Sony 55-210 OSS vs Sony 70-350 OSS

[elliot_7rN4]

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". 

Edited January 30, 2020 by elliot_7rN4

[Wally The Confused]

Well, you sort of answered your own question.

Rain forrest is dense woodland, not open prairie !

So yes, in dense vegitation, there is no point in a 350 !

You will be within  5 - maybe 10 meters, of anything you might want to photograph

Also.. one point you did not mention... Weather proofing !

In Rain Forrest... it never rains gently..... no, it  hammers down , like god is emptying his bathtub, with a bucket , right on your head !

So, weatherproof lens, or a  readily available waterproof cover, for the whole camera.

Ok, some do come with a clear plastic snoot, so you can take pics, in the deluges.

Good Luck

Oh and take waterproof clothes, like Gore Tex etc !

 

[Pieter]

Have to agree with Wally. I started photography with an a6000 and the kit lenses (16-50 and 55-210) some 5 years ago, on a trip to South America as well (Patagonia in my case). I'm not much of a wildlife photographer (Google will generally get you much better pictures of the animal you just spotted) but for whatever wildlife I encountered there, the 55-210 served my needs. Anything up to about 20-30 m away will be close enough, unless you want full headshots. I've since bought a lot of lenses and sold the 16-50, but still have the 55-210. It's just too small and light to be replaced by something big and expensive for the very occasional wildlife I shoot. If you experiment a bit more with photography and find the 55-210 to be lacking for your needs, you can always upgrade and sell the 55-210 at hardly any loss.

If you were going on an African safari I might have advised you to get the 70-350 instead as you really need the reach there, but in South America you'll likely have the 16-70 mounted 90% of the time and the 55-210 will be good enough when the occasion is there.

[elliot_7rN4]

Thanks both for the replies. Some great advice. I think I'll save some money and go for the 55-210!

[Wally The Confused]

Ok Thanks, I did note, that you said, in some years, you would like to do an African Safari.

So that gives you time, to save some money, because once you get onto the Veldt , then yes , you will need a  longer zoom.

However, by then, a whole new range of lenses may have turned up.

Good Luck & have a great  time in the rainforrest

Cheers

WTC

[balrog_1989]

This post saved me a couple hundred dollars. Thanks.

I was drooling over the 70-350 but that $900CAD price point was hurting me. Even used ones were $800. I think I am going for a used 55-210 which I am getting for $150. That lets me having budget to buy the Sigma 56 f1.4 that I am drooling over.

[FunWithCameras]

You are responding to a 3 year old post...

Another point to consider is that the 70-350 isn't just a longer lens - it's a better quality lens. The 55-210 is a cheap lens for people who want a "starter" telephoto - think of it as a "kit" lens. And like a kit lens, if you get serious about photography, you may well move on to a better lens, and the 70-350 is one possible better lens. The 70-350 is not as expensive as lenses like the 70-200 f/2.8 GM or 200-600 G, but it's s a step up from entry level.

I know what it's like to be looking at the pricy end - I remember looking at some of the really expensive lenses when I was starting out and only able to afford the basics - I spent a lot of time looking at the fancy lenses, imagining that they might miraculously improve my photographs (they don't! But they give a really good view of what you did wrong!). The sad truth is that I still look at the really pricy end - I cannot afford a lens like the 600mm f/4 GM or the 400mm f/2.8 GM 😁

There is one enormous advantage to the 55-210 - if you drop it or lose it, the pain is a lot less 🙂 

[Pieter]

17 hours ago, FunWithCameras said:

There is one enormous advantage to the 55-210 - if you drop it or lose it, the pain is a lot less 🙂 

That, and if you buy it at $150 used, you can use it as much as you like and experiment a bit with telephoto shooting. If you one day find the quality or range lacking, you can sell it again for $150-ish: it has barely dropped in value in the past 10 years. I sold mine 2 years ago at the same price I bought it for 8 years ago as part of the A6000 double zoom kit.

[Phormula]

Being there, I took the same decision and I went for the 55-210. I do not use the telephoto range that much, so for me having a light telephoto lens that does not add that much weight to the camera bag and that I can snap on for a couple shots is a bonus over having to wander all day long with a heavy lens. Not to mention that if I drop or lose it, it won't break the bank. Of course, I will consider the 70-350 if my needs will change.

My advice with the 55-210 is, whenever possible, to use it 1-2 steps down from the maximum aperture, at least in the one I own, image quality improves a lot and becomes more than adequate for my shots. 

I fully agree with FunWithCamera. Actually I have seen many pros using entry level lenses if adequate for their needs.

[Paradox.db.3]

I realize that being new to the forum, I'm late in the thread. I sold my 55-210 and now use Tamron's 18-300. Yes, people say it's soft at 300mm but I don't see it so much. (I also don't do wildlife.) Plus it doubles as a great macro lens. As for price, it's comparable to the 70-350. It's the ultimate walk around lens, in my opinion. The attached image was taken with my Sony a6500 and Tamron 18-300mm at 180mm, f/20, ISO 6400, 8s shutter. I was about a foot from the tree.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Phormula]

My photography master used to say that the best lens is the one that works best for you, because it will allow you to take your best pictures. Said by a man that used the same camera and single focal lenght lens from 1945 to early 2000s, when he passed away.

Glad that the 18-300 mm fits your needs, like my 16-70 mm (which does 95% of the job) + 55-210 mm (which I use when I need telephoto, 5% or less of the situations) fits mines.