Third Party Pricing Strategies

There's a lot of discussion about the soon to be released Tamron 150-600mm, and much of that has to do with the price. I'm seeing on assorted forums that people think because the lens is low-priced, it must be a poor, or not so good performer. Now I realize at this point it's all guesswork (including this post), but that's really all we can do at this point, is guess.

When you look at the other 3rd party lenses prices, aren't the prices for new comparable to the used market prices for similar Canon lenses? The Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC new is priced close to, or below that of the used Canon counterpart. The release price for the 150-600 is priced right around the price of a used 100-400L. There are many others where I find this to be pretty accurate.

I kind of think the manufacturers' strategy is to price their new lenses this way as a way for potential buyers to say "Hmmm. Used Canon with no warranty, or new 3rd party with X warranty, and that new lens smell."

I've seen a number of posts where the poster has the 100-400L, but says if the 150-600 performs as good at 400, they'll make the swap, and pick up an extra 200mm for close to zero out of pocket. What better things can a lens manufacturer hear? People think that 'You get what you pay for" and therefore an affordable (for the average enthusiast) lens can't be any good. But maybe based on IQ and over quality, they could have priced it at $1500 or $2000, and people would say "It must be a fantastic lens, but I can't afford one, so I'll buy a used 100-400L". But with a lower price then the 100-400L, they are going for their profits in the quantity they sell. Yes, the kid selling lemonade on the corner could charge $10 for his lemonade, and only have to sell a couple to be happy, but the kid on the other corner selling at $0.25 will end up making more in the long run. I think the 3rd parties are the kid with the $0.25 lemonade that tastes so close to the other kid's.

What say you?

Corporate marketing departments are going to set prices as high as they can while still retaining or possibly growing market share. A lot of that has to do with perception, as you suggest. Starbucks has put a lot of effort building up the perception that their coffee is something special, so that they can charge as much as they do for it.

Of course real world test results will have a lot to do with perception as well. I can go on slrgear.com and look at lens test results all graphed and charted (I'm a geek, I like graphs). As long as Canon lenses are at least a wee little bit better, people who feel they need the absolute best (and can afford to pay for it) will buy Canon lenses. And as long as a Sigma or Tamron lens comes pretty darned close to the Canon the rest of us will happily buy one of those. Of course there's always the snob appeal of Starbucks, Canon, Nikon, Mercedes, etc. (and those higher end brands work to keep that).

In the end it all comes down to how each company believes they can make the most money.

"People think that 'You get what you pay for" .."

In my experience, with lenses and most other things, you do get what you pay for.

It remains to be seen what the Tamron 150-600's real-world performance is. I shoot mainly birds (as I think a lot of people interested in this lens do) so what I'm interested in seeing is not just IQ, but the speed and accuracy of its focusing. I'm very skeptical of it coming close to the Canon 100-400 in this regard.

Heya,

You have to consider the market the third party is trying to sell in. Why would they release something that costs as much as a Canon, for Canon users? That makes no sense. They have to not only give an alternative to the Canon EOS system, but they also have to do it at a price that is attractive enough to lure you away from the Canon lenses. In doing so, they do have to maintain a level of quality sufficient enough to not end up labeled as "garbage."

I see the 150-600mm Tamron a lot like how I see some other quality/price ratio lenses. It's not L glass, or equivalent from third parties. The lens is not super costly because it has variable aperture, and isn't that fast. That means this lens is really not going to work well with teleconverters. They put you at 600mm right away, but at that aperture speed, you're not going to do much with a teleconverter other than manual focus which isn't good enough for moving birds. It's fine for stationary stuff and things that don't move very fast. But it will not nail birds in flight with a teleconverter.

So you're paying for good glass, good stabilization, really excellent focal range.
Your compromises are variable slow apertures, slower autofocus (relates to aperture) and build quality.

The 600mm at it's widest aperture, is going to struggle without amazing light (or a beamer flash) to maintain fast enough shutter speed to produce sharp images of birds that are moving (especially in flight). Getting 1/1000s or higher speeds, to eliminate blur/movement, nail crisp images, at it's widest aperture is just not going to happen often without a beam flash, or again, amazingly good light. I'm sure some will nail good images, but it won't be nearly as fast to focus due to that aperture which limits it's ability without really bright high contrast lighted scenes. That's why those expensive F2.8 lenses cost what they do.

I want a 600mm lens. But I don't want it at that aperture, because I know in reality, I won't be able to maintain a high enough shutter speed without high speed sync flash (beamed), and really high ISO, or absolutely bound to the lighting of the weather of the day (so variable that you just can't count on it depending on where you shoot).

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #16598255
Heya,
I want a 600mm lens. But I don't want it at that aperture, because I know in reality, I won't be able to maintain a high enough shutter speed without high speed sync flash (beamed), and really high ISO, or absolutely bound to the lighting of the weather of the day (so variable that you just can't count on it depending on where you shoot).

I'd like a 600mm F/4 as well, but $1,000 out of pocket versus $10,000 is pretty substantial. You talk snobby for a guy shooting a Rebel

Andrushka wrote in post #16598549
I'd like a 600mm F/4 as well, but $1,000 out of pocket versus $10,000 is pretty substantial. You talk snobby for a guy shooting a Rebel

Oh, a Rebel means I can't have an opinion on a lens? I guess I need to spend more money so I can be elite too.

Wow.

Typical.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #16598550
Oh, a Rebel means I can't have an opinion on a lens? I guess I need to spend more money so I can be elite too.

Wow.

Typical.

Very best,

The smiley face was for the Rebel joke haha. Didn't say anything about having an opinion, but yes you do have to spend more money if you want to be elite! $11,000 more (just checked amazon) gets you 2 more stops of light and yes, you would have an elite lens. I do not have a 600L.

There are only a few ways to get 600 mm and auto focus, most of them require a lot of money. This new Tamron is pretty much the exception.

As far as I can see about the only way to shoot at 600mm with AF and Image Stabilisation is going to cost at least 2000 Pounds/Euros/Dollars more of your hard earned than the Tamron, and then probably only by going second hand. Given that the only other EF mount lens that makes 600mm without the use of a teleconverter costs £/$/€12000 then this is THE lens for the man in the street looking for reach. Especially one coming from a Superzoom compact/bridge camera with a 8× crop factor that can get to a 35mm equivalent FL with a native 100mm of focal length. There will be a lot of photographers out there, remember most of them do not even read sites like POTN let alone post here, who will be much more than happy with this lens on either a Rebel or 60/70D and who will think that £/$/€1000 is exactly how much they might be willing to pay. they probably have a 18-200 or some non Canon superzoom lens on the camera anyway, but still want a lot more reach, like the old fixed lens camera had.

Alan

target markets is what you are looking for.

3rd party lenses are not targeted at professionals, they are targeted at enthusiasts. they are meant to provide viable alternatives at a fraction of the price while giving as close as possible performance to their canon counter parts.

thus, they price to appease the enthusiast markets, as they know if they price too high they will price out of their price range while also not being desirable to professionals. they know this going in, so if they can't reach target pricing with a lens, they just wont make it.

the people who rip on 3rd party lenses are either professionals or have loads of disposable income...which means they are not the 3rd party manufacturer's market anyways.

Now assume - I as a hobbyist like the new Tamron 150-600 . I am more likely to look at other lenses by Tammy in future .
Not likely in my case unless something breaks or gets stolen . But before the Tamron 150-600 was announced , I was saving up for the EF 28-300 . Now it will go for the Tamron 150-600 .