-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
SecondTimeAround
Senior Member
peripheralfocus
Veteran Member
Yes, this has been Nikon's sales plan for the Nikon-branded rebadged Tamron lenses from the beginning. They put an artificially high list price on them, with the intention of quickly offering a significant and almost continuous discount on them, as a marketing ploy. Essentially the entire clothing industry works on the same sales/marketing model. (Although the continuous nature of the discounts does undermine the marketing benefit of the "sale price" to a significant degree.)
Not to toot my own horn (it was easy to see, if you have experience in the business), but I saw that this was their plan, and stated it, in Dec 2021, when they announced the first Tamrikon.
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
Nikon does not lean as aggressively into this sales plan for its own-manufactured lenses, especially the S-line models. Those have seen ongoing, but less dramatic in percentage terms, discounts in the US over the past couple of years, but that's due primarily to the weak yen vs. the dollar.
Yeah, not sure why Tamron is listed at 790g. I think Tamron 35-150 is heavier. Per B&H.
--
https://www.instagram.com/the.techiephotographer/
Last edited:
sirhawkeye64
Forum Pro
The lens MSRP was $1249 so you only lost $150, not $380. And frankly, $150 is only 12% off of new, which is about what Nikon puts things on sale for anyway. Unless you're selling the lens, you haven't really lost anything (yet) as I mentioned in my other comment.
SecondTimeAround
Senior Member
Oops... Please ignore - wrong Tamron!
(Haven't yet had my 3rd coffee)
Last edited:
I'm considering this lens and for me the comparison is with the 70-200FL, which used I can get for a similar price. Would I rather have the IQ of the 70-200S? Yes! - though a big factor making me consider this is the size and weight.An affordable compact f2.8 lens is going to be a compromise. The speed advantage versus the F4S quality is the trade-off. For me the f2.8 makes the shorter range more viable. I also prefer the range of the 20-40f2.8 over the 28-75f2.8. So if you go in with the right expectations, and have the software to makeup for that sharpness, YMMV.
Especially because I use a DX and FX body. It is unfortunate that the Tamrikon's are the G1 versions, and don't have VR, but I'm still happy to have them available. I use VR on boats, train platforms, bridges, when I'm shivering, and when I rush a shot and have bad technique. Dragging the shutter handheld is amazing. My A7C was better than the R8 at 1/30th indoors because of this.
Still, I'm curious about a direct comparison to the 70-200FL. There don't seem to be many people who have done this, at least not in a place I can find. The thing is that the MTF charts indicate this 70-180 should have better IQ than the 70-200FL, which until the Z mount 70-200 was considered the best 70-200 available with extraordinary IQ. If the MTF charts give an accurate representation, the 70-180 should look stupendous. It'd be nice to get some hands on confirmation one way or the other.
shuncheung
Veteran Member
That is the DSLR version of the Tamron 35-150mm lens, which is an f2.8 to f4 and a much smaller and slower lens than the mirrorless f2 to f2.8 version. Note the version for Canon. There is no mirrorless Tamron lens for Canon RF. The above weights are DSLR lenses.
Yeah, not sure why Tamron is listed at 790g. I think Tamron 35-150 is heavier. Per B&H.
For combined stabilization and AF-C you're going to want the Nikon.
If you go by MTF's, the 70-200S is stronger on the long end. Closer lines should produce more pleasing (subjective) bokeh. I'll bet color rendering, flare, focus breathing, and micro-contrast is better on the S lens as well.
For my needs, budget, and combined I prefer the Tamron. Combined with a Z8/Z9 it outperforms a D500 with an AF-S 70-200FL. IMO
With my Z8 and its ibis I'm less concerned with the missing VR, though I know it would be better with in-lens VR. I wouldnworry about focus speed and accuracy, but I've seen at least one review which claims this is better on the 70-180 than the F mount 70-200 FL. I'd be curious if anyone else out there confirms that.
I agree the 70-200S looks better on MTF, but I'm looking at 70-180 vs 70-200FL, and to me the 70-180 looks clearly better except in the corners. The 70-180 has higher and closer together resolution and contrast lines than the FL almost all the way across until the extreme corners. The only place the FL seems to win is that the meridial resolution line drops a bit further off relative to the sagital on the 70-180 than the FL, but even then it's still higher than the FL's for most of the frame.
Last edited:
sirhawkeye64
Forum Pro
If you're contemplating both, Matt Granger did a good comparison of the new 70-180 and the 70-200 recently (maybe a few weeks ago) on Youtube. He take was the 70-180 is good, but if you want the best obviously the 70-200 is the way to go, and you'll likely see it in the details (and corners of the frame). But for the price, the 70-180 is a good option if the 70-200 S is out of reach financially.
--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..
Last edited:
Again, I'm not considering the 70-200S at all, though I know it's the best. I'm looking at the 70-180 vs the F mount 70-200 FL. Granger had this in his comparison and found the 70-180 to work better AF-wise, but I didn't find his photo comparison especially informative on these two lenses.
sirhawkeye64
Forum Pro
No that's fine. It was mainly a comment regarding comparison as some regard the 70-180 as inferior to the 70-200, and I don't personally quite see it that way especially after seeing Matt's tests. Yes there are some differences, but there are also big differences in price too. I think given it's price the 70-180 (especailly on sale now for $1099) is a heck of a deal with some drawbacks but nothing major that I would consider a deal breaker for me at least. While some sharpness is perhaps lost in the details and edges, I personally think its got a very good position and purpose in the Z line-up and would have no problem getting one to save $1200+.
archerscreek
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,228
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 1,994
This should be Nikon’s strategy for all of their lens releases— start them out 10% to 20% higher than they otherwise would to cut down on preorders and maximize money for them and their dealers for the first purchasers. Then allow dealers to cut their prices when stock is readily available.
However, I wonder if they believe that a significant number of people that would have otherwise bought the lens in a preorder at a lower price would choose not to buy it later at the same lower price simply because they can’t feel the rush of possibly being among the first to have something. Thus the strategy would cost them volume not covered by the initial price increase.
I know this, photography consumers, even NPS members, seem to act like addicts when something new comes out. Gotta have it! Gotta have it! A release is announced, preorders open. Then buyers start pestering stores like B&H with weekly calls or emails about when they can expect their drugs to arrive. Crazy.
sirhawkeye64
Forum Pro
I think they have been doing this at least for some things. Like the Z5 for example. Rarely do you ever pay the $1399 MSRP for that camera... usually it's "$100 off" (so $1299) most of the time. But "overpricing" the initial few releases and just making a high MSRP would be a way to balance things out. The early-adopters pay more, and they help subsidize some of the sales later on (where it's discounted $100-$300).
For example, the target price for NIkon to meet their profits on the Z8 may actually be something like $3800, so those who paid $3,999 just paid a "premium" even though $3999 is the MSRP but it was just icing on the cake for Nikon. They would have still maintained their margins at $3,800 or even lower. It just gives them some room to work with the price., But I think many companies are doing this anyway, and being that the 70-180 is a rebadge of a Tamron-made lens basically, Nikon likely doesn't have a lot of cost involved anyway. More than likely TAmron's profit margins are much larger than NIkons or any camera OEM, and thus when you factor in the markup that Nikon has on such rebadged lenses, it offers a nice margin for them, Tamron still makes a good margin, and it looks as if it's good a deal to the consumer (compared to OEM lenses which probably have less margin built-in, and in many cases it probably is a good deal despite being cheaper and perhaps lacking a few things).
--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..
Last edited:
Mikspin
Forum Enthusiast
Not! I am one of the original purchasers,. What a pleasant surprise, and I have repurchased the lens at the discounted savings. I am repurchasing because I miss the first one's photos, and realize it was a mistake to return it. Why did I return the first, because a week after receiving the lens, I read that Tamron is releasing a new version of the 70-180 2.8, but this time with VR. This upset me to end. how foolish I had been! So I returned it, as it was still within the return window.
I believe that Nikon was placed in the same situation, how foolish they had been to deal with their competitors. Now we probably have this new permanent price, similar to what occurred with the 28-75. I wasted no time repurchasing this great lens, The IBIS in my Z8 offsets the missing lens VR, to most extent. I am one happy camper.
So to the original first purchasers, do not fret, enjoy your wonderful lens. In my opinion, it is the equal of the z 70-200, without the last 20mm, but is far shorter, lighter, and handier. This lens never stays home. It is always in my bag. Mike
I believe that Nikon was placed in the same situation, how foolish they had been to deal with their competitors. Now we probably have this new permanent price, similar to what occurred with the 28-75. I wasted no time repurchasing this great lens, The IBIS in my Z8 offsets the missing lens VR, to most extent. I am one happy camper.
So to the original first purchasers, do not fret, enjoy your wonderful lens. In my opinion, it is the equal of the z 70-200, without the last 20mm, but is far shorter, lighter, and handier. This lens never stays home. It is always in my bag. Mike
Mackiesback
Forum Pro
I am not sure Nikon's margins change at all in this scenario, as the great margin of cameras aren't sold consumer direct from Nikon. I think it is the retailers margins you might be thinking of.
When Nikon announces a sale on something like this lens, do they issue rebates or credits to their dealer network that already have it in stock? I kind of doubt it. Do they drop the wholesale price to dealers during the sale period? Maybe, but I kinda doubt that as well.
sirhawkeye64
Forum Pro
The price will go back up. We're only talking a $150 savings. From what I know the 70-180 is normally $1249 so I don't know where people are getting $300+ price differences from (this was at least according to their initial announcement a few months ago).
It looks like all of the Tamron rebadged lenses are currently on sale: the 17-28 and 28-75....
--
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..
Last edited:
sirhawkeye64
Forum Pro
Their margin would change though because the price is the same if you buy directly from them versus a retailer, so if anything their target sale price (real sale price to maintain margins) may in fact be even lower. But my point is that they "overprice" on purpose especially at launch. Could be that even at $3000 NIkon is still making money on the Z8.... It's just that maybe $600 goes to Nikon and $400 goes to the retailer. And if the person buys directly from Nikon then Nikon gets the $1000 profit in this example.
Although my friend who works at a camera store said they only make about 10% on the cameras, which then perhaps my example is relatively accurate in terms of the Z8 atl east... if they make about 8%-10% on bodies, then they're getting about $350-$400 per camera sold, and Nikon is likely around 15-20% so about $600-$650 for Nikon per unit (maybe a little more, I don't know what their margins are).
---
NOTE: If I don't reply to a direct comment in the forums, it's likely I unsubscribed from the thread/article..
Last edited:
NeedMorePractice
Senior Member
Man, Nikon can't even put gear on SALE without people complaining. This company just can't win lol.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum