>>3345497>All lenses from all systems that could possibly be adapted. Yes.So you're suggesting a completely manual lens, or a slow focusing Canon lens, as an alternative to a native AF lens with IS? Just because it might be sharper?
>It is. It's not about getting to 300mm after all.It doesn't even get to 200mm. It literally has half the range of the 55-210mm. That means you need to halve the distance between you and your subject. That means it's not an alternative unless you're only after the 55-210mm for the 55-105mm range, which is just stupid.
>I never did. But they're not a magical bargain land.Because of their age, abundance, and limited amount of users they can be quite a bit cheaper compared to native lenses. At the very top tier the modern lenses are probably going to be better, the trouble is there aren't all that many low end options for E mount and for some use cases there might not be a lower end option at all.
>That it's one of the best lenses for APS-C.Okay. Because you wrote it under the OSS green text I figured it had something to do with that instead.
>And a larger possible aperture increases the optionsSo are you now suggesting that instead of the 55-210mm he get's a 70-200mm f/2.8? Fuck it, the guy might as well go and get an A7R III while he's at it.
>Also, tripods, leaning against something deals with absence of OSS.Not always an option, and when they are they're not always convenient.
>I remember it had a bunch of unreliable focus points in the center that would only almost [as in, it loved to be off by a bit] hit every second time in not very dark / not very bright indoor conditions.Well it uses a mirror so it can be a bit off, AF micro adjust exists for this reason. Mine has been fine though. Low light focusing has also been as good as I'd expect. Here's a photo at f/2/.8 1/125 ISO 25600 so pretty damn dark. I moved the focus point from the text on one battery to the other and it would refocus in less than half a second.
