[Kombisaurus]

I just sent through instructions to change my order from the 75-300 f4-5.6 IS USM (and 50mm f1.8 USM) and switch to the 70-200 f4 L USM lens.

I've blown my budget, but I've never heard anybody say "don't buy an L lens, the quality isn't worth it". Mind you, I've heard plenty of people say things along the lines of "DO buy an L lens, you will always appreciate the quality, and soon forget the hole it left in your wallet".

The mixed reports I've heard about the 75-300 IS USM make me think the quality varies a little from copy to copy, but nowhere have I heard that even the best copies equal an L-series lens at any length or aperture. And they are renowned for being very soft in the 200-300 range. The IS feature is really its only saving grace when compared to the 70-200 L, and that is nullified by a tripod.

Its a shame I had to drop the 50mm f1.8 prime for the moment in order to stay close to my budget, but at under AU$150 I can afford that lens any time I guess (if I can find it, seems to be getting a bit hard to get hold of these days).

Now I just have to wait.. wait.. wait..

I just hope my skills can justify the optics A rubbish picture is still rubbish even if its sharp. As the saying goes, "You can't polish a turd... But even if you try, its still a turd".

Cheers
Adrian