rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I attended a seminar during which a Nikon rep explained the various recipes Nikon uses to make their lenses. He noted that the front elements of the various lenses do not appear to look the same. There are subtle differences between different lenses. The reason is they mix and match these various recipes to obtain the sharpest, best color image focused on the sensor. The second hand manufacturers, Tamron, etc., don't have these exotic recipes. Draw your own conclusion from that.
--Bob

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Simple answer: $1,000+

Shooting raw, I have to sharpen anyway.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I look at it this way. The highest quality gear does not always produce the most pleasing photo.

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

True, but think it this as well - if you were shooting a once-in-a-lifetime shot and had a Nikon 70-200 2.8E and the Tamron 70-200 2.8, which lens would you grab from the bag?

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I buy and use the best gear I can responsibly afford--whether I need it or not.

Largobob

I agree, Steve. Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc, have been in business for a long time for a very good reason. They build quality products, with great service, that hold up and exemplify their reputation for quality, without compromise. I will admit there are "outliers" out there that are very good.....but I will continue to trust my chosen camera manufacturer to produce the optics that make them the reason I chose to buy them.

In your example.....my Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 is incredible glass. Not cheap....but well worth the investment.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Another consideration for purchasing lenses is resale value. OEMs hold more of their value. So in the long run they are not that much more expensive.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Opinions are like...

Tamron's latest lenses compete at a much higher level and are on par with lenses costing twice as much. The same can be said for Sigma Art lenses.

SuperFly48 Loc: NE ILLINOIS

Thanks for all the comments on my original post. I believe in getting the most out of my investment and photography for me IS an investment for sure. The point made about what to use when you are given the opportunity to take the shot of a lifetime or the shot that will be THE shot of a trip and define that trip, for me I want the best glass my budget can afford, even if I have to pay a little more for that glass. I want to start with a quality image, then do any post processing.

As for how some people think, here's a short true story. Had my first Nikon DSLR and was at Brookfield Zoo when they still had elephants. Was setting up for a shot but there was a post directly in front of the subject, so I was waiting for her to move one way or another and clear the post. The person next to me commented, "I'll just photoshop the post out of the image later." WHAT??? DUH! I waited and got several nice clean shots that did not require any photoshopping!!!

My first trip out to the Pac Northwest, I took my D7100 and a new Tamron 18-270 lens. That was the last time I took that lens on a Nikon holiday with me. My copy of the Tamron, when compared to my copy of the Nikon 18-200 DX VR I have, does not deliver the crisp images I want and prefer before doing any post processing. I put the Tamron on my D80 and it's still there. It does "OK" for what I use the D80 for.

I just returned a Tamron 24-70 G2 because my 30 year old Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 gave me better/cleaner images on my D850 than the Tamron. Lesson learned for me....stick with camera manufacturer glass whenever possible.

radiojohn

The Internet is full of "experts."

Toment Loc: FL, IL

I saw that too. Weird

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Do not believe everything you read anywhere...study, research, trust only proven professionals whose work you have viewed.

throughrhettseyes Loc: Rowlett, TX

That is why I haven't bought my 70-200 f2.8. I can't afford it but... The Tamron is highly rated as it's as fast as the Nikon and sharp too. It has a true maximum focal length of 190mm vs. Nikon was rated at 180mm. The Nikon was rated sharper but not by much. I guess you get what you pay for but GOD there is over a $1000 difference even in a used one. That is hard to convince the wife for. It took me a year to get her permission to get the $1400 Nikon 200-500mm F5.6. God that is a super lens. Good luck saving up for the Nikon.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

I resent your attitude using the phrase "cheap bastard" -- that makes you an extravagent "son of a bitch" who knows little about money and it's history. It is this attitude that sets up the public to get gouged by unscrupalas predators.

Diocletian

Huh? Have a little hidden anger do we?