To be fair though, its not a 3rd party lens anymore if Nikon is selling it as a Nikon lens and had a part of the process for developing it and AF algorithms etc-
If Tamorn won't make them anymore for Nikon, lots of other qualified companies that will.
And... a bun h of "OEM" lenses are not actually manufactured by the company whose name is on the lens. :-)
To be fair though, its not a 3rd party lens anymore if Nikon is selling it as a Nikon lens and had a part of the process for developing it and AF algorithms etc-
If Tamorn won't make them anymore for Nikon, lots of other qualified companies that will.
And... not all "OEM" lenses are manufactured by the company whose name is on the lens. :-)
gdanmitchell wrote:
And... a bun h of "OEM" lenses are not actually manufactured by the company whose name is on the lens. :-)
So what? That is literally what I just said that you are quoting me on- That is extremely common and again its still an OEM lens built to the spec of whatever the purchaser wants it to be-
Leica, Nikon, Zeiss, Canon, Fuji etc etc etc etc etc etc etc Have all done this and will continue-
RoamingScott wrote:
Tamron has made...what...2 to 3 "unique" or industry-leading optics per generation?
Their bread and butter are lenses that are cheap and fine for most basic use cases. Where I'm going with this is, I'm not sure where this slots into Sony's lineup if they were to keep them exclusive, because that's exactly what G lenses are...cheap and...fine.
Who's to say Tamron isn't making Sony's G lenses now? Almost half of their production are for "branded" lenses. None of us have any idea what they do and don't make. By bringing them in-house it cuts a ton of cost while adding a large amount of production capacity. Sony is the clear No. 1 in the market. This makes a ton of sense in a number of ways.
jwolfe wrote:
Who's to say Tamron isn't making Sony's G lenses now? Almost half of their production are for "branded" lenses. None of us have any idea what they do and don't make. By bringing them in-house it cuts a ton of cost while adding a large amount of production capacity. Sony is the clear No. 1 in the market. This makes a ton of sense in a number of ways.
They might be, they might not be, but speculating as if they are doesn't make any sense.
RustyRus wrote:
So what? That is literally what I just said that you are quoting me on- That is extremely common and again its still an OEM lens built to the spec of whatever the purchaser wants it to be-
Leica, Nikon, Zeiss, Canon, Fuji etc etc etc etc etc etc etc Have all done this and will continue-
So you are upset because… we agree?
;-)
Also, I’m not complaining about this reality — just making note of it since I suspect that a lot of people aren’t aware how widespread the practice is. (Not just in the photography biz either. Our brand name cars include a ton of parts not made by the brand, etc.)
RoamingScott wrote:
They might be, they might not be, but speculating as if they are doesn't make any sense.
Market consolidation is going to continue until there are two large camera companies. That's about all the market can support given it's current size. A guy can't make a living selling less than a million cameras per year. I think 4-5 years from now it will be Sony and Canon. I just don't see any room for anyone else.
Tamron does a ton of contract manufacturing. Only 59% of their production is Tamron branded. So they are selling to more than Nikon.
