I still stand by that however, the Prostaff I bought was well after that was written. The reason I bought it is I got an incredible deal on it that was to hard to pass up. I wanted to run it through some tests and see how it did. Honestly my opinions mimic what was said on Optics Talk. The glass is decent, but not on par with others in the $200 price range, the turrets are not the best, but it is a durable scope and works fairly well. It would probably serve most hunters just fine. I don't feel that was bashing them. I was just stating that you can get a lot better glass for the money price that they were at that time. However, the difference is at that time they were $160 and they are now $100. As I said, them holding up is not a problem for them. Optically for $180 from a store, or $140 or so on eBay you can get a Burris FFII that's quite a bit better. I see no reason to spend $160 on a Prostaff with bad turrets and only decent glass when you can get the Burris FFII for around the same price. I like the best glass I can get for my money. That doesn't mean that the Nikon is a horrible scope, just that it's not great glass. For $100, there isn't much else I think you can get that's better. Optically the Prostaff is nearly identical to a Simmons Blazer I directly compared it to. I feel more confident in it holding up over time, but optically it's very similar. I think if you did a search on read reviews from people that have actually used decent glass and know what to look for you will see very similar findings. To me the Nikon Prostaff should be in the $100 price range all of the time, as I feel it's out of place in the $160-200 price class. That doesn't mean it's a piece of crap, just that it's not optically up to par with others in that price range.