Sony 55-210mm vs Sony 70-350mm Lens Comparison

Head to squarespace.com/arthurr to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code "arthurr"
Buy the new Sony 70-350mm here: amzn.to/2PCEySB
or on B&H: bhpho.to/30KHgss
Buy the Sony 55-210mm here: amzn.to/2sFAS9Z
or on B&H: bhpho.to/2PAQ4hr
FILMED WITH:
Sony A6400: geni.us/Better...
Sigma 56mm: geni.us/Portrait
Tripod: amzn.to/2O5PJTO
-------------------
Gear That I Use & Recommend:
CAMERAS:
For Photo & Video
▸ Sony A6100 (My Favorite) - geni.us/MyFavo...
▸ Sony A6400 (Better) - geni.us/Better...
▸ Sony A6600 (Best) - geni.us/BestAPSC
▸ Sony A7C (Full Frame) - geni.us/FullFr...
For Video
▸ Sony ZV-E10 (Good) - geni.us/ZVE-10
▸ Sony FX30 (My Favorite) - geni.us/BeastASPC
APS-C LENSES:
▸ Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 (My Favorite) - geni.us/BestZoom
▸ Sony 11mm F1.8 (Best Ultrawide) - geni.us/BestUl...
▸ Sigma 16mm F1.4 (Best Wide Angle) - geni.us/Popular
▸ Sigma 30mm F1.4 (Affordable Street Lens) - geni.us/Street
▸ Sigma 56mm F1.4 (Best Portrait Lens) - geni.us/Portrait
FULL FRAME LENSES:
▸ Sigma 20mm F2 (My Favorite) - geni.us/FFSigm...
▸ Rokinon AF 14mm F2.8 (Best Ultrawide) - geni.us/Rokinon
▸ Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 G2 (Best Do-Everything Lens) - geni.us/TamronV2
▸ Sigma 85mm F1.4 ART (AMAZING Portrait Lens) - geni.us/SHARP85
▸ Sony 50mm Macro (The Only Macro I Own) - geni.us/SonyMacro
AUDIO:
▸ Zoom F3 (Love this Recorder) - geni.us/zoomf
▸ Audio-Technica AT875R Mic (What I Use) - geni.us/at875rmic
▸ DJI Mic (Best On-The-Go) - geni.us/djimice
▸ Acoustimac Sound Panels (Must-have) - geni.us/soundp...
LIGHTING:
▸ SmallRig RC220D (Great Value) - geni.us/rc220d...
▸ SmallRig RC220B (My Key Light) - geni.us/rc220
▸ Sofirn SP33 V3 (Best Mini Flashlight) - geni.us/bestfl...
NICE-TO-HAVE ACCESSORIES:
▸ Feiyu Scorp Pro (Big Gimbal) - geni.us/scorppro
▸ Zyihun Crane M2S (Travel Gimbal) - geni.us/cranem2s
▸ Atomos Ninja V (Recording Monitor) - geni.us/ninja5
▸ SanDisk SD Cards - geni.us/sandisksd
▸ Sony ECM-B10 (Camera Mic) - geni.us/ecmb10mic
Complete Gear List:
▸ kit.co/ArthurR
-------------------
Disclosure:
Most of the links above are affiliate links, which means at no extra cost to you, I will make a small commission if you click them and make a qualifying purchase. If you want to buy something else, you can also use this link to Amazon:
🛒 Amazon - geni.us/shopar...
-------------------
Supporting The Channel:
▸ If you wish to support the channel with a donation, you can donate via PayPal here: paypal.me/arth...
▸ Buy me a coffee here: www.buymeacoff...
▸ Follow me on Instagram: / arthur213
-------------------
Professional & Sponsorship Inquiries:
For professional and sponsorship inquiries, please email me at [e-mail]

[@linux_38]

To be honest, I was expecting the 70-350mm to completely blow the 55210 out of the water. The differences in pic quality aren't all that drastic, but the price difference is. Good video tho.

[@osverduzco]

Considering the extra zoom range I get from the 350 compared to the 210, I don't think the price is all that bad, but yes, I would have liked it to be at in the $600-700 range.

[@dika1434]

How about the video result?

[@snerttt]

I think the autofocus improvements and edge-to-edge clarity are pretty significant, but personally I can't justify 700-800 for one lens.

[@bobinoregon2859]

There a huge amount of telephoto zooms on the market. The vast majority of them are sharp at the short end and very disappointing at the long end of the focal range. The Sony 70-350 is exceptional in that it is very sharp at the long end. Which is why I bought it, and so far I am certainly NOT disappointed. Cheers

[@shzammpatapon9865]

exactly, often overlooked

[@GUARD14N]

How do you like it 2 years later if you still have it? I’m deciding still lol

[@seyedaskar]

How it's performing with videos?

[@joshuathomas4934]

It really is an incredible lens. I shoot with other wildlife photographers that are much more seasoned than me and used sigma sport 600mm lenses on full frames. They are pretty shocked a lot of the time by how good the 350mm lens is from sony. It stays sharp as a razer all the way down its range. 900 dollars isa good deal for this if you ask me. love it

[@MasterRoastshi]

The 55-210 is a great useful travel lens. Surprised how much I go to it when we are on vacation. Takes good shots and won't break the bank if its damaged.

[@bozzie4]

I hate this lens so much.

[@Ethefake]

​@@bozzie4not going to elaborate on why that is, huh.

[@RyanTsou-t4v]

18-300 is the definitive travel lens

[@marc_likes_marketing]

yeah, i pair it with my 11mm, if i feel like i may want some tighter shots. it's small enough that it fits in my small camera bag (unlike my sigma 70-200, which goes in my backpack). and like you said, it's not a big deal if it gets damaged. i got mine for $100.

[@mickkev]

I have both lenses. For the 70-350, I need it because I will take a safari trip and a couple of cruises next year; this lens will definitely help me while I am sitting on the safari jeep trying to take a picture of lions sleeping under the shades of a tree far way or standing on the cruise ship sun deck trying to capture the image of a castle on the far away mountain ridge. For 55-210, I bought it purely because it costs me only $150 (brand new) at Best Buy at the time -- cheap and handy. I have no regret buying both lenses.

[@Legendario1985]

for that safari trip the 350 is gonna fall short. get a sigma 150-600 you wont regret it!

[@Krigalishnikov]

Not rethorical: why would you bring the 55-210 with the 70-350 beeing an option? Isn't it better in like everyway?

[@szymonpartyka7944]

I just wish you showed the field of view comparison between 200mm and 350mm. Zoom range is a factor for many so it'd be nice to see the difference :)

[@osverduzco]

I have had the 55-210 for several years now and I have to say, I have never been very happy with the results I get. I bought the 18-135 last year, and I have been extremely happy with the sharpness of that lens. I expected the 70-350 to be as sharp as the 18-135 but I can't say it is. However, it is a lot better than the 55-210, especially in low light, as you have shown here. I shoot a theatrical performance of my daughter and the shots I got with the 18-350 were not disappointing, unlike those of the 55-210. My only gripe with the 70-350 is the size and weight is just a bit on the high end for my preference, but I think I am going to keep it. I would have like to have paid a little less but there is really nothing out there that gives me the zoom range this lens gives me for the size.

[@lost_places_global9008]

I'd prefer 18-105 F4 G over the 18-135

[@khatalelltv1429]

I own a 55-210 and it is sufficient enough even in professional settings, use it in a wedding , marching band, etc. Anywhere you need a little reach ... Of course for its price it has its limits if the intention is to capture sharp image from a faraway subject then this is not the lens for that... But with right techniques and proper light 55-210 really shines

[@SebasEstuvoAqui]

Nice Job, always really informative! however I was wonder what about video? does anybody knows?

[@GeorgeGuillory]

Nice comparison. One other comparison that I think would be interesting is this 70-350mm lens vs. the 70-200 f4 FF lens on an APS-C camera. The used market on the 70-200 f4 is quite similar in price to the new 70-350 lens.

[@subu9983]

...and next spring Tamron 70-180mm f2.8.

[@7784000]

@@subu9983 true, but 180 vs 350 is still quite a difference. Especially as the sony is still cheaper

[@christophmeraner3503]

From the RGB flare you can immediately recognize the sigma 56mm f1.4 😁

[@ionlywatch]

really?

[@ArthurR]

Signature of that lens!

[@taufik5232]

@@ArthurR Could you get rid of it by using the hood?

[@ArthurR]

@@taufik5232 Yes, you can.

[@N0rdman]

I was going to say: Oh, really?! That would put it off my shopping list, but the lens hood would only cure it to a certain degree depending on the angle of the light, yes?

[@BitWolf]

"So I've shot my wife, she's holding our little boy but I cut his head off a little bit because he was too short..." Sounds kinda creepy without a context :D

[@skateborg]

Where are the cooking shots from that segment?

[@tkermi]

😱 😂

[@coldcrush1]

I could have sworn he said "HER little boy" hmmmmm. Hopefully she didn't hear that either 😅

[@muctrun9me7768]

10:11 for who doesnt have time

[@jhirse3547]

After 20 months of owning it, I'm now selling the 70-350. I'm generally very happy with the lens, it just saw too little use. For the few tele pictures I took, the 55-210 would have been sufficient. I'll certainly buy a tele zoom again. Hopefully someone comes out with a 70-200 f2.8 (or f4, if really compact) in the near future. Otherwise, I'll go back to a used 55-210 if I need a tele.

[@7784000]

An aps-c tele zoom at f2.8 would be a dream

[@rocketrollsvlogs7625]

Great comparison video. The 55-210mm is a great lens for the price. But the 70-350mm is giving what you pay for.

[@stang8913]

Been waiting for this comparison of these 2. The price gap is so much different

[@ArthurR]

Right now it is $350 vs $900, but with the 70-350 you are getting an additional 140mm of telephoto zoom, way better build, linear motors, better AF, coatings, and lens elements. Plus its sharper.

[@pizzablender]

@@ArthurR It is the result that counts. 55-210 focuses a bit slow, that is true. Is the new one a lot better? The flaring is better with the new lens, but again, not immensely so.

[@scrumpoxjnr]

@@pizzablender It's all about how much money you have to spend I think. If you really care about telephoto work and will use the lens a lot I think the 70-350 will be worth the money to you. If you don't want to spend a tonne of money because you don't do much telephoto or just can't pay $900 the 55-210 will likely be better for you. You get about 80% of the capability for a third of the price.

[@ChrisParayno]

Yup kit vs not. Not a fair comparison.

[@summonedfist]

@@ChrisParayno not a "fair" comparison but the only real go-to options in the e-mount world for lowest price and still usable lol

[@jimwin42]

Was looking forward to this comparison, thank you! I’ve been watching your videos for years, and I really appreciate your channel! In the future, I think it would be nice to include or add a real-world comparison of autofocus speed and accuracy, as this is especially important for a telephoto lens that is likely to be used for wildlife or sports. Sharpness, while certainly noticeable, did not show quite as much improvement as I had hoped, so I’m holding out on a purchase of a new telephoto until I can get a better idea of the focusing capabilities.

[@uthmanjimmy1377]

The real big difference between these two lenses is how much faster and accurate the focus is with the 70-350. The 70-350 uses Sony's XD Linear Motors which makes a world of a difference if you are using it for continuous tracking of fast moving wildlife. If don't require a very accurate focus system, then I would definitely save your money and just get the 55-210.

[@jackjack1819]

Hello, can you do a comparison between the 55-210 and the 18-200? Thank you.

[@N0rdman]

What funky rainbow flare in your opening shot.

[@itxofficial8281]

4 years passed, and the 55-210 still remains an absolute bang for the buck - especially in the beginner's field! I'm a complete noob to photography and recently ordered a used Alpha 6300 that came with the awful 16-50 kit lens. However, after spending around 600 euros for the camera without even being sure if it's the right hobby for me, I didn't want to spend yet another fortune just to get a decent lens. Que the 55-210 - yet again, I found a used one for around 150 euros and bought it right away. Despite being a completely different aperture range and made for different purposes, it's still the better overall package and I haven't used the 16-50 ever again. I know it's not the best, a bit too soft and heavy distortion in lower light, but hey - after using it, I now know why everyone keeps repeating "everything's better than the kit lens" over and over! 😉

[@VichetSSom-ck8jd]

I use this lens for Ir photography. In my point view, it’s not so bad for what I use it for and for what it’s worth. I enjoy watching your videos and thanks for sharing and making these videos.

[@liuby33]

The 55210 is a crazy piece imo considering the price (or even not considering the price)

[@youuuuuuuuuuutube]

Great review. I just got the 70-350mm for 800 usd.

[@januszunge]

So for an amateur, a much cheaper lens is a better solution. It also has good photo quality

[@cameranewb3878]

Any thoughts on Sony 18-200? Is it me, or is it softer than 55-210?

[@CarstenBruhn]

Arthur, your comparison shots does not make much sense when you introduce noise setting camera at ISO1000 and ISO5000. I would like to see a test done at base ISO100, and maybe comparison photos shot on some buildings with easy to see details.

[@cesarpalmos8235]

I use the 55-210mm lense in low light all the time...however I use a 2 second shutter speed and around 200 Iso, very little to no grain at 210mm, of course, grain comes from high ISO usage and is done digitally instead of mechanically like exposure and apperature, it is nice to know 70-350mm has less grain. It seems to allow more light with the bigger capture area, even though they are both rated with the same sensor size and apperature settings.

[@TritonTv69420]

Im so glad you made this i am debating on these two lenses.

[@snax_4820]

The Sony 55-210mm is a no-brainer as a travel lens.

[@alexnelson8]

Toto Tata it takes pretty darn good photos too.

[@pizzablender]

Agree, I like the size. And also as portrait lens.

[@alexnelson8]

pizzablender I travel with my 55-210 and Sigma 16. The others usually stay in the car.

[@pizzablender]

@@alexnelson8 I just ordered a Sigma 16. I hope I like it ;)

[@alexnelson8]

pizzablender it lives on my camera. Best prime you can get.

[@ThePrybra07]

Watching this on my phone it doesn't seem like that 1000$ gets you 800 more dollars in quality.

[@stang8913]

Braden Pryor agree. The new costly lens only perform slightly better in the corner of the pics. The center is quite the same to me.

[@pizzablender]

@@stang8913 Sometimes it really shows in this review. But with most complaints about the 55-210, depth of field is the issue. 200 meters is not infinity with a long zoom.

[@ArthurR]

The difference in corner sharpness is significant, especially considering the shots were at F8. That being said, with the 70-350 you are getting an additional 140mm in telephoto zoom, way better build, silent linear (fast) autofocus motors, better lens coatings and elements, etc. If you held both in your hand, you'd feel a significant difference. The 55-210 feels very cheap in comparison. If you use a telephoto often, the 70-350 is unquestionably worth it. And Ive found most sony lenses hold their value well, so you can use it for several years and sell it later on for an insignificant loss.

[@ThePrybra07]

@@ArthurR you should think about doing a magnifier review. True about the extra focal length. I recently picked up a sigma 30mm because of your review

[@AJ-em2rb]

From what I've read elsewhere, it's when you use different apertures. The 70-350 allegedly has consistent sharpness from f4.5 all the way to f16 whereas the 55-210 (which I own) is soft at f4.5 and gets sharper the closer you get to f8 (at 55mm) or f11 (at 210mm), and stopping it further down gets softer again but with harsher grain.

[@FreeLensImage]

I have a 55-210. And i have to say its a suprisingly good lens. Its very good in portraits and some bigger animals. It can give you very very sharp images. Realy good images but it works very well on short distances. So in you are about 5-10 meters from subiect. You can sometines get a premium feeling results. But not always of course. And its sharp especially in the beggining. From 55 to 80-90. Then softer i think. Vut im suprised with some shots which i took with this. ;)

[@leonard1987os]

I completely agree with those who ask why do you shoot at ISO 1000 and high shutter speed? Even for not-moving portraits 1/320 is too fast and not needed. Then, to put both cameras at f8 and ISO 1000 (on an apsc sensor) and compare sharpness does not make too much of a sense. What kind of a difference would you expect to see? Except this, I really appreciate your work and videos, you helped me alot with your advices!

[@mohsin_sait]

I already have the 18-135 for everything else, now just gotta toss away the 55-210 and somehow get the 70-350.

[@ChrisParayno]

F4?

[@mohsin_sait]

@@ChrisParayno 18-105 is F4.

[@osverduzco]

I got it with Amazon prime, 18 months no interest so I don't feel that bad getting it. I am also getting the A6100 body just so I can use it with the silent shutter. The a6000 is just too loud and once my wife tried the silent shutter on our new a6400, she could not stand the shutter sound of the A6000 or even the A5100, which is relatively quieter.

[@dsb19]

Thanks for the review. I can see you have compared both lens set ~200mm. However, It would nice to see a comparison of Images (preferably portrait) at extreme lengths on each lens ... framed such that the Pic is nearly captured similar (you will need to go walk further away from subject and by trial, such that it matches to 200mm picture captured - I'm Sorry, if I am asking you too much !). This gives an idea of comparable sharpness of each lens at its extreme focal length, say at F8 :)

[@davidteer80]

0:12 was there a pot of gold at the end of that 🌈???

[@prashantgaikwad2180]

Thats a flaw of the sigma 56 f 1.4 lens when used without the lens hood

[@Nilakantahandique]

Thank you Brother. I confuse which lens I will Buy. But I think both lens is almost same lens . 210 lence price is lower than 350 . But working is almost same.

[@homoanalyticus]

Yesterday I saw in Amazon the 70-350 at 600 euros and I didn't hesitate, but after watching the review I am doubting with the 55-210 at 199 euros brand new as it is still priced today in black friday's week. I can only think of taking profit of the longer length once a year in nature to shot a bird or a top of a mountain. You described very well at the end for which kind of user is each lens. Thank you for the video

[@DanyPrasadTK]

from India , subscribed ur channel.. bcoz ur video clarity, quality , content.. its Lit.. thanks 4 the complete detail abt sony mirrorless APS-c details :)

[@jenesuispasbavard]

I'm using a third option - the A-mount Sony DT 55-300 mm F4.5-5.6 SAM lens, with an LA-EA1 adapter on the a6400. Works pretty well autofocusing at the far end (near to far takes a second), and cost me $250 for the lens + adapter combo that weighs 570g. Pretty sharp alternative to the 55-210mm.

[@lmball]

jenesuispasbavard really? I’ve got this combo(but LA-EA2) but rarely use it because of the AF speed and hunting quite a lot.

[@jenesuispasbavard]

@@lmball Yeah LA-EA2 is *very* different from the LA-EA1. It uses its own 15-point autofocus system, and completely bypasses the camera's AF.

[@luismoracmyk]

Sigma's 56mm capable of casting the bifrost

[@Coke_Cain4160]

How good is 70-350 for bird photography? I'm using 55-210 currently with sony alpha 6100 which gives okay to decent pictures of birds at a particular distance. The edges are not sharp but atleast I can identity the bird colours and features

[@HeroShotz]

Lol that 55-210 can be had for $100 bucks everyday on ebay and the other one is $1000 it should blow the cheap one out the water but it doesn't i dont think.

[@liuby33]

Technically that's not how most things work. It's always like the $100 gets 90% job done but to achieve the other 10% you have to shovel another $900. It's always like that.

[@trym2121]

@@liuby33 or you can be Photoshop wizard to get the 10% done or even 90% done.

[@mytube2013]

350mm vs 210mm alone makes huge difference

[@lcmlcm2460]

Another nice comparison. Thank you

[@HensleyDesign]

awesome video my friend! very informative! now i was wondering if you’ve ever used the sony 70-200mm f4 lens. if so, how would say it compares to the sony 70-350 lens? would it be worth the extra $500? look forward to your response. thanks 🙏🏻

[@RickMentore]

Fantastic review! I prefer your "real world" reviews to an "in studio" analysis. Can you say if any of these lenses be used with the Sony teleconverters?

[@musicmaestro88]

Are you shooting a program mode or ap pri?? ISO 1000 is an odd choice with the light I see here.

[@tanghe05]

Hey Arthur, quick question: what's the name of the photo comparison software you use? Love the videos! 👍

[@RaoBlackWellizedArman]

Robbe Tanghe Lightroom I think

[@ArthurR]

Adobe Lightroom

[@thebacons5943]

Trying to get solid footage for a high school football game, but I’m not a pro videographer. Which of these is the best purchase for me? Is the much bigger price worth it for me? (I can afford it but would prefer to save if there’s no big difference)

[@nickgrushetsky4625]

Also, you can buy canon ef-s 55-250mm f/4-5.6 is stm which is significantly better than the sel55210 and use it through the ef-nex adapter

[@StaffViet2009]

Af suffering...so nope

[@ModulatorUK]

Nice video. I would like to get a zoom lens for my Sony A6000. I'm shooting concerts in small venues mainly. Would you recommend the 55-210? To work in bigger events like arena shows to get photos from the Photo pit? Thank you.

[@jollen123]

Great comparison always top quality content from you! I wish however that you would also compare the lenses at maximum focal length, 210 at 210 vs 350 at 350. I own the 210 and would like to know what the difference in focal length would feel like and also how much more detail I would get with the extra zoom if I upgraded.

[@Zuzzanna]

That's what I would like to know also, maybe the 70-350 is soft on the corners at 350. I have the 55-210 and for me, that's just fine. If I should pay three times the amount, I would expect a better result, than what I have seen here.

[@dirgamuhammad1142]

I would like to see a comparison between the Sony 70-350 vs Sony 18-105mm

[@osverduzco]

I used the 18-105 that I borrowed from a friend and I hated the results I was getting compared to the 18-135. I have not compared it to the 70-350 though.

[@robbeard6929]

It would be interesting to set the micro focusing up inside the the camera for the 55-210

[@KevinZJR]

Considering the weight, the 55-210mm is a much better lens. Hope that Sony will upgrade it soon.

[@agoodjoe6910]

In the UK, the 55-210mm is £185, and the 70-350mm is £830. the 55-210mm has a much better value proposition.

[@adrianking6309]

You can get the 70-350mm for £669 from online in uk 👍

[@ahmedyadam7240]

While almost comments are about sharpness, zoom power! Did you keep up with the man of this tutorial talking about the color contrast or shift due to the lens differences even in the same brand It's not the Algorithmic equation of color interpretation between brands that we all talk about!! But here's also the effect of the lens mounted on your Camera body as well!! This type of knowledge we know after we buy, try , get confused then we figure it out!! Thanks a lot

[@garysunderland8433]

another fantastic video :D

[@cluser212]

What about comparisons fully zoomed? I take a lot of birds with the 55-210, and want to know how the 75-350 does with this. Very disappointing.

[@CraigAllen-y3p]

Can you compare the Sony 55-210 with the new Sony 70-200 F4?

[@alexnelson8]

The review I have been waiting for!!! Now I just need more money.

[@TreyyDaMenaceFan]

How about compared to the FE 70-300, im using this on my a6300

[@AJ-em2rb]

What lens would you recommend for indoor college sports on the a6400? It basically requires low-light telephoto, so am I stuck saving my pennies until I can afford the 70-200 f2.8?

[@RaoBlackWellizedArman]

AJ Fast telephoto would be really expensive... I mean come on, 70-200, f2.8??? 2000 bucks? 😐

[@PhobiaSoft]

I think the 55-210 is definitely sufficient for that task. I only paid $110 for my copy so I wasn't expecting much, but I find myself reaching for it as much as my Sigma 16!

[@dudeiusmannigast1543]

I'm going to match the the tamron 17-70mm f2.8 with this Sony zoom for my future travels 😄😄

[@adrianking6309]

All you need is the 18-105 F4, the 70-350 and some smaller prime lenses like the 35mm 👍

[@TheJochenstyle]

16-55 + 70-350 + 35 f1.8 is a nice combo

[@3000KTM]

if you wanted to zoom in on a person at 80 metres ...say a surfer while standing on the beach . is 210mm enough zoom ? or would you say you need more ?

[@saifaldin_]

I’d reckon you would need more. At that distance, 210mm would get an okay overall view, but I think the extra reach would provide more options in framing the shots. The main concern however, is more to focusing speed and tracking accuracy. I don’t think that 55-210 is good enough for action shots. You might get properly focused shots sometimes, bur not at the rate the 70-350 will give you (depending on the camera body too, of course).

[@3000KTM]

@@saifaldin_ thank you 🤙

[@saifaldin_]

@@3000KTM 👌 I’m using an A6400 with the 70-350 g. You can track a face 100 metres away with this setup.

[@pf4773]

Wonderful, helpful video for enthusiasts! I have the Sony A6600 camera. I have traveled for years with the A6000 and loved the 55-210 lens (as an enthusiast). After seeing how much longer and heavier is this 70-350 lens I appreciate the small size and incredible price of the 55-210 even more. That said I love zoom lenses and know I would use the massively longer reach of this new 70-350-almost 2x my old 55-210. Arthur, have you tried the Sigma ? to 400 lens with an adapter for the emount camera? I believe that lens is much cheaper than this sony lens. Thanks!

[@speakerscoach]

The Volume of Value on the 55-210mm is miles ahead. The price is $700 cheaper - and you get a comparable picture that is half the weight.and less bulky. A No brainer to choose which is the smarter option.

[@saifaldin_]

It depends on what you intend to use it for. If you need fast & accurate AF tracking, and want the extra sharpness (needing to crop, for example); the 70-350 will be better. If you just need a tele lens for sceneries, slow moving/ non moving subjects, then the 55-210 should suffice.

[@tristanrujano]

I sold my 55-210 a while back and absolutely regret it. I didn't need to sell it and I kept it in pristine condition. I will get another one day but it's sad I won't have my original one

[@SkymenKing]

Could you help to compare the following in the Sony APSC camera? 1) Sony E 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS 2) Sigma 100-400mm F5-6.3 DG DN OS 3) Tamron 70-300mm F/4.5-6.3 Di III 4) Sony FE 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 G OSS I am thinking of Buying (2) instead of (1), full frame with similar price... Although (3) half the price, I am worrying about (3) do not have stabilizer as I am having A6000. Great if there is some photo comparison.

[@Goldies24]

Very nice comparison. At around $800 for the 70-350 on the used market, as compared to $150 for the 55-210 which is a win for the budget-minded consumer. Can you review more budget-friendly mid-level telephoto lenses for distance wildlife ? e.g. Tamron, Sigma 150-600mm, etc. Does adding the MC-11 adapter introduce distortion vs a native lens ? ...After all, Sigma's designation for high-quality lenses is "Art", Arthur.

[@iandownes3130]

Would this be a decent beginners bird photography lens?

[@user-zj3zj9wn2v]

yes! very well..

[@flajflaj]

70-350 OMG I love this lens. It's almost perfect. Almost, cause I really miss AF limiter switch on the side (0-3m/3m-inf. etc.). Still, It's my favourite lens.

[@yeehaw142]

the 70-350mm is great but the price difference is huge and definitely much bigger than the difference in quality

[@CarstenBruhn]

I dont get that you use insane high ISO for these sharpness comparisons.

[@martin-4323]

I own the 70-200 F4. But I think the extra 150mm would be nice. Especially for some "wildlife" shots. Would the change be worth it? A comparison would be very interesting. Why is there no 1.7 ord 2 TC for the 70-200 F4? That would solve the problem. btw: great channel! First address for APSC information. Greetings from Germany, stay healthy!

[@romsku864]

Hey Arthur. I really like your videos and I really appreciate your work. But why do you shoot at ISO 1000 during the day? I know, that f8 is a small aperture and the picture needs to be properly exposed. But why shooting a building at 1/1250? 1/160 would be totally fine...

[@osverduzco]

Actually, I appreciate that he shoots with high iso because it gives me a better idea of what to expect when I shoot with high ISO and hight SS in low light, which is what I usually shoot.

[@NewMediaPampanga]

I can live with the 55-210mm :) Good video

[@WhiskeyjackZA]

I own the 55-210mm. Love it for it size and price / quality ratio. This video confirms it. BUT doing and having a lot of wildlife here in South Africa for subjects means I need and often wish for something longer. This video however is making me wonder if I should not keep the 55-210mm (instead of trade-in) and get the 70-350mm...How much more of a hassle is the 70-350mm to carry around?

[@saifaldin_]

It’s okay to carry around (still fairly light for a zoom) but you do feel the weight while waiting for the shots. For example when shooting birds, and having to hold it up to your face for long durations.

[@nicolais86]

Thanks for this video

[@robt4194]

May I ask: I have the 55-210 (49 dia) it works well with Sony VCL-DH1758 1.7x Tele Conversion Lens (58 dia) with a 49-58 step-up ring. Will the 70-350 (67 dia) accept the mount of the 1.7x tele with a 67-58mm step down ring ?

[@gordonyz4]

Not as impressive as 16-55 G. 55-210 is sharp in the center, and that's good enough for non landscape uses.

[@trym2121]

Cheap birding lens. 1655G should be paired with Tamron 70-180 2.8.

[@theizza68]

Any reason why they're shot in 16:9? You're cropping some of the corners by shooting that way and for a test, they should be there.

[@theizza68]

@@prashantgaikwad2180 I was talking about the test photos.

[@kian8382]

Hi Arthur, any chance you can do a side by side comparison to see if adapted lenses like the 18-35 focuses faster on a6400/6600 than on the last gen bodies? All I can find is how "smooth" it is shooting video on last gen bodies. Thank you.

[@tarokun5532]

I have a 70350lens too, I think high resolution lens. Thank you , your nice movies.

[@jdw715]

Do 70-350mms vs FE 70-200/300mm

[@AndrewJones-tj6et]

I would've liked to have a focus limit switch on this new lens as it can struggle to focus on my a6000 in some lower light situations when zoomed in. I have to zoom back to 70mm in order for it to acquire focus. It's otherwise a fantastic lens and I am enjoying using it. Maybe the auto focus works better on the newer a6xxx bodies.

[@osverduzco]

I have both the 70-350 lens and the a6000 but have not tried it on my a6000, only on my a6400. Maybe I will try it to see how it compares.

[@dakzer55]

Isn't the 70-350 a full frame lens. The 55-210mm is an apsc lens, so explains the corner softness of the apsc lens. Only using the centre of the lens of the 70-350mm lens. My money is on the 55-210mm for use on an apsc camera which you are using to demo these lenses.

[@saifaldin_]

The 70-350 is not a FF lens, it’s designed for apsc. The one for FF (and looks very similar) is the Sony 70-300.

[@fatfreddyscoat7564]

I have the 70-210 because the cost of the 70-350 is just crazily more expensive and, to me, it’s just not justifiable.

[@GilbertTV]

i love my 55-210 .. its really good & so so cheap ..

[@user-zj3zj9wn2v]

good!

[@AsianImmersion]

Thanks bro

[@galenyeo46]

The 55 - 210 mm looks a lot better than I recall when I used it years ago...

[@saifaldin_]

Sample variations.. Some copies are decent, while others are simply atrocious.

[@realworld1626]

Which Lens will do more background Blur Sony 50mm f1.8 Sony 55-210mm f6.3

[@saifaldin_]

The zoom will have more blur (at the long end) It’s easy to calculate. Divide the focal length by the f-number, and you’ll get the iris opening. The bigger the iris opening, the shallower DOF you’ll get. But in real lIfe shooting, you have to consider the size of your subject & your distance. For example, say you’re shooting a half body portrait of a person with the 50mm prime. From the same distance, you can get a blurrier background using the zoom at 210mm, but you’ll probably only get the eyes in your photo. 😅

[@harri_photo5875]

They're both great lenses😃 sony👏👏👏

[@GregBrecker]

For $900 versus $200 I would have thought the differences would be more pronounced. I don’t think I could justify the price for that Sony lens, especially just for APSC. I would go with a full frame lens, or Sigma, Tamron equivalent.

[@xTheITx]

I think where this lense really shines is in its portability - it's not the best lense all round, but having 350mm in such a small and relatively light package (half the weight of a full frame equivalent lense) makes this great for traveling if you have the budget

[@matteosivilotti9800]

Hey Arthur! Does a lens with OSS (on a crop sensor) change the shutter speed 1.5 x focal length "rule" for less handshake?

[@AJ-em2rb]

Depends on personal preference. Typically people who use the reciprocal rule (1/200 shutter at 200mm full frame) will use 1/1.5x or even 1/2x shutter speed (1/300 shutter at 200mm or 1/400 at 200mm). OSS helps to a point, but it really depends on the person and how much hand shake they personally have and how sharp of an image they want.

[@TechnoBabble]

Totally depends on the shot and the person. I've shot with the 70-350 at 1/100 for wildlife.

[@stefpix]

I have not used the 55-210 in a long time. From this comparison it seems decent, as long as subject is in the center, which is often the case while using such a zoom. The 70-350 is not worth the price difference, especially not offering an aperture advantage. That money could be better spent for a RX10M4, also expensive, but maybe better for safaris and sports. One lens I’d consider is the Tamron 70-180 f 2.8, out in the spring. I bought the Sony rx100 vii. Very expensive, but sufficient for most of my telephoto requirements.

[@TyJen73]

70-180 is more the range I was wanting to look into but options are so big. Really great suggestion at likely a close 40% lighter than what a Sony 70-200 2.8 is if I think of my G2 version beside Nikons native version for weight. I will not miss 20mm in the long end with an aps-c... thanks

[@stefpix]

@@TyJen73 180 mm on apsc Is so close to 300mm equivalent. With constant f/2.8 you can use lower iso and do some cropping. Also good for indoor sports and events. The 70-350 is not enticing me. I imagine for someone who goes at a safari or Yellowstone could be good for. But 55-210 is not that bad in the center.

[@rubbrdux]

@@stefpix Don't forget about the 18-105pz for apsc. It's constant F4, great for video with power zoom and, with Clear Image turned on, boosts out to about 150mm or so. Covers alot of range for not alot of money (about $600 new and less used) and is very nice in sharpness.

[@stefpix]

@@rubbrdux thanks. It is not very wide. I have the 16-70. It is not bad. For sure id prefer the internal zoom mechanism for a pricyblens like the 16-55. I just got the rx100 m7 . I may default with that as a daily shooter. But I was wondering if the 16-55 could be a good option for jobs. I keep 2 primes on 2 bodies, but then it's more card reader juggling, more dust / lens changing. I hope Sigma or Tamron come up with an alternative. I am selling the Sigma 16-35. Great lens. But too heavy and unbalanced and too much focus hunting on faces at events

[@rubbrdux]

@@stefpix Try out the Sigma 16mm prime. It works well and fairly inexpensive...as well as fast. (1.8f).

[@BaronHerezus]

I bought 55-210 cause for 600euro difference you should expect more of the gap between two so i think if you are beginner go for cheaper. If you are more advanced or wanna go pro with some birding or whatnot you will buy something even more expensive like 60-600 or 200-600 anyways i guess.

[@notzuhriashraaf4912]

Nice comparison and I love the way you explain😂 I've been using my α6000 since 2015 with its kit lens and still okay for me. But I really wish I have the money to buy new lenses maybe one of these in your video

[@rubbrdux]

If you do purchase, try out an 18-105pz first. You can buy used at B&H or KEH very reasonably and new for less than $600. With Clear Image turned on in the camera, you'll get out to about 140-150mm with it and a constant F4 . Try before you buy via a rental. It's a great 2nd lens for the 6000, 6300,6400,6500 and 6600.

[@osverduzco]

@@rubbrdux I recommend the 18-135. Best all around lens you can get for the Sony a6XXX.

[@rubbrdux]

@@osverduzco I'm sure that one is good as well. Either one is a great addition over and above the kit lens.

[@MaryJCrisp]

Can you recommend a tripod for the s6500 with the 70-350mm lens, say for birding or for night sky images?

[@user-zj3zj9wn2v]

멘프로토가 좋아!

[@Kidsonss]

Appreciate you were doing side by side but did you shoot any photos at 300 - 350mm ??

[@penguin_edits]

Lol ikr

[@aklivn49]

Yeah if you go to Best Buy at the right time. I picked up the Sony 55-210mm on sale about a month ago for $150.00! No complains. But sorry, this video was kinda a flop. I mean, $1000.00 dollar lens vs a $250.00 dollar lens??? And it’s a “G” lens on top of that.