Longer lens for Sony A6400: I have the above camera with kit lens (16-50 mm ). I bought the camera for live view and lightness compared to Nikon D 300 I have reviewed my photos and I...

iamimdoc

I have the above camera with kit lens (16-50 mm ). I bought the camera for live view and lightness compared to Nikon D 300

I have reviewed my photos and I take a lot at 130-200 mm with my current Nikon 18-200

Would like some longer reach. Sony 18-105 and 18-135 not really enough reach for what I like to do

Would those with experience comment on the 55-200 and 18-200 Sony lenses or any other appropriate choice for me: non professional, competent amateur, rarely print and if so usually 8x10. Most pics will end up on a computer but some on a digital picture frame. Some pics end up in magazines occasionally

Goal is light and simple with reasonable quality with ability to use all Sony functions.
Thanks

cdayton

I have an A6000 and bought the Sony 55-210 F4.5-6.3 E mount for under $200 refurbished. Wouldn’t be wonderful in low light but is a good complement to the pancake lens that came with the camera. I too moved from a D300 for lightness but I prefer my D5200 - never really mastered the Sony menu system so my wife uses it in P mode.

Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida

I have the a6300 and recently added the 55-200 in spite of seeing several unflattering tech reviews. Reviewing the actual photos I am pleasantly surprised with the quality. Not much price point middle ground with the longer SONY lenses. I am satisfied with the 55-250. With lenses that may have quality issues it is important to me to buy from a dealer where I can return it if the image quality is not up to snuff. Keep in mind that manufacturing tolerances allow for varying degrees of performance randomly.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

iamimdoc wrote:

I have the above camera with kit lens (16-50 mm ).... (show quote)

Whatever lens you use, understand that you could use Clear Image Zoom to extend your reach to 2X if needed - but you must be shooting JPEG and enabling the CIZ is a little tricky - buried DEEP in the menu "system". I believe Sony makes an XX-240mm lens.
.

jaredjacobson

iamimdoc wrote:

I have the above camera with kit lens (16-50 mm ).... (show quote)

I bought the 55-200 in a kit with my A6000. It's a fine lens for many purposes, though it definitely hunts for focus in low light. The color rendition is fine. The contrast is fine. Neither will knock your socks off. It requires a bit more post-processing than my professional-quality lenses. It is light and reasonably small for the focal length, so it's really nice to carry when hiking. There's no lock on the zoom, so if it's pointed down while walking it will creep to full extension. It's inexpensive, which is a major bonus.

The stabilization helps on an unstabilized body, though my results have been better since stepping up to an A6500. 200mm is a little short for some of what I want to do, so I will upgrade eventually, but for now this lens meets the need.

repleo Loc: Boston

iamimdoc wrote:

I have the above camera with kit lens (16-50 mm ).... (show quote)

I had the 55-200 for my A6000. It makes a perfect compliment to the 16-55 and was often included in a package with the A6000. If you are satisfied with the quality of the 16-55 you will be fine with the 55-200. It is light and compact. Only drawback is the f6.3 aperture at 200mm and I never liked the 55mm split. I rarely used either lens once once I got the 18-105mm
If you are prepared carry more weight (compensated for by a lighter wallet) try the FE 70-200mm F4.0 G or the FE 70-300mm

jaredjacobson

jaredjacobson wrote:

I bought the 55-200 in a kit with my A6000. It's ... (show quote)

Sorry -- when I read this, I thought you meant the 55-210mm, which is the one I have. Did you really mean the 55-200 f/4-5.6? I can't speak to that one. But the 55-200mm is A-mount, which would require an adapter.

jaredjacobson

jaredjacobson wrote:

Sorry -- when I read this, I thought you meant the 55-210mm, which is the one I have. Did you really mean the 55-200 f/4-5.6? I can't speak to that one. But the 55-200mm is A-mount, which would require an adapter.

Here are a few with the 55-210mm.

(Download)

repleo Loc: Boston

jaredjacobson wrote:

Sorry -- when I read this, I thought you meant the 55-210mm, which is the one I have. Did you really mean the 55-200 f/4-5.6? I can't speak to that one. But the 55-200mm is A-mount, which would require an adapter.

Good catch. I meant the 55-210 in my response above

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

imagemeister wrote:

Whatever lens you use, understand that you could use Clear Image Zoom to extend your reach to 2X if needed - but you must be shooting JPEG and enabling the CIZ is a little tricky - buried DEEP in the menu "system". I believe Sony makes an XX-240mm lens.
.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/lenses/24-240mm.htm
.

SHWeiss

I have been happy with the Sony 70-350

SHWeiss

Sony 70-350

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

I have a 55-210 on my a6000, and it works great--no complaints whatsoever.

Carlosu

I own the Sony 24-240 and find that it is a pretty sharp lens. It is a full frame lens, but it works with my a6000. I bought thinking that if I ever shift to a Sony full frame camera, I’ll have a decent lens. It is a bit heavy on the a6000

aginzu

I started with the 55-210 for my a6300 which is small and light weight. Image quality is OK but not great. I added the 70-350 which provides a huge improvement in reach and image quality but is quite a bit more expensive, bigger, and heavier. There is no free lunch.