TS has gone from "Why do people want to pay more for First Party Lenses instead of using 3rd Party Lenses" in his first post to Sigma lenses have almost 100% compatability issues with Canon and Tamron is almost 100% compatible with Nikon....
So not sure where this thread is headed to????
personally i dun think its wrong for you to post what you feel. personally i would prefer main party lens to 3rd party ones due to the colour reproduction ....lol my personal preference...
to be fair.....i think its the way you put it that put others off....i think there's better ways to put yr opinion across rite?
lastly guys....y dun we just move on....think this thread is getting out of hand.....
I think you shoot your mouth away faster than you can think. You have absolutely no freakin' idea what you are blabbering about and you do sound like a 3rd party sales. If it makes you feel better, take a look at the prices Zeiss lenses. By your logic, they will make any Nikkors worth more than their weight in gold.
i got alot of money to blow.
thats why my only lense is an EF 35 F2.
Do read more in this forum, i believe you should acquaint yourself with the various photography techniques, terms and stop reading so much reviews.
Ken rockwell is a goldmine of info if you know how to sift the info.
i would also suggest reviewing your posts in future, and please do not generalize, some people might be happy with the 80% of what a 3rd party can do, but some cant live with it. its personal preference and therefore it cannot be measured.
I TOTALLY disagree with canon AF accuracy. The 17-55 f2.8 compares poorly to all other 3rd party I've used. At low contrast, the other lenses perform much better.
Build wise... They're actually equal.
AF speed... Personally I don't find USM much faster than the other lenses, perhaps marginally faster in some cases.
Contrast mah... I find them the same.
Seriously I'll say that the Canon is only better because it has quieter focusing, and IS.
The extra $$ I paid for the canon lens, is because I think that the IS is very useful for me. YMMV.
FYI, Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS used to sell almost at $3.2k, now due to Canon repricing their gear, new is only $2600.
If you ask me, that's already a 20% loss without counting age of lens.
Look at the 24-105 F4L, if I don't remember wrongly thanks to Canon, earlier adopters lost 20% of the value in just a few months.
I don't appreciate the fact that you just made a sweeping statement about my arguments though-- I clearly wasn't referring to any price drops of sorts. I was talking about the depreciation rate due to usage or due to it being '2nd hand'. If you look at the trends in the CS and POTN BnS forums, what I said holds true.