Why are native lenses expensive compared to 3rd party?

[mikoh4792]

I am of the impression that tamron and sigma are putting out really nice lenses now(rivaling those of nikon and canon) for about half the price. Why are Nikon and Canon lenses that much more expensive when their quality isn't that much better?

 

[runnah]

Because they can?

This sudden competition is only a recent development. For years sigma and tamron put out pretty poor quality lenses, only recently has that changed. Now both companies are trying to build a reputation by selling good product at a very reduced price hoping to lure away Canon/Nikon die hards. Give it a few years and the prices will start to even out as Canon/Nikon lower theirs and Tamron/Sigma raise theirs.

 

[Overread]

A few reasons:

1) Some native lenses ARE better. The differences might not be night and day and many times might be marginal, but they might contain superior glass which puts the costs up. (then gain this isn't always true - Sigma's 50mm f1.4 Art beats Canons by a good margin - and is not cheap either)

2) Better build quality - this is often in relation to things like weather sealing. Most Sigma lenses are weatherproofed, but overall something like a Canon L is going to be generally somewhat superior in build quality (often using metal cases whilst Sigma use plastic hybrids - very HQ ones of course plastic is a very good material when used right).

3) Scale of production - many 3rd parties make the same lens in multiple mounts - so they have a huge potential market base to sell them to.

4) Different economic setup - Canon/Nikon invest lots into multiple lines - flash - camera - sensor - lens; so many times they might have a more expensive overall operation whilst a company like Tamron or Sigma invests less to nothing in other market areas.


In general like-for-like in quality and features the 3rd party are normally pretty close in price.

 

[goodguy]

All the answers above PLUS

Sigma and Tamron MUST sell most of their lenses cheaper because most of us would rather buy Nikon or Canon lenses over them if the price and quality match.
So Sigma and Tamron either must have very good lenses roughly equal to Nikon/Canon and be cheaper or have lenses that are considerably better and then they can charge as much as they want.
Simple marketing and logic!

 

[runnah]

In general like-for-like in quality and features the 3rd party are normally pretty close in price.

Wrong.

Both the Tamron 24-70 and the 70-200 2.8s are as good and in some ways better than their Canon counterparts, and significantly cheaper.

 

[Overread]

In general like-for-like in quality and features the 3rd party are normally pretty close in price.

Wrong.

Both the Tamron 24-70 and the 70-200 2.8s are as good and in some ways better than their Canon counterparts, and significantly cheaper.

Odd most reviews I've read have the Canon out on top - if only at the extreme conditions - coupled with overall build and AF speeds. Like I said its not night and day but there is some wriggle room.

 

[runnah]

In general like-for-like in quality and features the 3rd party are normally pretty close in price.

Wrong.

Both the Tamron 24-70 and the 70-200 2.8s are as good and in some ways better than their Canon counterparts, and significantly cheaper.

Odd most reviews I've read have the Canon out on top - if only at the extreme conditions - coupled with overall build and AF speeds. Like I said its not night and day but there is some wriggle room.

I have obviously read more then.

To sum up what ive learned, if you need a heavy duty beast of a lens for all conditions get the L, if you aren't going to be shooting the Paris-Dakar, the tamron is the best lens for the money around.

 

[Gary A.]

R&D

R&D is expensive, reverse engineering is much much more inexpensive. Plus overhead and R&D for designing selling bodies is probably partially spung-out to lens sales. Without selling camera bodies first you ain't sellin' no lenses. The third party manufacturers are not carrying any of that burden.

 

[runnah]

R&D

R&D is expensive, reverse engineering is much much more inexpensive. Plus overhead and R&D for designing selling bodies is probably partially spung-out to lens sales. Without selling photocopiers and eye glasses first you ain't sellin' no lenses. The third party manufacturers are not carrying any of that burden.

fixed

 

[480sparky]

R&D

R&D is expensive, reverse engineering is much much more inexpensive. Plus overhead and R&D for designing selling bodies is probably partially spung-out to lens sales. Without selling photocopiers and eye glasses first you ain't sellin' no lenses. The third party manufacturers are not carrying any of that burden.

fixed

We don't make CAMERAS, like 'they' do!
We don't make VACUUM CLEANERS, like 'they' do!
We don't make STEREOS, like 'they' do!

Anyone remember that commercial?

 

[gsgary]

I have had 2 Sigma lenses and they both fell to peices with heavy use so never bought another

 

[photoguy99]

It's not like Sigma and those guys are just copying Nikon and Canon lenses. There are substantial problems with doing that, so in general they don't.

They're doing their own lens designs.

 

[Vtec44]

Brand recognition
Resell value
Demand

 

[Overread]

I have had 2 Sigma lenses and they both fell to peices with heavy use so never bought another

what lenses?