Why do major manufacturers like Canon, Nikon, Sigma not make manual lenses?

[table1349]

The first two were built at the request of the Chineese Government, reportedly to use to watch activities on the island of Tiawan. It is also believed that the US govenment has two or three of these things squirreled away somewhere as well.

Perhaps, but that doesn't negate my point at all. We're talking about an individual consumer, wanting a particular product, and believing that enough money will get it for him.

Quite often, it won't...

If the customer is willing to pay the cost of R&D, trials and development, tooling cost, materials costs, construction costs, and pay the company a nice profit on top. They will build it. Happens all the time. You and I just don't see it since at least I don't have that kind of money to spend. Keep in mind, this was business a couple of hundred years ago or so and a profit is still a profit.

 

[table1349]

Fewer and fewer car companies are making cars with manual transmissions. Even in the low-end.

Why?

Customers, as a whole, don't want them.



It's the same thing.

BTW, you raise this issue, Gav... but let me ask you... do YOU a manual focus lens? Have YOU researched the ones available to see if they meet your needs?

Also, let me ask you another question... you seem to be asking for manual focus, but you want image stabilization and advanced glass and materials. Why? Why do you want all the benefits of so many other technologies but then do not want the benefit of what is probably the most commonly available one? Esp. when you can (as someone else pointed out) just turn it off?

As Amolitor suggested... there's also costs. What makes you think that production of a lens with all of those capabilities but WITHOUT autofocus will cost LESS? Fewer of them will likely be sold. That means that the R&D costs will be passed on to fewer consumers, potentially making the cost the same... and potentially even making them cost MORE.

Probably just true for the US but not for Europe we want manual gearboxes

Yeah, but you people still eat Periwinkles, Stargazey Pie and Laver Bread. We won't even discuss Spotted Dick.:mrgreen:

 

[Derrel]

If the customer is willing to pay the cost of R&D, trials and development, tooling cost, materials costs, construction costs, and pay the company a nice profit on top. They will build it. Happens all the time.

Yes. Such was the case when Sheikh Saud Bin Mohammed Al-Thani, the former Minister of Culture, Arts and Heritage in the middle eastern nation of Qatar payed the fine folks at Leica to build him a very fast, long lens, a 132-pound, Leica APO-Teleyt-R 1600mm f/4, in Leica R mount. This was a $2 million lens, apparently.

Another massive lens, the Zeiss APO Sonnar T* 1700mm f/4 was commissioned by another uber-rich customer, who has always gone unidentified. He was also apparently from the nation of Qatar, according to this article which says the lens had Arabic markings and a Sate of Qatar emblem on the side. THis monstrous lens was made in Hasselblad mount.

5 Biggest Lenses Ever Built - YugaTech | Philippines, Tech News & Reviews

 

[Helen B]

For a better look at the 5200mm Canon lens, see this page. They have a video of the lens, as well as a bit of video shot through the lens.

Ginormous 5200mm Canon Lens on eBay



My question would be, "Why do Nikon, and Sony, and Sigma, and Pentax, not make 5200mm f/14 lenses?"

I bet there's one heck of a market for a Cosina-made model that's faster, like say f/13.9, or maybe a slightly longer model that's say, 5289mm.

I want one that runs on standard gauge railway track, not narrow gauge.

 

[table1349]

For a better look at the 5200mm Canon lens, see this page. They have a video of the lens, as well as a bit of video shot through the lens.

Ginormous 5200mm Canon Lens on eBay



My question would be, "Why do Nikon, and Sony, and Sigma, and Pentax, not make 5200mm f/14 lenses?"

I bet there's one heck of a market for a Cosina-made model that's faster, like say f/13.9, or maybe a slightly longer model that's say, 5289mm.

I want one that runs on standard gauge railway track, not narrow gauge.

There needs to be a way that we can not just like, but multi like a post. Best one of the entire thread. :thumbup: :lmao:


FYI Just so you know, it hurts bad enough when a post makes you laugh so hard you snort coffee through your nose. You have no idea how bad it hurts when you snort a McDonald's french fry instead. It brings a whole new meaning to the word Ouch.

 

[Overread]

You have no idea how bad it hurts when you snort a McDonald's french fry

I just.... I just .... I have no idea what to say to that!

 

[table1349]

You have no idea how bad it hurts when you snort a McDonald's french fry

I just.... I just .... I have no idea what to say to that!

Well you could say that there are times when Helen is the funniest thing in the Western Hemesphere. I know about 3 1/2 hours ago I would. :mrgreen:

 

[HughGuessWho]

Retail prices are not based on what the production cost is. Rather they are based on what the market will stand. If company X came up with a lens that cost them $100 less to produce, do you actually believe that they would lower the price $100? No. In fact, they would derive some marketing scheme to justify charging $100 MORE.

 

[table1349]

You mean something like this? Hybrid Camera Revolution: SHAME - Second Tier Profiteers Mark Panasonic G6 up by $100

 

[manaheim]

Retail prices are not based on what the production cost is. Rather they are based on what the market will stand. If company X came up with a lens that cost them $100 less to produce, do you actually believe that they would lower the price $100? No. In fact, they would derive some marketing scheme to justify charging $100 MORE.

Perhaps you mean not EXCLUSIVELY, but production/r&d and other business costs are absolutely a part of the equation.

 

[Gavjenks]

I had a whole big notepad file with responses to various things, but it got too long and cumbersome. So I will address only three overarching points:

1) Some people thinking I'm annoying in how I discuss things

My goal is not to just fight without any care as to learning anything. Quite the contrary, if I didn't push people about things, indeed often outside my experience, then I wouldn't learn as much! It's quite effective at finding and understanding answers to questions, actually. I have found this much more effective than just asking and then politely nodding your head. Because if you just ask and then walk away or don't push at all, the only thing you get an answer to is whatever you asked, which is usually not the right question if you didn't know what was going on to begin with. Devil's advocacy steers a conversation several steps in the right direction beyond that.

This is why, for example, scientific journals are much more likely to print your articles if you say "This theory is the best thing since sliced bread, and these other 3 are totally wrong" even if you only actually give about a page of explanation why for each one and only disprove 30% of their theory with data. That sort of rivalry and effectively devil's advocacy advances science more rapidly, by lighting fires under people's butts and making them engaged in firing back with more experiments conducted at fever pitch about precisely the weakest parts of their theory, thus everybody strengthens their understanding.

This is how I have been trained to learn things. It does however piss some people off. Others not as much. I'm old enough now to have learned that in a recreational setting like this, there's no reason to please everyone though, and instead I should just focus on the people that the core nature of my being does not piss off (overly much). If you (or anyone else this applies to) are not one of those people, by all means avoid my threads.

I will not be insulted or anything!

2) The actual issue of the thread, and various arguments about economies of scale:

All of these arguments about overhead, and how small runs might offset any cost benefits that were the original goal, etc. are all very convincing, in and of themselves. But there is one major loose end that has not IMO been sufficiently addressed at all and that sort of undermines all of it:

Rokinon currently manufactures half a dozen NON-luxury, extremely affordable (~$300-$500) fully manual lenses brand new for DSLRs. So we don't need to sit around and muse about whether it is a feasible or profitable venture or not. It's a FACT that it is. This is not a halo product or a random experiment by Rokinon. It's their main bread and butter product line, and they have been steadily rolling out new models for years.

So the question that I still don't see any real answer to, and that has nothing to do with the economies of scale arguments, is "Why is Rokinon doing this over and over, but Canon/Nikon don't do it at all? What stops major manufacturers from participating in that market (and quite possibly stealing it by doing a more competent job) on top of everything else they do?"


3) Most importantly of all: the issue of Deloreans

Deloreans did temporarily go out of business, but they are back now (possibly under new owners, but still), and you can in fact buy a 2013 newly made Delorean.

 

[amolitor]

Why doesn't Nikon start making cars? It's working quite well for Nissan, Honda, and Toyota. Why doesn't Canon start selling snack products? It's working quite well for Frito-Lay.

Answer these questions, young padwan, and you will learn much about item #2 in your previous.

 

[Derrel]

Rokinon is in lens making to make affordable lenses that sell to people who cannot afford the prices charged by the older brands. The sad fact is that at Lensrentals.com, one of the largest lens rental shops in the USA, FOUR of the FOUR WORST lenses as far as shortest average time to malfunction are...Rokinon manual focusing lenses.

Rokinon is in the business of slam-banging out lenses that are shoddily built, and which can not withstand much use. The fact that they make two lenses that averaged eight weeks, and 11 weeks, before malfunctioning, speaks to atrociously poor quality.

I have some Nikon manual focusing lenses that were made in the mid-1970's...and ALL of them still work. Flawlessly. Bringing Rokinon into your arguments as some kind of "example" seems to me to be a fool's errand.

 

[runnah]

"Why is Rokinon doing this over and over, but Canon/Nikon don't do it at all? What stops major manufacturers from participating in that market (and quite possibly stealing it by doing a more competent job) on top of everything else they do?"

Because it's a very niche market. There is not enough money in it to justify the expense of production.

Pretty simple actually.

 

[Kolia]

I would go farther and suggest that Canon, Nikon etc are unwilling to make the quality sacrifices needed to lower the costs that much.

In other words, they probably do have the capability to manufacture Rokinon lenses. But don't bother as its not what they are in for.