mrtoml
Mancunian
I am about to go abroad with my Nex 7 for the first time. I have the 18-55mm kit lens (which isn't that bad) and the 19mm and 30mm sigmas (plus a lot of manual primes).
I have been pondering whether to splash out on a longer zoom, but there are not that many reviews out there of the Sony 55-210 which is about £300 in the UK. There are also the more expensive Sony and Tamron zooms. I don't tend to use long zooms all that much, but sometimes it is nice to have one when the need arises.
With cashback I can get the 55-210mm for £250 at the moment. Does anyone have this lens or have any opinions of it?
I have been pondering whether to splash out on a longer zoom, but there are not that many reviews out there of the Sony 55-210 which is about £300 in the UK. There are also the more expensive Sony and Tamron zooms. I don't tend to use long zooms all that much, but sometimes it is nice to have one when the need arises.
With cashback I can get the 55-210mm for £250 at the moment. Does anyone have this lens or have any opinions of it?
mrtoml
Mancunian
I guess it's not that popular 
zvos1
Well-known
Don't have the lens but it is general consenus that it is a good quality lens (unless you shoot sports). The question is do you need it? I spent 2 months on a vacation last year in Europe with my nex 5 and my most used lens was 16mm. Only occasionaly I used 18-55 and only once I wished I had something longer.
Bimjo
Member
For what it costs and what it is, it is worth the asking price.
vidgamer
Established
When it came out, and people posted some photos on DPR, it seemed like it was a decent lens. Bokeh looks good, reasonably sharp. I'd get it if I needed that focal range. I'm tempted but not sure if it's worth it for me because I plan to use a-mount lenses in this range; only the manual-focus aspect of that will really bother me, but we'll see. I may break down and get it. :-/
Like zvos, I went on a trip and used the 16mm lens mostly, and thought that was pretty useful. I liked that wide angle a lot more than I expected! Surprising, really. But there are certain specific situations where you need a longer lens. In my case, it's wildlife and airshows, both of which I attempt to shoot on rare occasions. For travel to an urban area, I don't think I'd bother with anything too long.
A 55-200 was one of my most-used lenses a few years ago (for a-mount). I could take snaps of a stage performance at f4 (just up the ISO a bit), it was a good lens for zoos or Sea World. For airshows, an even longer lens is useful. That's the problem with these lenses, you can always find a need for another one. ;-) But if forced to choose just one tele lens, I think a 55-200 makes a lot of sense.
In short, if you think you might use it, I say go for it. ;-) But sorry, I have no experience with it personally. You might check out DPR forums.
Like zvos, I went on a trip and used the 16mm lens mostly, and thought that was pretty useful. I liked that wide angle a lot more than I expected! Surprising, really. But there are certain specific situations where you need a longer lens. In my case, it's wildlife and airshows, both of which I attempt to shoot on rare occasions. For travel to an urban area, I don't think I'd bother with anything too long.
A 55-200 was one of my most-used lenses a few years ago (for a-mount). I could take snaps of a stage performance at f4 (just up the ISO a bit), it was a good lens for zoos or Sea World. For airshows, an even longer lens is useful. That's the problem with these lenses, you can always find a need for another one. ;-) But if forced to choose just one tele lens, I think a 55-200 makes a lot of sense.
In short, if you think you might use it, I say go for it. ;-) But sorry, I have no experience with it personally. You might check out DPR forums.
mrtoml
Mancunian
Thanks, Guys. I'll check out the DPR shots.