Tamron sold more lenses than Nikon in Japan

The Japanese site BCNRanking published their 2012 BCN Awards for various products:

  • Nikon got the #2 spot in the DSLR section
  • Nikon Coolpix cameras are not in the top 3 in the compact segment (Casio is at the #3 spot!)
  • In the lens category, Tamron got the #2 spot after Canon - Tamron sold 0.6% more lenses than Nikon
Here are the main four photography categories:

BCN Ranking collects sales data from approximately 2/3 of all Japanese retail stores.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • ebraun

    As far as the lens ranking is concerned… Nikon only makes lenses for 1 mount (2 if you count the new Nikon 1 system) while Tamron makes lenses for a number of different mounts (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc…). It’s kind of an unlevel playing field if you think about it since 3rd party lens manufacturers have the ability to sell lenses for multiple mounts without fear of cannibalizing body/system sales.

    • venancio

      … canon also makes for canon mounts only, so i guess we’ll just have to give tamron the credit that is due to the company… i thought sigma was bigger than tamron… maybe nikon will now consider the request for 24mm 1.8G and 35mm 1.8G FX, or maybe not…

      • John


        I would really like to have a 24,35,50 & 85 f/1.8 G set of primes. Less than a third of the price a f/1.4 set for only a 2/3 stop loss.

        • John

          That is all FX of course.

        • Roberto


          for 24, 35, and 85 mm f:1.8 G

          • WoutK89

            Congrats, the 85/1.8 was already announced/released.

      • Anonymus Maximus

        Do Tamron make some?

      • Sander

        Canon had 7% more share of DSLRs sales, but only 2% of lenses. So I’d say Nikon actually did really well in the lenses department.

        • Ken Elliott

          That is pretty insightful. Good work, sir. I’d expect Pros and prosumers to buy more lenses per body than consumers.

    • Excellent point.

    • @ ebraun Excellent point.

    • Ralph

      Unfair playing field??? Firstly Nikon has the inside running on all compatability issues, they know how firmware will eveolve and can allow for it, so a lot of consumers buy Nikon for fear of future compatability problems – see story on Sigma. Secondly, its Nikons choice not to produce lenses in different mounts. We’d have a much better marketplace if cameras had universal mounts or manufactures produces in several mounts. The big manufacturers like Nikon and Canon wont do that coz that would remove their premium. Dont feel sorry for Nikon for Christ’ sake.

      • +1 I completely agree

        And add to that Nikon’s decision to force retailers into MSRP pricing and they cannot expect to be #2. And since their decision to force MSRP pricing at retailers is recent, Nikon can expect their ranking to slide next year on their amazing but slightly overprices lenses.

    • Earl

      So, the Nikon 1 strategy didn’t pay off for Nikon after all!!!

      All of the so-called (paid) expert raving “reviews” didn’t help them.

      One doesn’t need to go to Harvard business school to figure out their Nikon 1 strategy is a failed one.

      • Been there guy

        Sure doesn’t sound like they will make too much out of that Nikon 1. A lot of my friends told me they have no interest for Nikon 1 either. Mostly point out the pricing is outrages.

        Personally, ashton kutcher is a total turn off for me. I don’t buy anything that Hollywood people peddles.

      • Actually, that’s not true.

        –Firstly, Nikon announced recently that their Nikon 1 sales exceeded expectations. There is a post on this website reporting on that announcement. The sales of those cameras are really taking off.

        –Secondly, Nikon 1 has been on the market for only a couple of months, whereas Canon and Nikon non-1 lenses have been selling for the entire period being reported on in that sales survey.

        –Thirdly, as an earlier post pointed out, it’s not even clear that Nikon 1 lens sales were measured at all in this survey.

        –Finally, Nikon 1 is clearly not aimed at most of the people who frequent this forum. This forum is overwhelmingly DSLR users, and some of us think Nikon 1 is an excellent idea and an excellent camera. It’s not a DSLR but it’s not intended to be, either.

      • Claude

        Earl your comment is not valid. Nikon has not been selling Mirrorless for nearly as long as the other vendors. They are the top selling Mirrorless over the past two months.

    • frAnk

      Lens sales is lens sales, we count them one at a time. if someone bought a D3100, the next logic purchase would be a lens that has similar function but half the price of Nikon or Canon branded lens. Even they know the picture quality will somewhat compromised.

      It doesn’t make any sense for someone to spend $499 for the DSLR body and $2300 for a 70-200mm zoom lens. That purchaser will go with the cheaper lens with same function, and quality is NOT on the top of list, as long as his or her pictures looks good on the PC screens. That purchaser sure is not looking at winning any pulitzer price award either.

      Nikon priced themselves out of market. They sell 10 units of 70-200mm zoom for $2300 each, that is a steep price. If they sell the lens at $1800, they can grab 20 units at the same period of time. The point here is Nikon’s premium is too far out, if they charge 15% or 20% premium over other brands, they could have a lot more customers.

      • Been there guy

        If Nikon sells their lens at the same price level with the others, Sigma and Tamron would have gone out of business, and then they can raise the pricing when there is not competition left.

      • frAnk,

        I think I completely agree with you. Nikon (and Canon although I think Canon lens prices are a couple of percentage points lower than Nikon overall) prices themselves out of the market and thereby make it possible for 3rd party like Sigma and Tamron to complete EASILY.

        I am not sure what point you are making with the low end D3100 example, but there is no reason in my opinion Nikon could not compete in this space if they got serious about it. Nikon makes APS-C only lenses which could be priced aggressively against the 3rd party units but then I think some of the kit APS-C lenses are sub par to 3rd party as well. Therefor, Nikon has made an indirect decision not to be competitive in consumer level 5.6 lenses (mostly, but I must note the 5.6 28-300 full frame lens was impressive but that’s not a 5.6 APS-C kit lens either)

        In the pro space, they have the best lenses, but they are WAY over priced compared to 3rd party.

        Case in point is the Nikon 85mm 1.4G ($1699 Amazon) versus the Sigma 85mm 1.4 ($969 Amazon) released I think still less than a year ago. Both lenses have a 4.5 star rating on Amazon reviews and from other photographers I have talked to the Sigma is 94% as good as the Nikon and for half the money.

        The Sigma 70-200 2.8 ($1399) is also another example. No one disputes the Nikkor 70-200 2.8G ($2399 Amazon) is the image king, but the Sigma FF counterpart is very impressive with a 5 star review rating for a grand less.

        Been there guy,
        That will never happen.

        • rich in tx

          “Case in point is the Nikon 85mm 1.4G ($1699 Amazon) versus the Sigma 85mm 1.4 ($969 Amazon) released I think still less than a year ago. Both lenses have a 4.5 star rating on Amazon reviews and from other photographers I have talked to the Sigma is 94% as good as the Nikon and for half the money.”

          Yes, but that does not make the Sigma an equal to the nikkor. Nor does it make the Sigma a better value; especially if you plan to ever sell the lens. I would rather have the Nikkor, because a few years later if I decide to sell the lens, I will still get what I paid for it or possibly even more. Unlike the Sigma, which won’t even be functioning at that point

          • OsoSolitario

            2012 prices:

            Nikkor 85/1.4: 1699$
            Sigma 85/1.4: 969$
            Difference 730

            If you sell one of both in 2016 for example.

            Nikkor 85/1.4 1000
            Sigma 85/1.4 300
            Difference 700

            Yes, you will get a a grand for the Nikkor and only 300 for the Sigma… but the difference is still 700$ that you pay now!!

            • Ken Elliott

              I either buy used Nikon glass, or try to schedule buying when a rebate is in place. My experience is the lens takes an initial drop in resale value, but the next price increase bumps it up pretty close to what I paid for it. If I wait long enough (and usually do), the rising retail price can cause the used price to rise above the price I paid.

              After two years, I lost US$50 on my Nikon 85mm f/1.4 AF D. I made about $150 on my early 70-200 AF-S VR-1. I took a much bigger hit on Sigma lenses – about $200 on the last two – so they actually cost me more than a Nikon. Other than Zeiss, I’ve given up on third-party lenses.

        • photdog

          I think Nikon could do better, with an optimized product policy! I’d take the old 2.8/80-200 in a heartbeat over the actual Sigma in the same range – but this lens isn’t offered in Europe anymore. A good bunch of Nikkors need to be updated since long, the 80-400 just to name one. But Nikon has chosen to come out with lenses, that commenter, not only in this forum, have seen as least urgent like e.g. the 40mm Micro. At the same time lenses as a 4.0/70-200 which certainly had good chances to meet a numerous demand are left out.
          Lenses as the 16-35 raised some eye brows. There is an outstanding 14-24, but without the possibility to attach filters and a very vulnerable front lens. Then there is the old 17-35, being 1 stop faster has a 77mm thread like the 16-35, and even more important has FAR less distortion. Wouldn’t it have been more successful to update the 17-35?
          If even a company as Samyang/Rokinon/Walimex and whatever managed to have wide angles in an respected quality (which sure cannot compete with the 14-24) There must be some space for some nice Nikkors since Nikon D&R is generally head and shoulders over them.
          Almost the same in Tele. The 4.0/200-400 may be the best you can get. But at that price point for most of the high end tele there are only very few to get them in economic reality. Thus a market can be unlocked by going down by one step from the very best to the really good, e.g. by making them 1 stop slower.
          Concerning the DSLRs the odds may or may not change this year as so many new models will be lauched – we’ll have to see how that works out. As for me, a new FX and a new FX is on the list…

      • Rob Ueberfeldt

        The guy who owns the D3100 can buy a Nikon 55-200 they are cheap and sharp. Not knocking the after market manufacturers I bought a Sig 10-20 a couple of years ago when Nikon didn’t have a wideangle option, when they released theirs it cost more than twice as much here in NZ. Never had any problems and sharp too. I wouldn’t knock Nikons marketing strategy they seem to be making money.

    • Not Nikon

      LOL biggest pile of turd ever.

      I love the psychology of defeat. You come up with all sorts of justifications to lessen the impact or even explain away the competition. Seriously, read up on it. You have just posted a classic example of what happens on forums everywhere. Samsung ships more phones than Apple? “But Apple only makes on phone!!!”. Suddenly Apple overtakes Samsung “well, that’s just obvious, Apple make better phones”


  • Eric Calabros

    Canon sells %7 more DSLR than Nikon, but its Lens share is only %2 above Nikon.. does that mean nikon shooters buy more lenses?

    • Richard B.

      My guess is that they buy more Nikon lenses.

      • Eric Calabros

        or maybe Canon shooters buy Nikkor lenses 🙂

        • Not Surprised

          They all buy Sigma and Tamron lenses.

          • Hom Thogan

            They don’t need to, they have access to L glass at fair prices, check the prices of all their f/4L lenses and see if you can find something like that in Nikon.

            I’m a Nikon shooter and love my cameras, but damn having to pay premiums for lenses isn’t a good joke.

        • the visible man

          they do. ive got 2 friends with 5dmk2’s that shoot with the nikkor 50 1.2

          • PeterO

            I can well understand why. A friend of mine recently shot a concert with the canon 85 1.2 and the purple and green fringing on that thing is nasty.

        • Pwsonline

          Yes, this happens indeed! I know various Canonians that own Nikkors…

        • Jaws

          I know of some pro landscape photographers who use the Canon 5D Mark II but their main wide angle lens is the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8.

          • Earl

            a match made in haven.

    • Canon probably sell more low end DSLRs to people don’t know anything about cameras or lenses and are happy with kit lenses, that come with their 1100d or D550 etc.

      • Oops that was meant to be a reply to Richard B’s statement.

  • Jesus_sti

    Because Canon shooter like to buy scrap ! Canon body with Tamron lens … ouch !

  • Jason

    Nikon will sell less because they do not stand behind their specs. They widely advertise great specs, that lead you to belive that it will last several years. But, if it fails after 1 year period, you will pay to fix it, not Nikon.

    My D700 (usa version and very well maintained) failed in 60K actuations, in 2nd year… in less than half the 150K they widely promise. I have to pay $350 to fix it plus pay shipping. No goodwill to fix manufacturing defect. Plus, they promised a fix in 7 days, now its over 30 days, and still waiting on parts, with no expected completion date. Losing business since i can afford only one pro body.

    Now they say – we predict 7 days to fix, not promise (but charge you 350 for repair). We predict 150K, not promise (but charge you $2699 for body). Wonder if the Nikon CEO was told that his Mercedez predict 36K mile warrnty, not promise. And he will have a lemon car that failed at 16K miles, after $45K (or what ever that costs).

    • Eric Calabros

      we heard this your dramatic whining under another post here in this site. now everybody is well informed about Nikon cruelty. Thanks. now, stop it please

      • Jason

        @ eric

        Losing $3000 and making others’ aware. Perhaps that is “dramatic” in the world you come from as indicated from the language used in your blog

        • Jason, you did not lose $3,000.

          –Firstly, a D700 didn’t cost that much, it cost $2500 or so.
          –Secondly, all you need is a new shutter. Not a new camera. That’s a few hundred dollars at the very most.

          Even in the most dramatic, pessimistic scenario you’re out of a few hundred dollars. And the new shutter will likely last a lifetime. For a pro grade camera that’s not perfect by any means, but it’s also not the complete disaster you seem to feel it is.

          • Jason,

            Apologies for one mistake in my note. With tax your D700 probably cost around $3000. I’ll correct my note on that specific point.

            However, the rest of my note is still completely valid. At most you’re out of the cost of a new shutter. That’s not even close to $3000.

            There is no way on earth you could buy a comparable camera for the price of a new D700 shutter. Just replace the shutter, the new one will likely last you a lifetime if it’s not intentionally abused.

            • Jason


              Fully agree with you. Behind the venting, the light in the tunnel is its predicted future usability – after repair. But, once broken… you never know what else will fail… and then the net cost keeps rising… In any case, lesson learned: buy the 3 year warranty: it costs only 295, less than what i already spent 350 for one repair.

      • Not Surprised

        Its a legitimate statement to make in response to why a company may be lagging behind competitors by a margin. You don’t need to censor this person’s comment, because its not spammed — it is apt to the conservation.

        Furthermore, considering that Nikon (and other corporations) are 1 entity that advertises a certain message Over and Over and Over.. it is quite fair play for poorly-served customers to speak up about their experience repeatedly.

        Unless, of course, Nikon is going to change their claims and state honestly what percentage of their equipment breaks down before the rating — and how much $ Nikon customers spend repairing these issues.

        I’m not against Nikon. None of my products have broken down. Two of my lenses are loud when focusing when most other lenses of the same model are not. But no serious issues in 4 years.

        • WoutK89

          Seeing as only 1 or 2 people on NikonRumors have agreed on this faulty D700 thing, I guess the percentage is many more times lower than the one that doesnt break down in years. So I think the numbers wouldnt be significant enough to show.

          @ Jason, if you have something to complain, go to Nikon, or please post in the Forum, and stop repeating your drama in every thread you come across. More and more people will just get annoyed with your story and you will lose people that actually will care.

          • Hermann Kloeti

            I have given my D700 a rough time. Banged it, dropped it (broken lens hood on the f/2.6 105 mm), scratched it – it never gave up. Kind of, you know, extra-reliable.

        • Eric Calabros

          ask someone to not talk about something is not censoring. I have the righ for asking that. he or she, has the right to ignore it

      • Mock Kenwell

        Yes. I stood up for you then, but now your whining has become not only inappropriate in this forum, but suspect as well. Canon troll perhaps?

        • Jason

          Nope… 100% Nikon. Biggest problem is this: with over $10k in Nikkor and CLS, and fully aware that canon sucks, and fully enticed by the new D800… I cannot abandon Nikon in revenge even though they punched me with a defective D700 (it was awesome while it lasted).

          Venting loudly. Not whining. Pardon the rant. Appreciate the readings.

          • AXV

            The warranty should be like you say, as in cars: “3 years or 100,000 shutter releases warranty” or what ever numbers they want to put in, but they should be forced to stand by their advertised numbers, otherwise they can just say “shutter lasts 245 million clicks”…

            • WoutK89

              Advertised to last on average 150000 clicks, it is not a minimum or maximum. The majority lasts longer, they dont have to guarantee that yours will make it.

    • Mark

      Funny, I had similar experiences with Canon before I switched to Nikon.

      It probably doesn’t help your situation with the recent floods, etc. Good luck though.

    • Santa

      Blah blah blah. Read your pointless crybaby wittering before, and nothing’s changed.

      If you lack the mental capacity to understand what you are buying and under what terms, that’s not Nikon’s fault. There are crybaby “horror” stories from every manufacturer for every type of goods, and you know what? They’re all boring as hell, like you.

      • Reilly Diefenbach

        witter [ˈwɪtə] Informal
        (intr, often foll by on) to chatter or babble pointlessly or at unnecessary length

        hah hah, I love a new verb!

    • Hom Thogan

      Rents are billable to the client you know?, just saying.

  • So, when I bought my $100 Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5 that counted as one.
    And when I bought my $7000 Nikon 200-400 f4 that counted as — one?

    I know, I know, I live in the U.S., that counts as 0.

  • FYI admin, Tamron only sold 0.6% more lenses based on the numbers you provided, not 1.4% 🙂

    • javaone

      It all depends on how you do the math

      Nikon had a 19.7% market share vs
      Tamron with 20.3 so you can say Tamron has a .6 % lead in market share.
      you can also say they sold 3% more lenses (100*(20.3-19.7)/19.7).

      • Touché! 🙂

        • Davo

          Good to have some figures but it lacks a lot of detail.
          As someone above pointed out, a twin lens kit will likely count as 2 lens sold, and any exotic telephoto counting as 1.
          What we need are further breakdowns for a better insight into Nikon’s financial position.
          Also I’d bet the new 50 and 85 1.8G’ll boost sales volume in the coming year. They should really complete their 1.8G line with either a 20/24/28 or a combination of those. Those will likely be volume sellers with more margin than kit lenses.

          • Davo

            Oops, my comment wasn’t suppose to be a response to your post, Jim. Its suppose to be a general comment.
            Btw kudos to Tamron. Again, need more breakdown of data but if they’re selling more lenses, they must be producing what customers want (remember Tamrons won’t have kit lenses to make up the volume of numbers).

  • BTW – Marketshare is not an “Award”
    It’s just . . . well, marketshare.

  • Shawnino

    I only make Tamron 0.6% ahead from the chart.

    Now if Nikon would gaive us what we wanted they’d be #2.
    If, like Tamron, they made lenses for everybody, they’d be #1.

    • correct, I calculated the difference with Canon instead

  • Merv

    Canon point-and-shoots (and probably their dSLRs) I do think has the best ‘Auto’ mode results. Canon’s lead in the point-and-shoot category probably makes at least a few of their owners preferentially choose a Canon dSLR.

    I almost did choose a Canon dSLR based on me having a Canon point-and-shoot, but the Nikon D40 was just a bit too cheap…and I have no regrets ever since.

  • El_Pickerel

    Now let’s see what happens to Olympus’ figures with whatever happens to them this year.

  • Steve Starr

    Canon will always injure Nikon DSLR sales. But those two are far ahead of the others in the DSLR list.

    Canon offered their $500 Pixma 9000 Mark II for free with some of their low-end DSLR cameras recently. So the owner buys the Canon DSLR (which isn’t priced fixed either like Nikon is), and then puts the $500 free printer for sale on Craigslist for $200-$300 and then makes the Canon DSLR purchase even cheaper than what he paid for it by that amount.

    It’s very enticing to go to a Canon DSLR as a new buyer with a free 13 inch printer thrown in for a comparable Nikon model. Sell the printer and you make it back up. Canon makes up for it with overpriced ink cart sales too. Win-Win for Canon as they make their own stuff and can drop the prices to hurt the competition if they like.

    Maybe the 36MP D800 will get more into the Nikon fold, until Canon counters with something like a 1D Mark III or 1Dx with their new Pixma-Pro I $1,000 printer thrown in for free too.

    Nikon needs to sweeten their pot somehow. The new 16MP cell phones will hurt the Coolpix sales. Little too late there.

    Maybe they should begin making their lenses for other camera brands? Ala Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron?

    • Darkness

      You work for Canon, total rubbish…

  • T.I.M

    Hi guys,
    I need to upgrade my 25 years old Manfrotto tripod (not strong enough for my new AF-s 200mm f/2).
    I already have a 308 pro-ball head, any suggetions for the tripod ?
    Thank you !

    • spam

      I’d ask that question in another forum, like on dpreview.

      • 200/2 is fully handholdable.
        just get used to it.
        after first wedding with it, i couldnt move arms, now i dont even notice.

    • Here’s one I bought recently — I love it.


      It’s definitely large and heavy but it’s very fast to work with, extends to about 10 feet tall, has a 2nd head attachment screw so you can put the camera at ground level if you want, and comes with a shoulder strap to carry it around. I use it all the the studio and also take it out in the field when I drive to a photography site.

      • By “fast to work with” I mean it has 3 special switches at the top of the legs. If you press any 2 at a time you can raise or lower all 3 legs simultaneously. Saves a tremendous amount of time when you’re shooting fast, either portraits or landscapes. Very efficient and productive design (at the cost of some extra weight).

    • Hermann Kloeti

      Tripod? Do the right thing and get yourself a BERLEBACH – light (ash) timber construction, extremely short damping period. I intend to get an upgrade to accommodate heavy gear but I shall never to change to another brand!

    • Benjamin

      Maybe a feisol?


      Their Elite line is for even heavier use (and healthier bank accounts)

    • LeGO

      @ T.I.M.

      Several bigger and heavier tripods from Gitzo and RRS will do but if you want to avoid upgrading in multiple steps before settling on the right one, you might as well check out Sachtler’s CF legs. The Sachtler 75 CF is the minimum I would suggest.

      • T.I.M

        I ordered the Manfrotto carbon 057+magnesium ball head 057+Manfrotto bag MBAG80PN.

        It’s alot of money (about $1100) but the D800+Af-s 200mm f/2+TC20-E III is also alot of $$$$ and I don’t want take a chance to ruin it because of a cheap tripod.

        Also, I have seizures and it’s safier for me (and the camera) to have a heavy duty tripod.

        • LeGO

          The setup that I suggested (Sachtler Speedlock 75 CF with a FSB-8 head) cost almost $3,000 but will be good even up to a 400mm f/2.8 with long-lens support (though a Sachtler Speedlock 100 would be even nicer) . You may still need to upgrade your legs and head if you go further than the 200mm f/2.0.

  • spam

    Anyone knows if the kit-lenses sold with cameras are included in the statisics? I’d guess no, if they were then I can’t see how Tamron could get as close to Canon and Nikon.

    Also, is this lenses produced or lenses sold as their own brand? The Tamron number seem extremely high, but if it included all the lenses they make for Sony and others (sold as Sony/Pentax/?? lenses) then it would make more sense.

    • WoutK89

      There are many stores that will sell a body with a 3rd party kit-lens instead. As sometimes kit-lenses from 3rd parties are cheaper, people buy those instead, not knowing and/or caring if quality is equal.

  • Tamron’s main business is OEM lenses for video. I wonder if those were counted.

  • broxibear

    Do you think Christian Bale’s going to be using a Nikon D4 in the new Batman film ?… http://graysofwestminster.aiblog.co.uk/files/2012/01/AP-Advert-Nikon-D4.jpg

  • spam

    Nikon is Japanese, Tamron and Canon too. Pretty clever people IMO.

  • Andrew

    Nikon’s sales were constrained by inventory problems. Their factories were shutdown and production reduced because of the Japanese tsunami and the Thailand floods.

  • TommyTomTom

    Okay, for the lens figure, both Canon and Nikon I believe they factored in their sales of the DSLR Kit, so for each DSLR usually 2 lenses are sold with them. Hence, I see the figure of Tamron more interesting (and difference could be a lot larger). If both C&N did not factor those kits Tammy would have sold far more. So, I see third party manufactures are disadvantage, hence could also the be reason Sigma is not showing in the top 3 figure (which I’m surprised). But heads up on Tammy, because at the moment are more a couple of rather fine lenses 17-50mm f2.8 with VC (OS) and 18-270 superzooom (both which Nikon does have).

  • TommyTomTom

    Okay, for the lens figure, both Canon and Nikon I believe they factored in their sales of the DSLR Kit, so for each DSLR usually 2 lenses are sold with them. Hence, I see the figure of Tamron more interesting (and difference could be a lot larger). If both C&N did not factor those kits Tammy would have sold far more. So, I see third party manufactures are disadvantage, hence could also the be reason Sigma is not showing in the top 3 figure (which I’m surprised). But heads up on Tammy, because at the moment are more a couple of rather fine lenses 17-50mm f2.8 with VC (OS) and 18-270 superzooom (both which Nikon doesn’t have).

  • TommyTomTom

    Sorry for double posting. Correction on the last post. 😉

  • BartyL

    Ok, I guess AM Graphics isn’t either looking to do business with the Japanese or Japanese expatriates then?

  • Hom Thogan

    It is only normal, Nikon has been introducing new glass at prices that aren’t really well thought for this economic crisis,

    Now putting myself on the side of the comment above comparing Nikon and Canon, on the other side of the field Canon has 2 advantages:

    1) F/4L lenses: their legacy f/4L lenses are by far the easiest access to cheap and great quality lenses in any brand (24-105mm f/4L, 17-40mm f/4L, 70-200mm f/4L, 70-200mm f/4L) which allows people to buy within the brand in a tight budget, in Nikon such thing doesn’t exists thus people on a budget are pushed out of the brand to get what they need (Tamron’s 70-200mm f/2.8 price vs Nikon’s 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D price).

    2) Primes ready usable in all the cameras: Canon doesn’t has the problem Nikon is having since the D40: cameras without AF micro motor. And they didn’t needed to do expensive versions of their own lenses to be able to be used in the Rebels/XXXD line.

    This works in favor of Canon and their propertary market and this is also why Nikon is behind in the list even to Tamron.

    What Nikon should do if they don’t want 3rd party manufacturers pissing in their yard is to find an active way to reduce prices in some of their lenses, if not it won’t be far the day Sigma gets ahead of them in sales too.

    • Jaws

      I agree, most of the newer Nikon FX lenses are priced very high. The price on the 28-300 VR really surprised me, and even the 24-120 f/4 VR and the 16-35 f/4 VR were priced a little higher than I expected. Also, Nikon can really use a 70-200 f/4 VR in their lineup as that would be very popular. The f/4 lenses are very popular in Canon’s lineup, and Nikon would be wise to do the same.

      Also, the 28-300 VR was kind of an odd addition as that is considered to be an ‘amateur’ lens, yet Nikon doesn’t have an ‘amateur’ or ‘entry level’ FX body. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if the sales of this lens aren’t very high. They should have waited until they had a lower priced FX body in their lineup before bringing out this lens.

      • KnightPhoto

        Hmm price complainers about Nikon lenses:
        – Nikon’s kit lenses are the best IQ on the market (18-55, 55-200, 55-300, etc.);
        – Nikon’s f4 lens offerings are the best on the market (16-35 and 24-120 kill the equivalent Canons – look in the corners). Yes Nikon needs a 70-200 f4 (and in that case difficult to top Canon’s offerings) but pretty much everything Nikon offers is better IQ.
        – pro lenses head-to-head with Canon with super-telephotos cheaper than Canon across the board.

        Do you want the best lenses or do you want the best price? Not that tough a decision, and lots of choices. Yep a few gaps yet to fill but every new lens that comes out clearly is best in class or so close as to be meaningless. Nikon appears to take an excellent approach to lens design (and with cameras and sensors too).

        • Hom Thogan

          Best IQ of the market is debatable and of course subjective, without considering the apples to oranges comparision between brands (different AA filters, different sensors, different image processing engines).

          My questions to you is: Have you used the latest Canon’s EF-S 18-55mm IS versions? I have and they have come a long way from the first 18-55mm they introduced with the original Digital Rebel/300D; just like Nikon has done with their versions of the Nikkor 18-55mm AF-S.

          Have you used a f/4L lens before? I have used both f/4L lenses and Nikon’s newest f/4 lenses and thus I make the comparision, virtually there’s little difference between them and thus is the reasoning that the price tag is going off the board.

          Canon’s approach is good too and their prices too because they did this years ago and their prices have normalized with the market a long tie ago, Nikon was caught with its pants down with aging lenses FX lenses and tons of Kit lenses (and revisions of its kit lenses too) for DX, I may sound like a troll but in reality Nikon isn’t going on an easy route here,

          Simply put if Nikon wants to gain a place over Tamron they need to find a way to lower the prices of the new lenses, if not they will have people opting for Tamron and Sigma lenses.

          As an example the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM DG EX II/Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 DI LD IF vs the Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D IF. I have used all 3 lenses and if I had to keep one I would keep the Sigma because it performs as good as the Nikkor, it is far cheaper and it has ultrasonic motor. This logic is applied by a lot more people in different lenses too.

        • BeanyPic

          Had to reply to this as its subjective. I use the Canon Glass as IQ is better for my requirments over the tired Nikon. I’ll leave you in peace now.

  • Spy Black

    Those are minuscule and, in my opinion, insignificant numerical differences between Nikon, Tamron, and Canon. That a 2% difference between Canon and Nikon, ~91% of Canon’s figure, and 97% of Tamron’s figure. That’s more or less a dead heat.

  • Woody

    Should look at numbers in Japan over the years:

    Lens: Canon (26.3%) Nikon (23.2%) Sigma (14.1%)
    DSLR: Canon (39.1) Nikon (31.3) Panasonic (8.7) (mirrorless incl.)

    Lens: Canon (24.9%) Nikon (20.4%) Tamron (15.5%)
    DSLR: Canon (32%) Nikon (29.4%) Sony (13.1%) (mirrorless incl.)

    Lens: Canon (21.7%) Nikon (20.3%) Tamron (19.7%)
    DSLR: Canon (46.3%) Nikon (39.2%) Pentax (7.5%) (mirrorless EXCL.)

    Essentially, mirrorless and third party lenses are making BIG cuts into Canon’s market shares and to a smaller extent, Nikon’s.

    • Woody

      Sorry, 2011 Lens should read as:
      Canon (21.7%), Tamron (20.3%), Nikon (19.7%)

  • FX DX

    No wonder cheaper lenses are selling more in this economy. Nikon needs to adjust its prices. Nikon lenses are more expensive than any other brand. I bought my Nikon lenses when they were on discount last year with a purchase of Nikon body. If the discount weren’t available, I would buy third party lenses too.

  • tammy tamy tammy 😀 FTW

  • DanS

    …and Toyota out sells Lexus. I guess I don’t get the point.

  • Ken

    Useless stats/awards to me, only serves for potential new sales and won’t sway me from using Nikon or buying Nikon. Nikon went to space!

    • So what ..Omega went to moon . will you care about that as well:P

      • david distefano

        so did hasselblad

        • Laika

          So did I, arf, arf!

          • david distefano

            you still alive. einstein’s theory was correct that you age much slower as you travel faster. how old are you now?

  • RondoX

    This news doesn’t surprise me at all. In Japan for whatever reason, Tamron lenses are EXTREMELY popular. Whenever I go walkin about I almost always see a Tamron. I have old men walking up to me with their F5s telling me how this certain Tamron lens hasn’t left their body in ages.

    Walk into a Bic or Yodabashi camera and the Tamron section is huge. There are always people trying out their products.

    The only thing more popular in Japan than Tamron lenses are the Kenko-Tokina filters.

  • Simon

    Customers in Japan voted with their money and consider Canon gives much more bang for the buck than Nikon be it in dSLRs or point and shoot cameras.

  • I see ad of peter hurley ? is this you peter 🙂

    • No, this ad is from fstoppers, they advertise here.

  • Max

    Price is perhaps a significant factor. For example Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a lot cheaper than what Nikon offers.

    • plu tamron version has vr pr vc which nikon doesn’t have .

  • CreativeAngle

    I was hoping for Sigma to be #2. But anyway it’s only Janan. Nikon, where is my AF-S 80-400 or (I know you will not give me) 400/5.6?

  • simpleguy

    every tamron lense i ever used was crap ,i never liked them , but they are very popular indeed everywhere for their cheaper price point

  • Interesting to see how different the Japanese market is, although not surprising.

    Although the information you can get from these numbers is still somewhat limited, I really like seeing them and like other hope that admin will keep posting such info. It gives us a bit of a sense of what the market looks and behaves like outside of NR ;).

  • I do agree with Tom,

    Nikon has become terribly expensive during the crisis and consumers do start to be fed-up of such absuses. Canon has a much more sensible policy towards its users. Unfortunately,Nikon does not seem to get the point…

    • Mandrake

      The holiday season here in the US had to be lopsided towards Canon as they started using rebates and Nikon raised prices.

  • CCp

    How can Pentax be #3 on the DSLR list? Where is Sony?

    • Hom Thogan

      It is easier for Pentax to outsell Sony because:

      1) their cameras are cheaper
      2) have I said their cameras are cheaper?

    • Hhom Togan

      Also you have to take into account that Sony has a bit of a bad rep in Japan because many Japanese think their products come with planned end of life (products failing just after the guarantee has expired).

  • Kevin

    Canon has 8X more employees than Nikon, yet has only 18% greater market share (when compared directly to Nikon) than Nikon in the dSLR market. Not bad at all, for Nikon, that is.

  • Q

    Im pretty sure that Nikon did earn a lot more money from their sales than tamron. Some lenses must have a margin that would make Apple envious!

  • o2atoman

    My problem with Nikon Canada is, it does not honor warranty from Nikon US, lens prices in Canada are more expensive compared to the states ever the Canadian $ being at par with the US $. Canon Canada on the other hand honors warranty from US, and Canon often have rebates in the states.

  • norbert

    Personally i think this is great! Given we agree Nikon glass is superior, as a high end anikon glass user I am statistically producing better IQ than your average shooter 🙂

    Seriously though, numbers of lens sales means little without other facts. What is the mean price of a lens? I bet Nikon is highest and Tamron lowest.

    What this does show is what I have suspected for a long time: Nikons dirty tricks have pushed Sigma off the playing field. I sold all my Siggy’s when they stopped working with the D7000 (they still worked on the D700)

  • Paul

    I had the opportunity test the Tamron range at a Trade show It took me about 4 minutes to say thank you but no thank you

  • rhlpetrus

    Does anyone have a longer list for each category?

  • nikon d4x
  • Back to top