Amusing to see how far off the point this thread has gone, which is a shame, because I think there's a very interesting nugget here.
First of all, I think we can agree that Canon and Nikon (and others) are capable of making very good lenses, and also capable of making not-so-good lenses.
But the interesting nugget to my mind is about the marketing strategy. Canon definitely seem to milk the reputation of their "L" lenses, whether it's deserved or not. But it is definitely much harder to identify which Nikon lenses are deemed to be their "pro" range. Have Nikon missed a marketing trick? I think they might have.
I've been trying to get my head round Nikon's lens nomenclature in the last couple of weeks, and it really is mental. It reminds me of the way Mercedes-Benz got their knickers in a twist over model names in the 80s and early 90s. Originally the "190" simply meant a car with a 1.9L engine, but by the time they had cars called "190 E 2.3-16", or cars called the 350SD and the 500SEL built on the same platform, it was obvious that they needed a clean-out; and the current range of "A Class", "C Class", "S Class" is a lot more straightforward to comprehend. I think Nikon could so with something similar.
But then I wonder whether the big brass at Nikon really care. Back in the 80s Canon bet the shop on ditching the FD mount and going all electronic with the EF; whereas Nikon plumped for compatibility. At the time I doubt whether either of them could have foreseen the massive pace of technological development that we've had in the last 10 years, but if Canon did then all credit to them, because their strategy seems to have paid off. (Though of course it could just have been luck.) Nikon seem to me to have a bit of the corporate techno-geek in them, and they seem perversely proud of the fact that - you need complicated tables and charts to work out which lenses work with which cameras.
So my short answer to Gary's question is yes, I think Nikon have missed some tricks on the marketing front. Anyone disagree?