That is all true, but I do not take my 200-500 mm lens or any lens out into the rain. But the Nikon at 500mm is proven sharper than the Tamron at any focal length. You should read all of the reviews Steve, they are there for a reason.
In addition, at trade in time or selling time, the Nikon will hold it's value much better than Tamron, if you question this, look at Ebay and you'll see it for yourself.
In addition, the Nikon 200-500 is made by Nikon for Nikon camera's.
Tamron is made to fit many camera's and not specifically designed to be used on any one camera.
In addition, Nikon makes it's own glass, from it's own molding system, Tamron buys from theirs from the lowest bidder.
Just sayin Steve, you know.


I would prefer a weather sealed lens. I’m aware of the resale value. I keep my glass for a long time. As far as the reviews go, some say the Nikon is better while others say the Tamron is better. Both companies manufacture their own glass.
There are many reason's for Tamron's low selling price.

I had a 50 f1.8 before I ever had a 2.8. Just playing around in the living room I found that the 50 sucks in a lot more light than a 2.8. It gives you that added possibility of shooting without flash indoors. I remember 50 years ago when the 50mm lens was the normal lens for photography. We just used our feet to zoom in or out. It worked. Ofc, we'd often have a zoom lens that would cover 80-300mm or something similar for sports. Those two lenses were all that were in the bag and all we needed (or I needed). For $135, go for it. If you're shooting dx, you might consider a 35mm. On a dx, I've found that a 50mm gives problems getting the entire dinner table in at holidays. No such problem on full frames.