Concept of professional versus enthusiast photographer is extremely overrated. If one is paid for their photography they are a professional and that is all it means. I have shot wedding photography for a studio but I don't consider myself a professional photographer. Even if one earns all their living from photography doesn't mean they know more than an enthusiast and I'm sure they would me the first to admit it. Remember that most professional photographers specialize and they are very knowledgeable within this specialty and they'd be the ones for advise on that specialty, but an enthusiast in the same specialty would also be knowledgeable and of excellent help. The bottom line is that one can learn from anyone who has more knowledge and experience than one has. The best method IMHO to learn photography is to take a course in photography or Google questions and practice, practice, practice! I've been photographing for over 65 years and I'm still learning and when I stop learning I'll sell my equipment.

I believe you are thinking of the 70-210 f4. It is often referred to as the Beer Can due to it physical size being similar. For a budget lens it can produce some very nice images and I had one until I upgraded to the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. I have since upgraded again to the Minolta 80-200 G f2.8.

The Tamron was better than the beercan and the G series lens has a little bit better build quality and better colors than the Tamron. Only problem with the beercan was some CA and it was slow to focus, both workable but not optimal.

Now nearly ALL of the prime Minolta Legacy AF lenses are very good performers still today.

No apology needed... just maybe a bit of understanding?

It is not always possible to put a camera on a tripod. Nor is there always a convenient tree or fence or car available to lean against. And with advancing age, it now has become utterly impossible to tell my body to stop shaking.
Replaced hips and arthritic knees and hands also make it more difficult to carry and walk around with heavier equipment.
And because there is NO WAY I will give up this hobby, I look for solutions that will help me - one of them is lighter weight equipment.
Another one, because I am not worried about camera shake but about body-, arm- and leg shake, I look for a camera with image stabilization built-in.
So, the "best camera for the job" is the one I can use to get the job done with the limitations I have - I would love to make the physical effort....

In music, one of the litmus tests for "great" music is that every time you listen to it, you hear something new and fresh. Another test is; does it remain interesting over the course of many years or even centuries? I suppose these same criteria translate to great photographs and somehow the rules of composition fit into the equation also. But then, we sometimes call a photograph "great" even when it breaks all the rules of composition. I think of the works of Ansel Adams and other masters and was wondering what some of you UHH'ers feel makes their work (or even some of our own images) worthy of the classification of "great"?