Enlarged photo quality is dependent upon camera pixel count, the higher the pixels the larger the viewable area or print size. With higher pixel count sensors the demand for quality lenses goes up. Lower pixel count sensors are more forgiving of "lessor" quality lenses.
Indeed, more money will buy you better quality glass but there's a diminishing ROI. If photography is your livelihood and purchases can be written off as tax deductions AND the quality of your prints determines if you make your next car payment then $2,000 lenses are a must. For the majority of hobbyist, like myself, who might print a couple of photos over the course of a year but regularly view photos on a PC, tablet or phone, the consumer lenses do just fine. The reason is simple, the PC display that most people view images on these days is around 1mb, I don't know anyone who can view a 1mb photo and tell me that the image they're viewing was taken with a sub $2,000 lens.
To add to the above, 10mb to 16mb is what you see in a printed magazine and again, your PC display of photos is around 1mb. Also of note, the 2018 photo of the year for N-Photo magazine was taken with a (obsolete) D200.