Canon should want a piece of the Tamron 150-600mm market

I know Canon makes those very high quality long range lenses, and I totally wish I could afford one of those excellent lenses. However, I don't have $10,000+ to spend for one of them.

Now the new Tamron 150-600mm is selling so many lenses that they are months behind on production and have loads of pre-orders for them. I am one of those pre-orders.

I would actually prefer to stay with Canon equipment, but they don't make a lens to compare with the Tamron in it's price range and zoom range.

I am wondering why not. The market for a lens like that is there. The long range high quality lenses they make have a totally different target buyer, so it shouldn't cut into that those sales. Seems like they should want a piece of that market.

Tell me why I am wrong.

I have often wondered this same thing. Canon does not seem overly interested in the market for lenses below about $4K in cost, other than their 70-200 series. They seem to have very little interest in the market below $2K.

russbecker wrote in post #16860130
I have often wondered this same thing. Canon does not seem overly interested in the market for lenses below about $4K in cost, other than their 70-200 series. They seem to have very little interest in the market below $2K.

Yeah but then they release the 100D and the 40mm Pancake in white i mean wtf is wrong with them?

I think it's as simple as what you have already said yourself. You've answered your own question. It isn't their market. Not their core competency. Just simply not the business they are in, not what they do. The infrastructure, business units, after sales support, distribution, marketing strategy etc. to make profit from one does not translate directly to the other.

- DAA

I think we are mainly discussing 'relatively inexpensive' lens offerings at 400mm+. It should be easy to make a cheap 40 - 50mm lens given the 44mm back distance of the EF mount.

If Tamron can profitably sell a 150-600mm zoom, with IS, at less than $1500 retail, you would think Canon could profitably market fixed focal length glass at 500/600mm ( say f/5.6 speed ) at less than $2K. Leave out 4-stop IS ( settle for the old 2-stop IS), leave off the off-white paint, don't worry about L series weather sealing, have a non-magnesium lens barrel ( i.e. you can't use it as a club to defend yourself ) and you will have plenty of product differentiation for those who need to justify spending $10K+.

Tamron isn't their competition, Nikon is. Tamron is meant to be a cheap alternative.

DAA wrote in post #16860241
I think it's as simple as what you have already said yourself. You've answered your own question. It isn't their market. Not their core competency. Just simply not the business they are in, not what they do. The infrastructure, business units, after sales support, distribution, marketing strategy etc. to make profit from one does not translate directly to the other.

- DAA

You are probably correct. I work for a company that is constantly adjusting it products for changing markets and the entire range of products that have a market. So it seems foreign to me to ignore a potential profit source.

Also, Canon would not have to match Tamron's price. With their competing version they could command a higher price, being Canon and Canon quality, but still staying under the $2k price.

IMHO

Canon do have a player in the long zoom playing field...it is the 100-400..... Tamron just redefined the playing field with the 150-600(after Sigma had adjusted it with the 150-500 and 50-500 pairing)...

you could opt for a 100-400L, or 400f5.6 instead of the tamron...you give up quite a bit of reach, but you're sticking with canon...

if they came out with a 200-600mm lens, for less than $1,000 why would anyone buy the $1700 100-400L?

a sub $1,000 long zoom lens, is pretty much a lower budget type of lens...with the majority of canons lens releases(aside from kit lenses) i think they show they have no desire to cater to those with a lower budget

tjb5099 wrote in post #16860264
Tamron isn't their competition, Nikon is. Tamron is meant to be a cheap alternative.

That mindset will need to change if Sigma and Tamron keep introducing high quality and cheaper alternatives. Canon and Nikon could start loosing market share.

Yep it won't happen. I wonder how Tamron produce their glass on the lens as an example? I highly doubt it's as strict and stringent like Canon's nor the rugged build of the L-series. They don't need to nor should IMO. I mean ya...it would be nice to have few L-lenses in my signature but their price is consistent with their quality.

I honestly can't see how they would lower the price without sacrificing bit of quality.

My guess would be the same reason Tamron doesn't make a $10K 600mm f4 lens, their not interested in that market.

I am staying with the Sigma 50-500 OS. I thought about the Tamron, but I think I will give them a year yet to work through their kinks and see what they come up with next. The best thing Canon could do is revamp the 100-400L without raising the price much (better IS, a bit sharper, and better build).

I like how on the sigma, the focus ring is right next to the lens tripod ring, it makes for very easy MF when shooting at 1000mm at f8. Nothing great, but until I get serious about wildlife (or if I ever do), then I would have to go to something else.

f8, ISO 12800, 1000mm, 5D3

hoodlum wrote in post #16860923
That mindset will need to change if Sigma and Tamron keep introducing high quality and cheaper alternatives. Canon and Nikon could start loosing market share.

I think that this is something Canon needs to be concerned about. Not so long ago Canon was the only player in quality lenses. You got a Siggy or Tammy if you couldn't afford the Canon but lately both Sigma and Tamron have really stepped up their quality and performance and all of a sudden they are looking pretty decent and in some cases better than Canon's offering. Canon, time to wake up.

gjl711 wrote in post #16861479
I think that this is something Canon needs to be concerned about. Not so long ago Canon was the only player in quality lenses. You got a Siggy or Tammy if you couldn't afford the Canon but lately both Sigma and Tamron have really stepped up their quality and performance and all of a sudden they are looking pretty decent and in some cases better than Canon's offering. Canon, time to wake up.

Why is that a problem? As consumers this is great!