiss T*); soon I will be embarking on a few months travelling in South America. I want a decent zoom for the wildlife I'll encounter in the rainforests. Trouble is this is my first foray into hobbyist photography and I don't have much in the way of experience in focal lengths. I've just never taken pictures with anything above my 16-70 so I'm struggling to gauge whether the 350 is overkill. The weight I don't think is a big deal. The cost isn't favourable, I could handle it, but picking up a 210 used with guaranty that it's like new at £140 seems almost irresistible. So I guess I'm asking, would getting a 70-350 be completely overkill for "maybe I'll encounter some wildlife"? I can't really see myself using such zoom anywhere else, but I don't want to find myself in a once in a lifetime voyage and be thinking the entire time, "I wish I got that extra focal length". That said, I don't ever plan on transitioning to full frame, so I'm happy to completely buy into the APS-C ecosystem and one day I will be doing a safari in South Africa. So I guess that's +1 point for "will use it some other time one day in the rest of my life".
×
×
  • Create New...