Sony Tamron lenses

I know you guys aren't Tamron, but any ideas why Tamron charges the same price for Sony lenses without VC? I mean... we got to pay the premium cost for Sony's steadyshot, and then pay the same price for lenses! What gives?

This subject has been discussed many times in numerous threads so you might want to do a search. Or, perhaps write to Tamron and ask them. Anyone else is simply going to be guessing.

Because they can... Same as with Sigma lenses without OS.

swestphotos said:

I know you guys aren't Tamron, but any ideas why Tamron charges the same price for Sony lenses without VC? I mean... we got to pay the premium cost for Sony's steadyshot, and then pay the same price for lenses! What gives?

Click to expand...

Economy of scale.

swestphotos said:

I know you guys aren't Tamron, but any ideas why Tamron charges the same price for Sony lenses without VC? I mean... we got to pay the premium cost for Sony's steadyshot, and then pay the same price for lenses! What gives?

Click to expand...

As said lots of guess.. Now that many people also use a-mount on e-mount.. seems like they are losing business from it too.

Not sure where the "premium" for the Steadyshot is.. I think Sony feature for feature prices its bodies very competitively. Heck Look at a 7D and an A77 where the A77 is newer.

I would say, be happy, less parts that can brake. And for action shots optical image stabilization is not always a benefit.

swestphotos said:

I know you guys aren't Tamron, but any ideas why Tamron charges the same price for Sony lenses without VC? I mean... we got to pay the premium cost for Sony's steadyshot, and then pay the same price for lenses! What gives?

Click to expand...

Because they can! Sigma aren't much different with many of their models. In short, it's a rip-off, though if you're prepared to pay the money, then who's at fault? Them for asking the same price or you for paying it? Ideally, get a used copy. Here's another point (same circumstances). Pentax have in-body IS, and generally 3rd party manufacturers make in-lens OS for the K-Mount, so what's the difference between them and the A-Mount?

Answer = none. What is it you're after that you absolutely 'must have' that has in-lens OS that you can't buy for less that hasn't got it? The Tamron 272E is a good example of a brilliant portrait macro that has a new version with in-lens OS that costs about 2-3x more than the non-OS version. Madness, but people will buy it new.

I always recommend anyone looking for new glass to first cross-reference Onestop-Digital (OSD) and use their prices as the benchmark (you don't pay import duty to the UK for example - other countries should read their T&C's before making comments about import duty or VAT being charged).

Anyway, now you know.

Removing the stabilization system from lens takes extra money and production steps. There are surely other reasons, which adds the price. We can be thankfully to those who used both stabilization systems on camera and lens and reported that as a defect (as they both are counter productive).

But I don't mind. All AF-Minolta lenses are stabilized with an A-mount camera. A future improved stabilization system would improve ALL lenses at once.

... I don't consider it to be that big a deal. My life does not revolve around comparing my lists of have and have nots. I have the Tamron 70-300USD and it works great on my a77 and a99. Lack of VR inside the lens does not detract from the usefulness of the lens.

Some of the A-mount Sigma lenses have OS, from the comparisons I have seen with Sony's IBIS the difference is pretty minor (if any). It's just not that big of a deal.

I am thrilled to have VR on my old Minolta lenses from the 1980's and 1990's

The stabilized viewfinder on something like the 600mm end is pretty nice to have, not to mention those using them with NEX don't have any stabilization.

I think the "because they can" is the best answer. If you ask them they will simply give the lame "Sony A mount cameras are already stabilized" excuse. Some will even express concern that you might mess up some pictures by trying to use both in camera and in lense at once. Even had someone say it might damage a camera or lens to try and use both at once--which I have never heard of happening and would be curious if anyone has experienced such an issue.