My Sony kit 55-210mm kit lens on my A6000 has been making a grinding motor noise for some months. My options appear to be:Ideally, I would like to land in the 400mm range, but options there are getting pricey.The Tamron 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III RXD caught my attention, at $500, but reviews are mixed, and in general can be summed as OK/Good for the money but results past 200mm are not great.What are experiences with this lens? Am I missing another option?

Sony 70-350 is a very good APS-C lens. It has received strong reviews from numerous lens review sites. I own one, and its only limitation is that it covers APS-C only, and not FF. If you plan to eventually buy a FF body, the Tamron 70-300 might make more sense, or other FF lenses that reach 400, 500, or 600 mm. Of course they will be larger and heavier.

The Tamron 70-300 is great if you have a camera with IBS, but since your camera doesn't you would have no image stabilization with that combo.  300 can be shot without stabilization, as we did in the old days, but it is a consideration.  If you don't plan on moving to a FF body you might just replace your current lens.  Another option is to check out used lenses with stabilization.

Try a 70-350, used for less, in good condition. Images come out good. Like in the other reply, I have one too. The only regret I have is that sometimes 350 is not long enough. But, I don't want to go heavier and more expensive. Once in a while I can use a tele converter, Sony 1.7x that I have. I didn't try it yet. 350 is also small enough for travel.

Definitely the 70-350G. Sharp, stabilized, good reach, reasonably compact

Thx, I don’t plan right now to go to a FF body, I am happy with the APS-C format. Mainly I like the size of the Sony A6000. Sony lens prices, what few I have looked at, have chased me away, but I will look at their 70-300.

dkeller wrote:The Tamron 70-300 is great if you have a camera with IBS, but since your camera doesn't you would have no image stabilization with that combo. 300 can be shot without stabilization, as we did in the old days, but it is a consideration. If you don't plan on moving to a FF body you might just replace your current lens. Another option is to check out used lenses with stabilization.Yeah, stabilization would be nice, but not critical for the use I have in mind. My days of low-light shooting a 500 cat lens at 1/4 sec are behind me. And I know the price point means limitations.

piticoto wrote:Try a 70-350, used for less, in good condition. Images come out good. Like in the other reply, I have one too. The only regret I have is that sometimes 350 is not long enough. But, I don't want to go heavier and more expensive. Once in a while I can use a tele converter, Sony 1.7x that I have. I didn't try it yet. 350 is also small enough for travel.Are you referring to a Sony 70-350?I had been looking at the Tamron and Sigma zooms to 400 and 500 but thinking now the size would be awkward in an EDC type use, and THAT range should call for a fixed focal length lens not a zoom.The 70-210 Sony kit lens is OK, but I really want more out of it. A compact 300-400 would be great, but size and prices I have seen arent promising.what is a good reputable used source? Ebay? Is there something better? I certainly would look hard at a decent used lens.

Canon2018 wrote:Definitely the 70-350G. Sharp, stabilized, good reach, reasonably compactIs this the Sony lens or another?

Pier23 wrote:Thx, I don’t plan right now to go to a FF body, I am happy with the APS-C format. Mainly I like the size of the Sony A6000. Sony lens prices, what few I have looked at, have chased me away, but I will look at their 70-300.Sony makes a FF 70-300 lens - it is not the lens myself and others are recommending. We are recommending the APS-C Sony 70-350.

Pier23 wrote:piticoto wrote:Try a 70-350, used for less, in good condition. Images come out good. Like in the other reply, I have one too. The only regret I have is that sometimes 350 is not long enough. But, I don't want to go heavier and more expensive. Once in a while I can use a tele converter, Sony 1.7x that I have. I didn't try it yet. 350 is also small enough for travel.Are you referring to a Sony 70-350?I had been looking at the Tamron and Sigma zooms to 400 and 500 but thinking now the size would be awkward in an EDC type use, and THAT range should call for a fixed focal length lens not a zoom.The 70-210 Sony kit lens is OK, but I really want more out of it. A compact 300-400 would be great, but size and prices I have seen arent promising.what is a good reputable used source? Ebay? Is there something better? I certainly would look hard at a decent used lens.Yes, Sony 70-350. Use a Google search to compare side by side to the Sigma or Tamron lenses. I got 18-135 Sony lens for every day, then 70-350 and I don't want to use 55-210. Yes, there is a price difference. I bought lenses on eBay and they were OK. B&H and other stores sell used in good condition lenses.

CaliforniaDave wrote:Pier23 wrote:Thx, I don’t plan right now to go to a FF body, I am happy with the APS-C format. Mainly I like the size of the Sony A6000. Sony lens prices, what few I have looked at, have chased me away, but I will look at their 70-300.Sony makes a FF 70-300 lens - it is not the lens myself and others are recommending. We are recommending the APS-C Sony 70-350.Thanks for the clarification!

Thanks, all. OK, I am convinced, the Sony 70-350 is the way to go. Avoiding one place offering it for $209…NFNebraska…and it looks like eBay has some lenses to consider, but I have only bought one thing from rBay and that was for $20….Not sure the kit 55-210 is worth trying to salvage, maybe Sony will take pity and offer to refurb for $50. Dreams don’t cost anything!

Thanks, all. OK, I am convinced, the Sony 70-350 is the way to go. Avoiding one place offering it for $209…NFNebraska…and it looks like eBay has some lenses to consider, but I have only bought one thing from rBay and that was for $20….Not sure the kit 55-210 is worth trying to salvage, maybe Sony will take pity and offer to refurb for $50. Dreams don’t cost anything!Even if Sony offers that, use it until you get better lens. Don't loose time taking pictures with 55-210, you'll see why after getting a better lens.

We are talking about a 300mm lens on a crop sensor camera giving 450 mm equivalent.  The advantage of stabilization would not be limited to low light shooting with this combination.  Just something to consider, but I remember all my blurred pictures with my 300 mm back in the film days before stabilization--and that was with full frame, not 450 equivalence.

Check KEH.com.  They have very good, reliable service and specialize in used equipment.  B&H and Adorama are also very reliable but have less of a used selection.

This is from my Tamron 70-300 on my 6100.  I accidently had my ISO at 1000, so disregard that.  I like the Tamron, especially at its price (I could not afford the Sony 70-350).

dkeller wrote:Check KEH.com. They have very good, reliable service and specialize in used equipment. B&H and Adorama are also very reliable but have less of a used selection.Also check MPB.com. I have sold numerous cameras and lenses to them and they have always treated me fairly. They sell used gear, and I would not hesitate to buy from them.

piticoto wrote:Thanks, all. OK, I am convinced, the Sony 70-350 is the way to go. Avoiding one place offering it for $209…NFNebraska…and it looks like eBay has some lenses to consider, but I have only bought one thing from rBay and that was for $20….Not sure the kit 55-210 is worth trying to salvage, maybe Sony will take pity and offer to refurb for $50. Dreams don’t cost anything!Even if Sony offers that, use it until you get better lens. Don't loose time taking pictures with 55-210, you'll see why after getting a better lens.I have been dragging my heels - yeah, the kit lens aint great, but it mostly worked. When I bolt on my Nikon manual lenses, the quality difference really shows. I agree with everything you say, but inertia is a powerful force.

dkeller wrote:We are talking about a 300mm lens on a crop sensor camera giving 450 mm equivalent. The advantage of stabilization would not be limited to low light shooting with this combination. Just something to consider, but I remember all my blurred pictures with my 300 mm back in the film days before stabilization--and that was with full frame, not 450 equivalence.Well, that whole “equivalence” thing is ridiculous, an APS-C chip doesnt magically give us a 30 percent longer lens. And the shutter kick on a 6000 is non-existent compared to a film camera…PLUS…. I cheat and crank up the ISO. BUT, I am at the point where my ability to handhold reliably a 1/4 sec exposure is gone…then again, Im not shooting ten rolls of film a day either back when, so yeah, stabilization will be nice.