Some interesting responses...
Not selling at MSRP and the 'factory' was not protecting anyone. Clearly lied. The purpose of these shows is to bring their products to your attention and hopefully you will purchase. Just about all other manufacturers there directed you to B&H for their 'show specials'.
Yes, I am a NYorker and this is why I posted this. There is a chance that someone from WD will read this and 'handle the situation'..not for me but for the future.
The rep didn't 'direct me to their distribution chain'. I didn't purchase. I may have if I had asked at B&H.
I agree about Photo Expo in general. Not what it used to be. But what is?
Good that you negotiated and waited. I have had the same experience at Optech.
Thanks for the feedback.

Looking at the silly arguments the bottom line is that today most all lenses exceed the ability of the pixel peepers to produce a photo meeting the capability of all these lenses.
One can obsess over straining at gnats or go produce incredible photos with that "kit" lens that blow away the sharp lens every day.
Yes you think that your lens is sharp, I love my superb 100-400 L for it's incredible sharpness even with a TC. But I see no reason to worry about it because I am working to meet its fullest potential.

Yes, very interesting.

I agree with many of the points made.

But I think some things mentioned are specific to that particular Print Lab.

1. He asks that all files be 16-bit TIFFs in Adobe 1998 RGB color space. That may be fine for them, but not all labs want or even accept that type of file. The reason Print Lab wants those files is so they can adjust the images. Some printing services I've worked with prefer or even require 8-bit JPEGs and sRGB. This is also the best type of file for your own printing at home, with an ink jet. He also doesn't mention and appears to assume that the photographer is shooting RAW files. If they were instead shooting 8-bit JPEGs in sRGB color space, there would be little to be gained converting them to 16-bit, Adobe RGB color before sending them to the printer!

2. I also don't agree about monitor calibration and ICC profiles. Yes, you need a monitor that can BE calibrated (many can, some cannot). Once again, Print Lab makes the final adjustments (and probably charges more for the service), so it's not necessarily very critical for people using that particular printing service to set their monitor precisely. He also references Apple monitors, which not everyone uses! For many other printing services, you will usually be better off using a properly calibrated monitor. Calibration sets the brightness of the monitor as well as fine tuning the color rendition. And calibration needs to be re-done periodically because as it ages a monitor will gradually lose brightness and change how it renders color.

It also is helpful to install and use the printing service's ICC profile for your soft-proofing, to have as close as possible image on your computer screen, as it will appear once they print it. It's not 100%... never will be... because there's a difference between viewing a back-lit illuminated image on a computer screen versus viewing a print by reflected light. He does bring up a good point about how the light under which a print will be viewed will have some effect on its appearance.

3. He also states a preference for prints displayed without glass (the big prints behind him on the wall appear to be held up by thumb tacks!) I'm not surprised that a professional printer would appreciate the raw print without any glass to protect it.... after all, the print is what they are all about! But an unprotected print displayed the way theirs were won't hold up very long... Plus we don't get free reprints, the way I'm sure they do! Maybe it's a little self-serving too, since we'll need to replace our prints fairly often and spend more money with them if we hang our prints that way. If someone prefers to display without framing under glass there are other possibilities: printing directly onto other types of surfaces or mounting a print and coating it with something protective.

While that's an interesting video with a lot of good info, I'm most certainly going to continue to calibrate my monitor. I'll also consult with the printing service I'm using as to what type of file and color space they prefer or require. While I do my post-processing work on my images in 16-bit mode (TIFF or PSD), for my own printing at home with an 8-color inkjet I see no difference (other than slower printing and more ink consumption) printing from those files. So one of my last steps will continue to be to reduce to an 8-bit JPEG. It's also what my primary printing service prefers (although they don't require it).

Sharpness is subjective. By this I mean that it is not measurable. You can measure with precision a lens' acuity and contrast. But there is no accurate measurement for "sharpness". This is mainly because the perception of sharpness is affected by viewing distance, subject matter, camera resolution, image magnification, and above all a person's eyesight. I am aware that DXO rates a lens with regards to "sharpness" but they are using a subjective determination, and a comparison to a "perfect" or theoretically flawless lens, and they use P-Mpix, or perceptual megapixels to rate the performance of a given lens on a given camera and how it compares to perfection, assuming that the perfect lens returns a P-Mpix number equal to the camera's mp count. So, if a lens shows 21 P-Mpix on a 24mp body, it is telling you that on that body, that lens is providing 21 of 24 mp performance, or 87.5%. If another lens is tested and its P-Mpix score is 12 on the same body, then you are getting only 50% of the camera's resolution.

So, when you say something like "Zeis [sic] 24 to 70 or is it 24 to 80 2.8 is the sharpest all purpose lens available" what exactly are you referring to as sharpness?