DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

SteveR Loc: Michigan

15 pages into this thread I can only contribute my experience. I bought a D7500 for my daughter and a Tamron 100-400mm lens. Compared to the Nikon 80-400 it was tremendously lighter, 1/2 the price and does an very good job. Combined with the light-weight D7500, it's the perfect combination for my daughter to shoot outdoor sports like soccer.

Photocraig

OEM lens pricig






is extraordinary high. I have, literally, a mixed bag. My Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro performs as well as the legendary Canon 105mm, at 2/3rds the price. I've owned it since 1996, I think. My Sigma 17-70 outperforms all of the Canon zooms in its class (non 'L"). It is a f2.8-f4, it is stabilized and close focus. It costs less than the hidden gem EF_S 15-85 which I tried really hard to convince myself to buy at $300+ more.

The Sigma delivers very sharp photos across the spectrum, and at 70mm f4, delivers excellent portraits on my EOS 50D and 77D. Especially for the APS-C based cameras, Canon has failed to deliver an "Advance Enthusiast" set of lenses for the APS-C and their lower priced Full Frame cameras either. The Sigma and Tamron lenses fill that slot between the EF and EF-S lenses and the Troposphere priced "L" line. I can't speak for Nikon, but pricing Sony and Fuji OEM lenses yield similar conclusions.

For the good photographer, on an even generous budget, these lenses fill a middle ground of better than the kit lenses, and better priced for lower spec'd mid range prices. Those who don't seek to shoot the extremes (I'm no longer weatherproofed, either) of environment nor low light, these lenses provide a bigger performance step up than the OEM lenses do for a much better price.

THAT'S why I buy some non OEM lenses in addition to my OEM standby's.
C

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

You are correct.

Bigmike1 Loc: I am from Gaffney, S.C. but live in Utah.

Who the hell cares? I don't buy them except when I can find them used at the thrift store. I have a Canon EF 18 to 135 mm zoom, f3.5-5.6 with a UV filter on it that I found in the thrift store attached to a Canon Elan IIe for $40.00. I looked the lens up and found it was worth over $350.00. I am using it on a Canon 10D and am very pleased with it. Then I have a Canon EF 75-300mm that I found for $20.00. I would not buy either lens new. I am very pleased with both lenses. I also have a Nikon D100 that I got from KEH and I bought a Sigma18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC zoom for that camera. I am quite pleased with that lens. No, I can't see throwing money away for expensive Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Swedish or German lenses. My cameras aren't the latest model with the highest pixel rating but they function well for what I need them for. If you can afford them, More power to you.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The 75-300 is one of the most mediocre lenses that Canon makes and the 10D is an ancient camera with very limited functionality compared to a modern camera, but since they meet your requirements that's all that counts. However, most of us expect better results from our gear and are willing to spend the money to get it. If you can't afford it, then you just have to do the best you can.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I got one of those 75-300 lenses to go with my EOS Elan in 1995; I haven’t used it recently, but being a “poor Canon lens” doesn’t necessarily make it a “bad lens”.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Not very helpful and wayyyyyyy off topic.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

You are correct. It just makes it a mediocre one.

Bigmike1 Loc: I am from Gaffney, S.C. but live in Utah.

I realize that my cameras are ancient but then, I don't have the money to throw around for the latest and most expensive equipment. More power to you, who can afford it. I am not selling photos and I am not shooting for a magazine nor am I competing for prize money in a contest. My photos are for my enjoyment and that of those I share them with. Therefore it isn't really necessary that I have the latest equipment or the most expensive.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Canon had a 150-600mm for a very long time and it was a good performer - it was an L lens with a fixed '5.6 (FD mount at about 25 hundred bucks)!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I am retired and I appreciate that new cameras and lenses can be quite expensive and out of my reach. However, for me, wanting to capture high quality images is less about whether I'm selling images, or competing for prize money than it is about setting a high standard for the images I create. While it is mostly about understanding composition and light, good quality lenses allow me to better achieve my goals.

That means using lenses that are very sharp in the center, and sharp across the image from edge to edge, with low levels of barrel and pincushion distortion, low levels of vignetting and low levels of chromatic aberration. Software can compensate to varying degrees for these distortions, but it is always better to start off with a minimum of issues needing correction.

We all have different expectations from our photography. For you, the path you've taken is probably the right one.

Bigmike1 Loc: I am from Gaffney, S.C. but live in Utah.

Thanks. I knew you’d see it my way. I may upgrade somewhat later on. I don’t have thousands of dollars to play around with. I have other priorities that take precedence.