I don't see this being good for the industry as a whole.
Sony users could lose one of their two major third party lens suppliers
Nikon users could lose there largiest third party lens supplier
Canon users could lose the option of Tamron APS-C lenses and ever getting FF Tamron lenses
Fuji users users could lose the option of Tamron APS-C lenses
L mount users could lose the option of ever getting Tamron lenses
Multiple companies such as Nikon and Zeiss have also partnered with Tamron on OEM lenses.
My initial reaction to this leans negative from a wholisitic camera ecosystem view. But perhaps I'm just being pessimistic from feeling beat up as a consumer from watching the gobbling up of smaller competition in other industries. All we can do is wait and see, anyways.
Tamron makes a lot of money not just from producing Tamron branded third party lenses, but from doing optical design and/or part manufacturing for basically every major lens company. To paraphrase Roger Cicala, we would all be surprised if we could take every lens apart and see which company made the most important/expensive components. I imagine that, similar to its near-monopoly in the sensor business, Sony would like to own a much bigger portion of the optical design/lens mechanics business.
RoamingScott wrote:
Sony would rather get a cut of every Tamron sale on other mounts than kill those completely, methinks.
You would think. But unfortunately, Sony hasn't had a great track record. Sony acquired Bungie to grow their live service gaming. Sony has now, a few years later, ended Destiny, while it still has 80k+ daily players, to focus on Marathon, which has less than 10k+ daily players and seems to be suffering from a decreasing player base.
This looks like a "defensive" acquisition as a private equity firm wants to buy Tamron. Sony already owns enough of Tamron to a beneficial partner. Who would you rather own Tamron? A PE firm that will raise prices, or Sony?
This is an interesting notion to ponder. Playing armchair CEO, you wouldn't think Sony would have Tamron stop making third-party lenses for competing systems, since that business likely represents a good chunk of their revenue and so it wouldn't make sense to pay a premium for the business without those markets. But the notion that Sony would be selling lenses for competing systems is hard to fathom as well. The idea that this is a defensive move to protect a key supplier makes sense then.
Different business, different priorities. Their financial arm can't justify decisions for their mobility business.
Having said that, consolidation is most often than not bad for consumers. If I would be part of Sony product one of the reasons could be to diversify even more into other mounts and get a revenue stream from that or, as SAR implied, hostile take overs where one never knows who-will-own-what in the end.
corposant wrote:
This looks like a "defensive" acquisition as a private equity firm wants to buy Tamron. Sony already owns enough of Tamron to a beneficial partner. Who would you rather own Tamron? A PE firm that will raise prices, or Sony?
Neither. I would prefer to see Tamron stay an independent company.
I completely agree with you that PE would lead to higher prices. PE would probably even lead to lower quality too.
At the Same time, a Sony acquisition could very well lead to higher prices and could end up leading to fewer options for non E mount users.
I don’t think Nikon users will lose much here. The Nikon–Tamron arrangement is ultimately bad for consumers. The biggest issue is that it contributes to why we still don’t see full-frame Sigma or Samyang (Korean) lenses for Nikon Z, despite both companies reportedly applying for an official license.
It’s no surprise that many Chinese manufacturers haven’t even bothered applying, as they likely see little point in doing so when restrictions appear to be imposed, such as being limited to DX lenses only. More competition would mean more choice and better pricing for users.
snapsy wrote:
This is an interesting notion to ponder. Playing armchair CEO, you wouldn't think Sony would have Tamron stop making third-party lenses for competing systems, since that business likely represents a good chunk of their revenue and so it wouldn't make sense to pay a premium for the business without those markets. But the notion that Sony would be selling lenses for competing systems is hard to fathom as well. The idea that this is a defensive move to protect a key supplier makes sense then.
If the speculation is correct, that may be a brilliant move by Effissimo Capital Management: gradually acquire a substantial stake and then force Sony's had to acquire Tamron to secure the key supplier.
DWOfPaul wrote:
You would think. But unfortunately, Sony hasn't had a great track record. Sony acquired Bungie to grow their live service gaming. Sony has now, a few years later, ended Destiny, while it still has 80k+ daily players, to focus on Marathon, which has less than 10k+ daily players and seems to be suffering from a decreasing player base.
Would never have anticipated running into a fellow D2 player on FM, of all places.
If Sony does acquire Tamron, I wonder if Sony would cross collaborate on sensor/lens design for all the brands Sony sells sensors to. It could boost Tamron overall sales if new lenses were optimized to different Sony produced sensors in different camera brands.
RoamingScott wrote:
Sony would rather get a cut of every Tamron sale on other mounts than kill those completely, methinks.
Agreed. If this comes through, seems a good business move for Sony and 3rd-party mount partners. Not unlike the Sony Semiconductor Solutions business model.
Seems potentially problematic. Sony is rapidly dominating the market in ways that aren’t good for competition and competitive pricing — the are rapidly dominating the camera market, their lenses are now at the top level, they make a whole lot of sensors and not just for their own cameras. This would give them some significant power over the third-party lens manufacturers and pricing for those products.
But…
I still think that it won’t be a lot longer before a Chinese photographic equipment company “does a Sony on Sony,” equalling their quality and doing so at significantly lower prices.
