A lot has been said recently about who makes the 70-300mm f/4-5.6D Nikkor lens, Nikon or Tamron. Nikon has "ED" glass. ED means Extra Low Dispersion. Tamron makes LD or Low Dispersion glass. Since the idea is to reduce the amount of chromatic dispersion (I think this is the correct term), the marketing 'name' given to the glass is meaningless, as long as it performs. If you examine the test results for the two lenses at www.photodo.com (all lenses tested by the same person using the same equipment) you will find that they are, in essence, identical: Weighted MTF Nikon: 2.4 Weighted MTF Tamron: 2.4 Effective focal length Nikon: 72-290mm Effective focal length Tamron: 72-290mm Close focus is the same on both lenses, as is the number of lens elements and groups. Weight differs by <1%, the diameter is identical, and the length is only 9mm different. Working in the computer industry, where a lot of products that are sold by one company are actually made by others, I strongly suspect that Tamron makes this lens for Nikon. I also suspect that Tamron makes a 'version' for Nikon. What's different? Tamron put on Nikon's finish, redesigned the front to accept the standard Nikon 62mm filters (since the Tamron normally takes 58mm filters, going up is easy), made the aperture close to f/32 instead of f/22, boxed them up and shipped them to Nikon. Why is Nikon doing this? To make money. We have read in this list (thank you so much, Andrew) of the fact that Nikon was not profitable last year, and we have learned that more than 50% of Nikon's income comes from machines used to make computer chips. Other income is derived from ophthalmic instruments, surveying equipment, scientific tools (Nikon microscopes are great, by the way), and the like. Therefore, Nikon's camera division is probably under pressure to make money. The camera business has changed a lot in the last few years, with less profitable point-and-shoot cameras becoming a lot more capable and popular, and SLR's dropping in popularity. While Nikon caters a lot to the pro's, there are a lot more amateurs buying cameras than pro's. And while pro's may buy the 50-300mm f/4.5 ED lens (B&H $2700), most amateurs will not. However, they will buy something like the 70-300 f/4-5.6 (at B&H $275) or 1/10 the price. And what does the amateur get for 1/10 the price? A little less zoom range, a little less speed, 1/4 the weight, and a lot fatter wallet. Is the optical quality as good? Probably not, but it's not 1/10 the lens, and it's good enough for most people. Heck, I bet a lot of pro's may own this lens. As we have heard, Nikon has taken quite a few lenses out of production. Lenses like the 6mm f/2.8 fisheye, the 13mm f/5.6 ultra wide angle, and the 2000mm f/11 ultra telephoto. Odd lenses that, even at the cost that Nikon places on them, result in little profit. This is a typical strategy of companies that are experiencing financial difficulties, to concentrate on what's most profitable. And if Nikon can increase their profits by getting Tamron to make a few lenses that meet Nikon specifications (lenses good enough to put the Nikkor name on), then I say more power to them. Because when they make money selling 70-300mm lenses to large groups of people, that means they have the $$$ to devote to make other interesting cameras and lenses for us, like the new 28-105 f/3.5-4.5D, or F100. So what do you get if you buy the Nikkor instead of the Tamron? An increased warranty (in the USA), Nikon support, standard filter sizes (a big reason for some people), and let's face it, a little snob appeal. Personally, I would buy the Nikkor over the Tamron for these features, since were only talking about a small difference in price. In the long run, this helps Nikon make money, which they will invest in other interesting products for us to buy in the future, like maybe a 200-400 f/4-f/5, which I would love. I'm now getting off my soapbox. Colin
