After going through both lens specification i got really confused about the pricing of Nikkor lens

Following are detail i noticed

                   |Nikkor 18-200  | Tamron 18-200
 1 Lens Elements   |     16        |       15 
 2 Lens Groups     |     12        |       13
 3 Diaphragm Blades|      7        |        7
 4 Angle of view   |     76-8      |       75-8
 5 Min Focus Dist  |    0.5m       |      0.45mm
 6 Price           |   $596.95     |     $199.00

Please guide me why Nikkor is so highly priced

Thanks in advance !!

  • \$\begingroup\$ I'll suggest that that minimum focus distance for the Nikon is actually smaller in practice. The stated value is conservative. It practically focuses like a macro lens. \$\endgroup\$
    – user31502
    Jan 16, 2015 at 16:51

2 Answers 2



The Nikkon 18-200 has VR, the Tamron 18-200 does not. VR can give you an advantage worth two or three stops on the aperture. Nikon claim up to four stops

There are some relatively cheap Nikon lenses that include VR. For example

Tamron have a 18-200 VC lens for CSC cameras (not Nikon F-mount) which is more expensive than, for example, their 18-200 XR (which also lacks an in-lens AF motor)


The Nikkor has ED glass in some elements and some aspheric elements. This should reduce chromatic aberration. I think the Tamron XR has some aspheric elements and LR and XD elements. You'd have to look into this in more detail or otherwise form your own opinion regarding chromatic aberration in images from both lenses.


There probably is a premium for a good brand name but probably not enough to account for all the difference in price.

See also

  • \$\begingroup\$ There are a few problems with your answer here, mostly because the OP is comparing two lenses from different ranges. The cheapest Tamrons may not have VR but neither do the Nikons, in this cases the cheaper Nikon 18-200 4.5+ does but it won't give you anywhere near an extra 3 stops. You have made an assumption of build quality differences, is this a fact or just "probably"? \$\endgroup\$
    – connersz
    Jan 19, 2015 at 9:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ @connersz: I wrote "There are probably numerous other differences in materials and build quality" - but I agree it doesn't help the OP (who should go to a shop and handle both) so I've removed that remark. Some refs added for other points. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 19, 2015 at 10:58

Your example above presumes that there are only 5 possible variables between to two lenses which could contribute towards the price.

The fact is that there are many other reasons why the price could be higher:

  • Build Quality
  • Lens Coatings
  • Perceived image quality
  • Maximum aperture
  • Aperture blade type

I won't go on, because there are just too many. I would also expect the Nikon lens to be slightly more expensive anyway, even if every possible comparable element is equal but that is purely my opinion.

If you are simply looking to compare those few properties, then I would say go with the Tamron as it would clearly be a very good deal.

  • \$\begingroup\$ build quality is a big issue here. Nikon builds lenses that hold up to rougher handling than Tamron, which uses a lot more plastic and so can't handle the bumps and bruises of heavy usage as well. A list of stats rarely tells the entire story... \$\endgroup\$
    – chuqui
    Jan 17, 2015 at 19:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ @chuqui Not on all lenses they don't. Just like Tamron Nikon have a set of lenses with better build quality and a higher price point to go with them. \$\endgroup\$
    – connersz
    Jan 17, 2015 at 23:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ true, thanks for pointing that out, but my experience and from talking to others is they still aren't up to a Nikon build quality, FWIW. \$\endgroup\$
    – chuqui
    Jan 18, 2015 at 0:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ @chuqui Well they may or may not be, but what matters is what's important to you. I know people that use the cheapest lenses all the time and never have an issue. The chances are you're not going to be that rough with a lens that costs 3 x more anyway. My cheapest lens cost £80/$100 and it's still going just fine. \$\endgroup\$
    – connersz
    Jan 19, 2015 at 9:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.