Your quote "The Tamron 150-200mm G2 is a better lens than the Nikon 200-500mm" has no basis in fact. I have seen results from the Tamron, and I know what my 200-500 can do. Your quote is not only misleading it is completed unsubstantiated. The Nikon is better engineered, better built to a higher quality control standard than any third party glass. My 200-500 is on par with my Nikon 200-400 f4 and my Nikon 300 2.8. All three of these lenses shoot rings around the Tamron. I shoot on a daily basis in Florida, my 200-500 has more than 50,000 shots logged. I have several friends who shoot the Tamron and after seeing my results they wish they would have bought the Nikon. I also shoot with three shooters from Florida Wildlife Management and they just switched from Sigma and Tamron to Nikon cause of the quality of the Nikon 200-500. I am speaking from experience from seeing results from both lenses and the more consistent results are coming from the Nikon hands down. Don't really care what charts and test results boast, I live in the real world that use the equipment in the field and the field experience speaks well of Nikon gear. If you look at B&H you will see that the users of the lenses, the guys and gals who actually rate the gear rate the Nikon higher.

I went online and checked to see how much I paid since the selling prices weren't listed on the paperwork I received. I reduced my prices a little and started from there. I sometimes wonder if those who want to see lower prices would attempt to haggle with Nikon or Cameta or even Canon as you decide to purchase your next piece of equipment? I doubt it very seriously. We look for refurbished items that are just as good and items in top notch condition on this website, craigslist, ebay or other sources.