i'm wanting a new camera.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

To all those posting examples: I wont deny that it *can* produce good images, especially at web sizes, but as far as a lens to fulfill the 70-300 range, there are significantly better options.

...at $160?

That's the point we're all making. That yes, there are better (more expensive) options, but that if you can't afford anything better, it's still a usable lens. I thought I was pretty dang clear in laying out the lens's shortcomings.

The problem is that most boards/review sites assume that what you want is the best image quality/features at any cost--that you're not willing to compromise on image quality just to keep from digging deeper into your pocketbook. This isn't always the case. If you're not a Leica-toting doctor/dentist or a pro who can write the stuff off on your taxes, you may have to budget quite differently than if you are.

[m.c.adams]

Originally Posted by inkista

...at $160?

That's the point we're all making. That yes, there are better (more expensive) options, but that if you can't afford anything better, it's still a usable lens. I thought I was pretty dang clear in laying out the lens's shortcomings.

The problem is that most boards/review sites assume that what you want is the best image quality/features at any cost--that you're not willing to compromise on image quality just to keep from digging deeper into your pocketbook. This isn't always the case. If you're not a Leica-toting doctor/dentist or a pro who can write the stuff off on your taxes, you may have to budget quite differently than if you are.

$160!! Hell, I paid $105 for mine brand new on ebay.

[cameralovern]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Dont worry about it: The 75-300 is rubbish.

Check out the killer new canon powershot ds100is. This blog has some great pictures of it.