Quantaray 100-300mm F4.5-6.7 zoom lens

I agree with the other reviewers that this lens is built cheap-but it is cheap so what's the complaint? I've used the lens on my Pentax K10d & while it doesn't produce saturated colors, it is pretty sharp. This lens is ok for a beginner & has some uses...

Junk. This lens is junk. Sure, it's got a great range, it's light, and small. However, a 3 year old with tracing paper can produce a better quality image.

This lens is stricktly for the low budgeted types who must have a zoom-lens. Don't expect hard core construction...you only paid a $100. If you want semi-sharp photos, grap a tripod. Otherwise, you get soft but fairly descent action shots in the...

Well ... I guess you get what you pay for. I've had this lens for 2 years now and I must say that I'm not very happy with it. First ... the focus ring has too much play in it. After autofocusing, you can actually move the ring a few centimeters left...

I've found that in photography, you *don't* always get what you pay for. I've used Leica,Contax, Rollei, etc., and the astronomical prices for some of the items do not always return value in terms of results. Sometimes, the cheapest things - while not...

I didn't even try this lens on a camera body before i knew that i could never use it. I t felt like junk. I hate thin plastic (especially the type in Canon's lenses), but this lense has thicker plastic type material used and it feels like junk.

YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR. This lens, and even the other "quantaray" (SIGMA made lenses, they are one in the same, check the prices and build if you dont believe me, or even ask the reps at the stores) are quite good considering the price, DO NOT EXPECT...

This 100-300mm lenses does not function correctly with the Minolta Maxxum 7 camera body. To make sure of my findings, I try these lenses at another store of a different name and even tried another Maxxum 7 body. The lenses I tried are: 70-300mm AF...