The 2018 BCN camera rankings are out (Nikon sales in Japan: cameras up, lenses down)


BCN published their camera rankings for 2018 and Nikon actually increased their market share in the DSLR and compact camera categories while losing lens market share for a fifth consecutive year (BCN collects sales data from approximately 2/3 of all Japanese retail stores):

Digital SLR camera

Ranking #1 #2 #3
2018 Canon 61.1% Nikon 34.4% Ricoh Imaging 4.2%)
2017 Canon 63.3% Nikon 31.6% Ricoh Imaging 4.8%
2016 Canon 56.2% Nikon 36.7% Ricoh Imaging 6.7%
2015 Canon 54.7% Nikon 39.1% Ricoh Imaging 4.5%
2014 Canon 49.2% Nikon 42.5% Ricoh Imaging 5.2%
2013 Canon 52.7% Nikon 35.1% Sony 7.1%

Digital compact camera (with integrated lens)

Ranking #1 #2 #3
2018 Canon 27.9% Nikon 25.5% Casio 17.2%
2017 Canon 27.3% Nikon 22.1% Casio 19.3%
2016 Canon 30.5% Nikon 21% Casio 14.8%
2015 Canon 28.7% Nikon 15.3% Casio 15.2%
2014 Canon 20% Nikon 15.5% Sony 15.4%
2013 Canon 17.6% Sony 16.5% Nikon 14.1%

Lenses:

Ranking #1 #2 #3
2018 Canon  Sigma  Tamron 
2017 Canon  Sigma  Nikon 
2016 Canon  Nikon  Sigma 
2015 Canon  Nikon  Sigma 
2014 Canon  Nikon  Sigma 
2013 Canon  Nikon  Tamron 

Mirrorless cameras:

Ranking #1 #2 #3
2018 Olympus 27.7% Canon 21.3% Sony 20.2%
2017 Olympus 26.8% Canon 18.5% Sony 17.9%
2016 Olympus 34.5% Sony 24.8% Canon 13.6%
2015 Sony 34.3% Olympus 22.3% Panasonic 11.9%
2014 Olympus 28.9% Sony 26.5% Panasonic 14.2%
2013 Olympus 29.8% Panasonic 23.3% Sony 20.1%

This entry was posted in Other Nikon stuff and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Mehdi R

    Canon is selling twice in DSLR!

    • Andrew

      Look at the details. The DSLR data for 2014 shows how quickly Nikon can make-up ground on Canon in a single year. Nikon did not release a major product (DL Series) which no doubt affected its overall market share.

      Digital Compact Camera sales for 2018 sees Nikon practically even with Canon at 25.5% vs 27.9%. Nikon is on the resurgence and 2018 should be a pivotal year for them with the introduction of major new Mirrorless cameras and the replacement for the popular Nikon P900 83x Optical Zoom camera.

      • Good to see you back Andrew, I could use some help with all the all the negative Nikon comments 🙂

  • Proto

    If Nikon priced their E lens, like 70 200, about $500 less — then their lens- sale volume will increase!

    • TurtleCat

      But will it? And enough to offset the margin loss? It’s easy for us to say on this side of the transaction but I’m sure Nikon did the math already.

      • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

        What are there margins ? – or are they like other camera companies charging a premium and what they like for new equipment ?

        • TurtleCat

          I have no idea but margins tend to be set based upon the company’s overall needs. For example, a high margin in one product may offset the low margin on another product or provide revenue for products not yet made. It’s not as simple as saying cost + 10%.

          Still, charging what the market will bear is economics 101.

        • Mehdi R

          Maybe the extra $ is for four buttons on lens, like TouchBar on Macbook Pro. Apple added $300 for touch bar 🙂

        • Espen4u

          One can conclude that Sigma and Tamron operates on less margins than Nikon/Canon/Sony. More efficiency there perhaps?

          • PhilK

            Not necessarily. They do have fewer performance and longevity constraints and expectations than Nikon does, though. I doubt you’ll be seeing Tamron lenses on the International Space Station anytime soon, for example. 😉

            Also – I’m pretty certain that Nikon’s production efficiency is not as good as Canon – meaning that it generally costs them more to make the equivalent lens, so they have to price it higher unless they want to contribute further to their financial woes by not making enough profit margin on items they produce.

            I cannot say for sure how it compares to companies like Sigma, but once again I am fairly certain that Nikon has to build to a higher default performance standard than the 3rd-party lens makers.

            (By “performance standard” I don’t simply mean optical performance, I’m also talking about longevity and repairability of the equipment, ability to certify for various safety and regulatory regimes around the world, etc etc)

            • Espen4u

              I agree, partially. Build quality do cost, but not as much as the markup we see on the new 70-200 for example. Which is an exellent lens by the way. Nikons current price policy will render them fewer sales and therefore in the end, less mindshare in the foto community. My worry is that we’ll soon be saying -Nikon, who? If this continues.

            • Bob Thane

              With the 70-200 I bet a lot of the markup comes from the fluorite. No one’s used it in a 70-200 before so there are new design challenges, it’s more expensive to create fluorite elements, and Nikon’s fairly new to using fluorite so they may not have the same distribution channels and efficiencies perfectly dialed in yet.

              Is that cost worth the weight savings and possibly image quality improvements? Probably not, for most people. Nikon chose to go with the best of the best quality rather than going for the best value, and that means that while certain pros will love the lens, many people will opt for something that’s just good enough for them. So I agree – while having the best lens is great, having the most used lens is also important. It would make sense for Nikon to keep selling the 70-200 VRII so that people have the option of buying a lens without all the upgrades the FL brings.

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              Canon had fluorite elements in their mk2 f2.8 back in 2010 as described by this www.

              http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/canon_EF_70-200_f2-8_L_is_II_review.html

            • Bob Thane

              Good catch, my mistake. I’ll edit the comment.

            • ZoetMB

              The VRII is already discontinued.

            • PhilK

              Had no idea Canon used fluorite elements in such zooms. They don’t seem to denote this in the model anywhere, to my knowledge… just the usual “L” designation..

            • PhilK

              Bear in mind that fluorite optical elements are not a cheap thing to produce and very few companies build lenses that include them. (I know of only 2 in the camera business: Canon and Nikon.)

              So there is undoubtedly valid reasons why the latest version of the 70-200 can command a premium over its predecessor.

              Personally I think Nikon tries to position itself as a “premium producer” on lenses and there is some logic to this. Especially since it is always much easier for a company to reduce the price on something than to raise the price.

              I don’t think we are in danger of people forgetting who Nikon is any time soon, but yes it’s true that Nikon has to work hard to keep its sales going, especially in a camera industry that is shrinking overall.

              The Japanese DSLR marketshare change increase for Nikon is a pleasant and welcome surprise, I presume this is mostly down to D500/D850/D750 sales.

            • Espen4u

              Yes, I know that they’re after the high margin sales nowadays. That’s why we’re seeing otus-esque lenses from Nikon (105, 28) now, nothing wrong with that. But as a manufacturer, Nikon has to ask itself if the inclusion of a FL element was worth it (in lost sales). Hopefully they’ve done the math right this time, but their track record are not that great. And sorry, I really can’t argue about the cost of FL 😉

            • PhilK

              Quite simply, the 3rd-party Japanese manufacturers have upped their game the last few years (largely due to new, low-price competitors from South Korea and China), so Nikon has to up their game in order to stay ahead of the newly aggressive Japanese aftermarket lens makers and increasingly emphasize items that the aftermarket makers cannot produce yet.

              There really isn’t any other choice. The lower-end is going to be really increasingly eaten-into by all the aftermarket makers, Nikon will probably have to cede much of the lower-end segment to them. They will never be able to compete with them on price without compromising quality basics, and that kind of customer doesn’t really care if the lens falls apart in 2 years or has weird AF quirks, etc. Trying to chase such customers is silly. Especially when Nikon’s production costs are already higher than other major competitors like Canon.

            • Matti6950 .

              Agree fully, so many lenses are ‘just’ out of my reach. I’ve started to love Nikon AF/speed on some lenses (like F2.8 24-70mm vr). So when i can, and i think it’s worth it, i will buy nikon version. But now it’s just so much more tempting to buy Sigma art, or Tamron VC lens. 105mm is much cheaper to make then the 2500 euro they ask, it dropped to 2000 euro already, but if they ask 1600 euro, EVER, insta buy no matter what. Not the case? will not buy. I almost bought d850, everything was written in stone i would buy it. Nope 3800 euro. While staggering good camera/features, d810 at 33% of price of d850 was a much better deal. I still get improvements, iso 64, more accurate autofocus, more FPS, better grip, and i keep my beloved flash. So nikon (for me) shot themself in foot, 3300-3600 euro and i very likely would have bought.

            • Espen4u

              Yes, that’s a feeling I have that Nikon has passed the point of maxima for their margins. And in several of their markets too. For example in US the d850 is priced near the 5d mkiv and a7riii, in EU (and for nikon nordic) that’s not the case. So does Nikon think to compete in EU is a lost cause? Or are their presence stronger in the EU to motivate the difference? Or more likely they’ve yet again misspredicted, misscalculated and missmanaged their sole market. If so, that does’nt bode well for us niconians.

        • ITN

          Sony and Leica charge a lot more than Nikon for many lenses with roughly equivalent specifications. Also Zeiss (though not currently a camera maker). E.g. Batis 135/2.8 is about the same price as Nikon’s 105/1.4. So basically Zeiss give two stops less light but slightly longer focal length for about the same money as Nikon.

          Canon also upped the price of 200-400/4 type lenses in their release by a huge amount. Nikon followed suit by matching their offering.

      • ZoetMB

        Nikon should stop enforcing minimum selling prices in the U.S. and let dealers charge whatever they want like they used to do. Nikon wouldn’t get one dime less because wholesale prices would remain the same and they’d sell a lot more product if dealers reduced prices or placed lenses on sale.

        Nikon’s lenses have increased in price way beyond the inflation rate. I paid $1450 for the 70-200 2.8 in 2004, which is $1882 in 12/2017 dollars, but the 70-200E is $2800.

        • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

          not just Nikon but Sony and Canon to limiting their market more and more

        • PhilK

          In the USA at least, there was a time when enforcing “Minimum advertised price” was illegal. But the regulatory environment changed and now the price is almost always the same on brand-name goods no matter where you buy them from.

          The traditional upside of such policies is that it discourages sleazy resellers from commoditizing the market and ruining the reputation of products/brands with shady sales practices. (Though I’m not sure how relevant this is when a large percentage of merchandise is purchased site-unseen online these days)

          But if Nikon abandoned that practice and let anyone sell it for whatever they wanted, they would become an outlier in the industry and lose support of resellers who could not make a profit on the product any more. (This is precisely what happened to Pioneer Audio in the 1980s. It took the company decades to recover from that, because all the major resellers dropped the product line.)

          • Just to be clear, the MAP enforcement came from Nikon, not from the government.

            • PhilK

              MAP and the like have always been manufacturer initiatives.

              The government’s role is more or less “You can do that”, or “You cannot do that”.

              We went from a “fair trade” regime in the 1970s (when I bought my first mail-order camera equipment) where certain items had a more or less set retail price, to a state where any form of price control was outlawed as restraint-of-trade/anti-consumer, to the current scenario where MAP is once again OK because the government is not prohibiting it.

          • ZoetMB

            Enforcement of MAP might have made some sense when we still had a lot of physical retail. It protected smaller dealers from the big chains as well as from the sleazy, unreliable mail order operations. But since most independent physical retail, especially in the camera market, is gone, I don’t think it make sense any longer.

            And that’s besides the fact that it legalizes price fixing, which had always been illegal before. (There was min advertised price, but not a min selling price, only a recommended selling price). When I negotiated a deal before that for another company to buy and re-sell a special version of our product, we were told by both sets of lawyers that the only thing we could not discuss in the negotiation was the price they were going to sell the product for, because that could have been considered price fixing.

        • fanboy fagz

          80-200 afs sold for $1200
          70-20 afs sold for $1650 but dropped after a short time
          70-200 vr2 sold for $2400 as new
          and the new vr3 sells for way too much. not even close to the inflation/weak yen price it should be

    • fanboy fagz

      lens sales for nikon is down because sigma and tamron are making a killing with excellent offering and people turned away by nikons rape prices.

      im getting 2 lenses this april. which?
      sigma 85 ART
      tamron 15-30

      both are better performers then nikon offerings and for much less.

      • I checked out sigma 85 and 135 recently. Superb sharpness and equally dry rendering. I felt tamrons closer to nikon in that respect. And no slouch in the sharpness department.
        I am too going for 15-30 in some time. Liked that lens very much.

        • PhilK

          All the Tamron lenses I have ever owned, and most of the online examples I see from their recent models, comes across as flat, flat, flat looking. IE, poor color saturation and contrast or something along those lines.

          I’m really starting to think this is their official “look”. If so, I’m not a fan.

          • Yes compared to nikons they are a bit flat indeed but compared to sigma (which are very unappetizing to me) they are quite better in rendering.

            • fanboy fagz

              zooms or the art primes?

            • I tried primes but from forums and such I got a feeling that the zooms too share same trait. But I may be wrong.

            • PhilK

              So you are saying that in terms of typical rendering characteristics, your personal preferences are in the order of Nikon, then Tamron, then Sigma?

              What do you not like about Sigma?

            • That is what I am saying. Sigma is good if one is looking for sharpness. That special magic one associates with zeiss’ or nikkors is nonexistent with sigmas. Not to mention they have somewhat disturbing bokeh. I really cannot talk about CA and coma etc as I haven’t checked those aspects of the sigmas I have tried out.

            • PhilK

              Very interesting.

              I often wondered about that, but because I’m not buying a lot of photo equipment lately I haven’t been able to assess much of the recent stuff first-hand.

              This is also my impression of the pic samples I’ve seen from lenses such as Samyang: sharpness might be there on some models, but the overall impression is not particularly great to me.

      • Captain Insane-O

        I have Tamron’s 70-200 sp (the last gen one not the G2) and their 15-30 2.8s… No complaints. I have Nikon’s 24-120 f4, soft wide open beyond 70mm, 35 & 50 1.8s and am happy with them as well. Definitely wouldn’t pay twice the price for a Nikkor lens that may or may not be better.

      • Naw, buy the 105 1.4. It serves the same purpose as an 85 1.4. And better.

        But…….more money.

        • fanboy fagz

          I can buy both lenses for the price of nikons.

        • Aldo

          no VR though… min handheld shutter speed around 1/320 (if you are lucky)

          • I get good results at less than 1/100 handheld.

            • Aldo

              bs… burst shooting maybe 1 out of 4,5 … I’m talking tack sharp, almost like on a tripod

            • So what is wrong with that? At 7 – 9 fps that is two sharp shots in a second or so based on your math. I have my Slow Continuous set at 4 fps which emulates my D800 and gives me an unlimited buffer. After pixel peeking dozens of compositions I am pretty sure that I am achieving at least 50/50. I might shoot 10 or so to be sure.
              But when I was young I used to get three shot in the same hole at 100 yards and hit the 6 inch gong at 1,000 yards consistently (prone, not free hand) with my 7mm Remington Magnum. I think the techniques that I learned there are helpful in photography.

            • Aldo

              Well… that’s why for me this lens would have been golden with VR. I’d like to think my technique is decent, but a lot of time I find myself shooting under pressure for time… move to the next photo/pose/person. Doing that sort of burst shooting would just not be feasible… That’s why I would just deem the lens to be used at certain shutter speeds, slower when I can lean on something or take my time to spray and pray.

            • While I may at times Spraynpray, generally my shooting is actually quite deliberate. That is why I like primes and not zooms, it forces me to slow down and consider the composition. Then when I have my shot composed – I burst.

              Now I don’t shoot landscapes that way. Landscapes and many of my other shots are on a tripod – I have 5 RRS, Wemberly Gitzo setups including an RRS monopod, so I take my tripod shooting seriously.

              But I actually did an experiment with my 105 1.4E on my D850 a while back. Tripod, cable release, mup etc. vs the burst. They were pretty comparable.

              Of course, when I get to 1/50th of a second, it is an entirely different story. I appreciate what the VR on my 24-70 2.8E brings to the table.

      • Aldo

        nothing can touch that 70-200 E though… call me a fanboy if you want… but I did try the tamron g2

        • fanboy fagz

          Many say it’s great, how bad is the vr2/G2 that one needs to spend so much for the E? I would have gotten the vr2 but tge focus breathing IS a problem for me.

          • Aldo

            You can always argue that I got a bad copy… but to be honest it was no where near the E… even a vr2 I had was better than the g2…. mostly lack of sharpness at 200mm and ‘fuzzy’ blurr effect from the VC on the tamron. I agree the E is expensive but it just effortlessly produces money shots time after time.

            • fanboy fagz

              i will disagree though that others who have the g2 and vr2 cant produce stunning images. thats ridiculous. even those who have a 50 1.4 g vs the sigma art at twice the price can produce fantastic images.

              not a huge difference. I think people psychologically believe it can because they see specific side by side shots.

              it makes me chuckle how when a new gen model comes out people just dismiss the old gear like it was garbage and the new gear is the best thing since sliced bread.

              omg! how did we cope till all these gens of 80/70-200 lenses till now? all of them was the worst thing ever made.thank god nikon finally made the E. how did we manage till now? now we can pay $3000 and be happy with our images.

              ive jumped from the 80-200 afd to the 70-200 vr2 and I can produce stellar images with any of those lenses

            • Aldo

              I didn’t say you couldn’t produce stunning images with another lens. I myself worked a few events with the g2. It performed ok…. but it never gave me the confidence the E gives me. The nikon just nails the shot every time. The tamron did not. I can testify to that. For portraits I still prefer the 85… but the AF is a hit or miss… and once again where others fail the E simply nails it EVERY time. It gives you so much more confidence while working so you can focus on what really matters. Getting the shot.

  • tom

    Nikon priced their lenses outa reach for many in a declining dslr market.

    • Sigma and Tamron (and Tokina?) also started to produce some very good alternatives.

      • Mehdi R

        True, I’m not fan of third party lenses but lack of Nikon pro lenses in DX lineup forced me to buy Tokina for DX 🙁

        • Now you know why Nikon needs a new Z lens mount – they need to sell more lenses 🙂

          • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

            Possibly but how much of a market is there for the new Mirrorless both entry and pro if they priced over the top, e.g., each lens over $1000. People will just buy a cheaper alternative Mirrorless system, do with what they got in F-mount land or buy later or not at all.

            • We have to first see what they will offer.

            • ITN

              Well Sony and Leica are the only ones making 35mm full frame mirrorless and both price their lenses above Nikon’s prices. Lenses for Sony mirrorless cost about 20-30% extra for a reasonably complete system relative to Nikon or Canon full frame DSLR.

              You can expect Nikon to price their mirrorless FF offerings similarly to Sony ie. people have to pay extra for the mirrorlessness or make do with fewer lenses and/or smaller maximum apertures. Small size costs extra, simply put.

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              Or not invest at all in the Mirrorless system, do with what they got, or go for an Aps Mirrorless solution instead. Not sure whether punters will be willing to invest in another £3000 for entry level mirrorless or punters will be all that happy, willing to pay another £2499 for a 80 / 100-400 lens. Hopefully the adapter priced at a reason able rate will offer some good features and focus speed

          • Allen_Wentz

            Agreed, and I think Nikon knows that key to selling lenses in the MILC category will be to maintain civilized lens prices for 80% of the MILC lenses.

            • True, but I think that they need to start at the top end, as in rivalling the D850, for several reasons.

              First, establish that it is a serious system. That will lend credibility when they introduced consumer grade products. Second, volume will be lower and easier for Nikon to ramp up. After closing their Chinese factory, I think that this is an issue. Third, it assures consumers that the upgrade path is not a dead end which it basically is if you buy into the Nikon 1 system.

            • PhilK

              Bear in mind that Nikon did not terminate all their production capacity in China.

              They still have quite a bit of production capacity based in that country, they just closed one particular facility there. (Which IIRC, was not a particularly modern/efficient facility, either – one of the key reasons for that decision from what I gather)

            • ITN

              On the contrary I think they will offer high priced products to sell the well to do and professionals. Civilized prices were possible when cameras sold in increasing numbers. Now the sales are declining and all top three manufacturers are focusing on high end products with good profitability. The affordable or decently priced products no longer sell in sufficient numbers to make a profit so probably there will either be no updates to those products or they will be discontinued entirely.

          • Hopefully a smart F to Z lens adapter (including a filter holder would be great for video maker) will be produced for very long term Nikon users! The longevity of F mount lenses was one of the reason I am using Nikon professionally since 1988.

          • PhilK

            You got a point there, haha.

      • raziel28

        Yes, Tokina has always had good lenses (at least in build quality category). Some say that their 24-70 is optically better than Nikon’s version: 😉
        Regards

        • PhilK

          Tokina’s higher-end lenses always seems to be solidly built, and oftentimes very good optically.

          But it can take the company forever to adopt new lens tech. It seems like it took Tokina forever to produce their first lenses with an ultrasonic AF motor, or with built-in image stabilisation, for example.

    • RC Jenkins

      Agreed.

      I don’t see why Nikon didn’t produce compact, inexpensive, fast, but poorly corrected lenses for DX. The camera bodies would take care of chromatic aberration, vignetting, distortion, & some level of sharpness correction. This isn’t film anymore–cameras can do much of this stuff.

      Many D3### & D5### users I know just want things like shallow DoF & “low light.” Many also want ultra wide lenses.

      They don’t know what the technical qualities like MTF are. They really won’t notice that the lenses aren’t resolving all 24 MP when they’re posting to instagram & facebook. And they’ll buy lenses in the price range of the 35mm F/1.8 DX.

      Instead, Nikon (& the industry) seems to be targeting the spec sheet: ultra sharp, large, expensive lenses. Fine for the high end & FX. A big mistake for the low end.

      I hope Nikon “corrects” this trend for their low-end mirrorless cameras. They should be offering both the low-end & the high end.

      • Allan

        “I hope Nikon “corrects” this trend for their low-end mirrorless cameras.
        They should be offering both the low-end & the high end.”

        Agree.

      • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

        agree with you 100%

      • Mehdi R

        “Many D3### & D5### users I know just want things like shallow DoF & “low light.” Many also want ultra wide lenses.”
        It means f/2.8 and premium/pro to Nikon and they won’t compromise on this.

        • RC Jenkins

          Sorry, but I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. If you’re saying that Nikon won’t produce ‘digitally corrected’ F/2.8 non-pro lenses, that’s what I’m saying the issue is.

          • Mehdi R

            True, this is what I’m saying. It’s unlikely to happen. Nikon won’t cut the costs for its f/2.8 lenses, like Nano coating and ED elements..
            Look at their reasonably priced lenses:
            200-500mm f/”5.6″ FX
            10-20mm f/”4.5-5.6″ DX

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              How much in bulk production of these lenses does it cost as a whole and how much does widgets like ed glass elents, afs usm motors, nano coating cost to make / apply – be interesting to find out coupled with the r&D costs, etc

        • That is exactly what RC is talking about. For the discerning user keep high end lenses and for low end user create cheap paper tigers like the new 10-20 DX.

      • echoes

        Agreed. I would love to purchase both a high end 50mm 1.4 for work and a cheap, smaller, lighter, digitally corrected one for travel and personal pictures.

      • Very well said.

      • PhilK

        You cannot magically create details that were never resolved by the lens just by edge-enhancing the digital output.

        But yeah, a certain amount of correction of lateral chromatic aberration, vignetting and some degree of simple distortion can be done digitally – with greater or lesser artifacts.

        But I think that Nikon like many other lens makers today already relies a lot on digital correction in order to cover up lens faults. Many well-regarded lenses sold today might have been panned in the past due to faults like that, but the output looks much better now after the ubiquitous auto-correcting as well as the other digital massaging that goes on after the capture.

      • PhilK

        And if they are going to produce a series of “Fuzztars”, fine – make them a separate series like the old Series E MF lenses so people don’t savage the stuff in online reviews expecting it to be an apochromatic process lens.

        If I’m not mistaken they also actually produced a cheap set of AF lenses like that once upon a time. But IIRC they did not sell them outside of Asia.

    • TurtleCat

      Probably more accurate to say they priced some lenses out of reach for some users. Or more likely it costs more than the benefit we perceive. But certainly many Nikon lenses are within an easy budget and many great ones are within a reasonable one.

    • I think that it is more accurate to say that they have not captured the consumer market, many of which eventually convert to pros or upgrade to the same gear. I think that is their real problem, despite the fact that my wife’s D5500 is better than any similarly priced competitor.

      Their marketing sure sucks……

      • PhilK

        These were the same problems that doomed Blackberry’s mobile phone business after the entry of much more mass-market savvy competitors like Apple and Google.

        1) Poor sales/marketing in general (And lack of money to do much about it even if they knew how, just like Nikon)

        2) Lack of understanding of the mass market in general as well as the psyche of the mass-market customer and how to sell to them.

        Tho Blackberry was way worse than Nikon ever was.

  • photographer4

    Over priced lenses and DSLR Cameras Nikon.

    • Mehdi R

      Not DSLR cameras actually.

      • photographer4

        In my opinion they are all over priced for what they are.

        • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

          true on that score

        • IMHO, they are all priced lower than I would expect. I’m amazed at how a company like Nikon can sell a D850 for $3,300. Open one up some time.

          • photographer4

            It just shows how much mark up there is.

            • Allan

              Nikon photography is trying to stay alive with the shrinking photographer population.

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              Some of it is there own doing.

            • Hmmm, OK. That’s the opposite of what I’m talking about, but we’re good.

            • PhilK

              Yeah I was scratching my head at that response, haha.

          • Mehdi R

            D8xx and 5D series are the most important DSLR series for both companies IMO. Most of pro’s shoot with these iconic cameras and it was super important for Nikon.

            • Not sure how that relates to my comment, but I agree those are important. Personally I think the DX (as in D3, D4, D5) is the most important because it’s always the flagship and the one that shows the camera universe Nikon’s best technology, reliability and durability.

            • Mehdi R

              My comment was referred to your indication of Nikon D850 pricing policy, this camera is so important to them so they keep its price rival to 5Dm4. I remember so many complains about Nikon D5’s $500 higher price tag than Canon 1DX II $6500 vs $6000 at the time of launch (!)
              And Dx series, yes they are flagship cameras but when I see pro shooters (except for sports) I see almost 7 out of 10 are shooting with D8xx or 5D series. Add hobbyist and amateur shooters with deep pocket and I’m sure they sell D8xx series much much more than Dx..
              This is why they say “Jack of all trades” to the D850 🙂

            • Wouldn’t you agree, though, that any manufacturer’s “flagship” product is the basis of their reputation and indirectly helps sell the rest of the line? And, as far as the pricing of the D5 goes, to some extent they can charge whatever they want. Most pros who shoot the Dx series for a living make enough money and can write off the expense of their equipment. If they have a large investment in lenses that belong to the camera, they can charge almost anything they want. Anyway, thanks for clarifying and I think you and I are in agreement.

            • Agreed, but the D850 qualifies as a second flagship in a way that the 5Ds don’t.

            • PhilK

              There is no doubt whatsoever that the “pro-sumer” or “mid-line” cameras sell vastly more than the flagship cameras.

              In fact the ratio is probably 10 to 1, at least.

              But the flagships still need to be produced as it is a sort of high-performance “anchor” for the product line and standard-bearer for the brand.

            • thundrrd

              Mehdi: First of all, I am not saying you are wrong, when you say 7 out of 10 pro shooters use the D8XX series, but how do you know that is correct?

              Or are you just saying 7 out of the 10 pro shooters you know use the D8xx series. Sorry, but I just hate opinions being tossed around as fact, unless you have stats on it… I could be all wet and willing to say so if there is somewhere you can point me to where you can prove it.

          • Allan

            I think Thom was right when he said that they priced this beauty too low.

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              Untrue on that score – disagree 100%, at the very limit they had to charge at maximum same as Canon 5D MK and with prices going further up means less of a market and only reserved for pros in a camera design for medium – high production volume and not much of an increase over the D810.

              To get more punters on board Canon,Sony and Nikon as these bodies are expensive they have to offer trade incentives on older models.

            • Wish they thought the same while pricing their lenses.

            • PhilK

              Yep, but I’m guessing the rationale is along the lines of:

              The camera has to be priced competitively because that is often a person’s first Nikon purchase and price will undoubtedly be compared to other competitive options, but the lenses are being sold to people who are to one extent or other already committed to the brand, so they are more “captive” customers and thus not as price-sensitive on every lens purchase.

            • Hope nikon understands that selling lenses makes for more profit and more importantly, makes users lock into the system thus making it harder to switch. Especially when it becomes easier to switch as sigma offers lens mount replacement for their lenses.

            • Not here to argue, but a D850 BLOWS THE DOORS off a 5D MK. I think it’s worth a $500 premium. Of course, you have to be able to get one…but hey, just a detail. Anyway, we’re good, it’s just an opinion.

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              Certainly does and love my D850 the best DSLR and last DSLR to have – a masterpiece by Nikon.

              I have a light mirrorless system for travelling and only a few lenses. I have to wait and gauge time + ££/$$ if I go to Nikon 2 mirrorless + how much it costs to invest not only camera/s but lenses and other accessories.

              Be good if any boffins can work out the optimum price of the D850 vs volume and sales bearing in mind that if there is more unit volume then punters probably spend more on Nikon D850 accessories and possibly spend what they got on things like DSLR lenses, flashes, etc. Be interesting to get sales figures of the Canon 5D MK vs MK 3 and vs Nikon D810 and D850, possibly the Canon 5D with only modest features over MK 3 is overpriced for what it delivers ?

            • Allan

              “boffins”

              New one for me. I like it. Thanks.

            • PhilK

              Popular word in the UK. 😉

            • I don’t understand how Canon worked their way to the dominant position of DSLR sales. I think it might have been those Andre Aggasi ads from long ago. The best part is, there’s something for everyone and we all can shoot what we like. Enjoy your D850.

            • Espen4u

              Canon; has really good lenses. No large hickups like the d600-gate (where Joe the consumer got hit). And they are the safest bet in a declining market. Nikon ought to undercut Canon’s prices at every level (below d5) and still excel at IQ (and handling) to be relevant for newcomers.

            • They beat Nikon to auto-focus in the 90s. Nikon has been number 2 ever since.

            • Hmmm, I was always so anti-AF I must have looked right past that one. Not sure there’s any science behind it, but your take seems pretty plausible.

            • RC Jenkins

              In the late 80’s, Canon dropped support of their old mount and created a brand new mount: EOS. Based on a philosophy of making all lens-camera communication electronic. “EOS” = Electro-Optical System.

              Nikon meanwhile opted to keep the existing mount & make most communication mechanical instead of electronic.

              So while each Canon lens had its own AF motor built-in & tuned for the particular lens, Nikon had a motor & screwdriver in the camera body. Canon AF worked MUCH better.

              While each Canon lens had it’s own aperture arm, Nikon had an aperture arm in the camera body. Canon’s aperture control was MUCH more consistent & faster.

              Canon’s mount also opened up new marketing possibilities & bragging rights–like the 50mm F/1.0 lens that Nikon could not duplicate.

              So ultimately, Canon cameras simply outperformed Nikons among pro applications like sports shooting. All the sidelines were dominated with their white lenses.

              Nikon finally started putting AF in the lenses (“AF-S”) in the late 90’s-early 2000’s. And they only started putting the electronic aperture (“E”) in their lenses in the late 2000’s. And now Nikon has a Frankenstein’s mount, with lenses from the past 30 years all over the place in terms of types & compatibility.

              Meanwhile, all Canon lenses for the past 30 years are fully electronic, fully compatible with every body, & much easier to adapt. Canon doesn’t have the problem Nikon does.

              Nikon has finally caught up (and I’d say surpassed) Canon in technical ability in the last 10 years or so. But the damage has been done–most pros already use Canon, and others see them use Canon.

              This is why I’m a big advocate of Nikon using a new mount in their mirrorless camera. Canon’s M-mount is already a much better mount for mirrorless cameras than Nikon’s F-mount would be. Canon’s M-mount could even fit a full-frame sensor just fine–in fact, it’s bigger than Sony’s E-mount.

              But Nikon’s Z-mount specs would be even better. This mount will give Nikon an edge over Canon if Canon sticks to their M mount or EF mount.

            • Thanks, that’s a really good summation of the history. I started out with an F2 as my first serious (expensive) camera. I had used my dad’s Minolta SR7 for a bit and then got a Yashica mat124G. But a financial windfall came along and I bought the F2 and an 85mm f/1.8. And then gradually more lenses. I was shooting the live theater scene in LA and working at a nightclub as a bartender on open mike nights. I’d pitch my services up and down the line to the aspiring performers waiting to go on stage. I got quite a few jobs to do headshots, and there were occasional other benefits…:-). But my career took a turn and I drifted away from pro shooting. That was around 1978-9. My photographic interests took me into the medium format world where I shot a Mamiya RZ67, Hasselblad and Bronica. So, I just flat out missed the transition you describe. It wasn’t until around 2005 that I went back to shooting professionally and I went with Nikon because that’s what I knew. For the kind of work I’m doing you could use just about any contemporary camera and be just fine. I love my Df because it operates a bit like the older cameras, the IQ is beautiful, and the grip is small. They could ditch the grip entirely as far as I’m concerned. I got tired of waiting for Nikon to do their mirrorless and, as I have a trip to Europe coming up shortly, opted to go with a Fuji x100F. I’m just getting to know it. So far I’m enjoying the heck out of it.

            • Canon always projected themselves as tech savvy since about the time of AF era. That also helped some.

            • Vinnypimages

              The Nikon F3AF was released in 1983, 1987 for Canon. Both were well beaten by Kodak and Konica and Pentax, which explains their market dominance.

            • Agreed. But if I had 20 Canon lenses instead of 20 Nikon lenses, I would be happy with a Canon.

            • Sure, whatever you’ve made a large investment in is going to carry the day.

            • I didn’t read that, but I’d agree. But, you’re talking about a marketing decision. My amazement is purely related to how they can design and build a machine of such intricacy for that amount of money.

          • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

            Not really the max they could charge would be the same as the Canon 5D MK 4 but they charge an extra premium on top for accessories like the MH-26a charger , EN-el18b and battery grip.

            • Well, you’re talking about marketing and I’m talking about design/prototype, engineering, manufacturing and distribution. Obviously in the end you need to be competitive, and in that regard you’re correct. I’m just amazed that anyone can make one of these things and sell it at a profit.

        • And you can say that comparing to what?

          • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

            Canon 5D MK 4 and Sony A7R Mk 2 as examples

            • They are priced the same or even more.

    • Actually everyone, including myself, expected the D850 to be more expensive.

      • Mehdi R

        and if Nikon continue this trend with D750 successor and mirrorless system then the gap will shrink.

      • photographer4

        True that was a surprise. I do not think there will be a D5s, I think it will jump to D6. In my opinion. By now i think you would of have had more info on the D5s.

      • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

        Thought it would be at max the same as 5D MK 4 and even then both these cameras should be £500 / $500 less than it sell – with the constant upshift of pricing the camera makers are cutting themselves out of sales especially in a declining market.

      • Actually it is… everywhere other than USA.

  • RC Jenkins

    I’d be interested to see if this was due to increased Nikon sales or changes to overall sales (if this was due to Canon losing more sales than Nikon lost).

    • Mehdi R

      I think both happened here and Nikon with narrow the gap this year with releasing D750 and D5600 successor as well in DSLR market because Canon already did it with 6Dm2 and T7i last year..

      • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

        May not do much at all in decreasing the gap – the question is demand in a declining camera body, what extra features they have, how much does it cost and whether the punter will bite the bullet, go to an alternative mirrorless system, do with what they got or %%$%$%$ do nothing.

  • RC Jenkins

    Interestingly, in the mirrorless side of things, all of the top 3 increased market share by over 5% collectively…meaning they took it from 4th place and lower. I assume this would be Panasonic, Fuji, Leica, (Nikon 1?).

    This is why establishing market share so early is so important–incumbents have an advantage in a category that relies on a system.

    • “This is why establishing market share so early is so important”
      But canon seems to have jumped beyond sony in mirrorless on the strength of their system. Hope same happens with Nikon.

      • RC Jenkins

        Yes. Canon established their mirrorless system around the same time as Sony–and their market share is roughly the same as well (approx. 20%).

        Canon & Sony users already have lenses and may be buying new bodies every few years.

        Nikon will be starting at 0%.

        • Canon mirrorless is that old? I didn’t know that. So what changed suddenly?

          • RC Jenkins

            Both are around 4-5 years old. It’s also around when Nikon launched Nikon 1. 🙂
            So while Sony & Canon went APS-C, Nikon went 1″.

            Not sure what (if anything) changed “suddenly.” Could be marketing, could be that the entry-level thinks of pro-Canon when they think of photography, could be DSLR users who want a mirrorless body, could be pricing, or could just be products that resonate well.

          • Thom Hogan

            Dual pixel, basically. The M5/6 have been well received.

          • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

            Introduced in 2012 and they have up spin a few models from the original M and now having 4 models at entry aps with slim specs M100 to more featurette cameras like M6 and have produced 6-8 lenses now which is not much considering it is 5 years old but does allow EOS EF lenses to be attached via adapter priced at around £100 / $100.

            One hope that Nikon will either bundle an adapter free or priced it at decent rate and non over inflated price, e.g., £300, etc.

    • PhilK

      Bear in mind that that was a Japan-centric award.

      Various regions around the world have different camera buying preferences, there are some pretty big differences between some major markets and the Japanese market in some categories.

      For example IIRC mirrorless is much more popular in the US than it is in Japan.

      • If I recall correctly, in the US DSLR is still the king, while mirrorless is very popular in Europe.

        • PhilK

          Yes, I may have mis-remembered the details but the bottom line is that the Japanese market has some unique characteristics that don’t necessarily translate to other markets.

          In fact, I think Nikon in general is a bit more popular in Japan than in a lot of overseas markets.

      • br0xibear

        “Bear in mind that that was a Japan-centric award.”
        Exactly, people are jumping to crazy conclusions and speculating like mad based on these very specific numbers.
        Japan is a very different market from India, from the US, from Europe. I recall a recent article with Nikon management where they pointed out that video was very important with their US buyers, but in Japan and Europe it wasn’t.
        These camera rankings are interesting, but I wouldn’t draw conlusions about global trends.

  • Mehdi R

    Interestingly Canon suddenly surpassed Sony in mirrorless system.

    • Bohemian Rhapsody

      Japan only

      • Nakayamahanzaemon

        Right. But Canon is catching up with Sony increasingly worldwide. When Canon started their own mirrorless system, Sony already produced at least 1.5m volumes. In 2016, Canon’s production volume was almost half of Sony.

    • RC Jenkins

      That was 2 years ago. 🙂

      • Mehdi R

        Lets see what will happen when full frame mirrorless cameras come out from CaNikon..

      • Correct, thanks to a genius Sony marketing department:)

    • This has been going on for a while and they don’t even have a full frame solution yet…

    • bgbs

      It’s because all those canon guys adopting Sony mirrorless. Soon, they will dump Canon for good, this is just the first step, unless Canon brings mirrorless to the market

      • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

        Already have with M100 – M6, the next stage for Canon is to bring mirrorless to the FF market and to have features / system that are compelling and have comparible or better features for their users

      • I’ve said that before, Nikon will not kill Sony, Canon will 🙂

  • Bohemian Rhapsody

    Japan only ? These Rankings means nothing … I really want to know the 2017 global market share

    • Global share is hard to get data by manufacturers, just by category:

      https://photorumors.com/tag/cipa-reports/

    • Thom Hogan

      Global ILC unit volume numbers are something like Canon 48%, Nikon 23%, Sony around 14%. Olympus is at 5%. Canon’s share gained a bit in the past 12-18 months, Nikon’s lost share. Sony and Olympus seem to be holding about steady. That’s why Sony keeps talking about “value” of sales. They’ve held unit volume but the average selling price has gone up.

      • Yes, Sony’s marketing magic 🙂 and it works… many think Sony is #2

      • Adam Brown

        Sony may be painting themselves into a corner of over-reliance on “value.” The a6000 has been a well selling camera for a long time but it’s getting very stale. Sony hasn’t released a new Rebel/d3400 competitor in 4 years.
        They can’t just expect budget buyers to take 4 year old crumbs (that includes $800 A7).
        I think Sony would be wise to launch a competitive $699 A6000ii.

        • Thom Hogan

          Sony did what Nikon is purporting to do now. They basically gave up on market share in order to maintain and grow margins. This required them to go upscale. Moreover, given that they have essentially merged their pro video and prosumer camera lines with the E mount, they found a healthy spot where they could make money.

          Note the compact camera list in Japan. Sony has slid off it and is not really pushing low-end compacts anymore, but look at Nikon: they’ve continued to push up the list with those low end cameras. Nikon still has a long ways to go to rationalize their offerings and find a solid spot from where they can start growing again.

          • Adam Brown

            I understand Sony’s reasoning and maybe it was even smart in the short term. But it’s not a good long term growth strategy. While they have been the only major game in town for serious full frame mirrorless, they could grow with Nikon and Canon switchers. But that type of growth will mostly disappear once Canon and Nikon does their own systems.
            So Sony would have to grow more with in-house upgraders. People who first get into the system at the low end, evolve and eventually upgrade. And this won’t happen if you don’t have serious products at the low end to feed into the high end.
            How many D850 buyers started with the D810? Most of them started years ago with APS-C cameras (assuming they didn’t get their start with film even before that).
            Sony has taken a lot of risks, many of which I second guessed. They have *mostly* been right so far. I don’t think giving up on the low-end P&S market is a mistake. (Low end P&S shooters generally aren’t brand loyal… they don’t become committed to a system’s lenses, etc). But it would be a mistake to give up the low-end ILC market. Not about maximizing the profits in the near term… it’s about having a pipeline to always feed the high end market.

            • Thom Hogan

              I don’t think they’ve given up on the APS-C market. But it wasn’t as high a priority as getting the high-end right. I think we’ll see them come and backfill soon.

            • L8rNik

              Strategy has been: sell full frame – lenses and profit will follow… we see where that’s put Nikon, the profits are still waiting to be found… time to get back to the DX lineup so we can sell some units

            • Thom Hogan

              Nothing wrong with Nikon’s profits. Their problem is contraction. As they contract, they are going to have to write down assets, as they’re doing with the China plant this year. Ultimately, you can’t do that constantly, as eventually your underlying fundamentals don’t support the structure on top (e.g. you start to fall trap to loan covenants). Nikon is getting dangerously to that point.

              Olympus had a similar problem. They’ve contracted down to a company that makes about 500k ILC units a year. But they also have a strong medical side that keeps the overall company health intact (at least once they recovered from the fraud). I don’t think Nikon can shrink that small without having serious corporate issues.

              They need to staunch the contraction, and soon.

            • PhilK

              Agreed on that.

              To stay at the cutting-edge of a highly technical product field you need a certain degree of scale and it certainly doesn’t help when the expense to keep a semblance of your former supporting infrastructure in place outstrips the profit you make on vastly-reduced product shipments.

              Olympus’s size in terms of revenue is very close to Nikon, but their medical products are responsible for something like 90% or more of their revenue, maybe 95%.

              In fact according to some claims a DPR commenter posted recently, Nikon’s imaging business in terms of revenue is the largest of any company in existence – even Canon.* (I could link to it but I don’t know what the etiquette is here regarding linking something from a “competing forum”)

              *(Which doesn’t quite make sense to me given that Canon has higher sales in most of the same imaging product segments Nikon competes in..)

            • Thom Hogan

              Easy enough to look up:

              Canon imaging sales: 1.13t yen
              Nikon imaging sales: 355b yen

              Those are the numbers from both company’s current forecasts for their current fiscal year.

            • PhilK

              This was what he claimed were the last reported quarter’s financials for the following 4 companies imaging divisions – 1st column is revenue in billion yen, 2nd is operating income:

              Nikon 383 —- 17
              Canon 271 —- 39
              Sony 157 —- 18.9
              Olympus 15 —- 0.7

              I hope Canon doesn’t include things like printers and copiers as “imaging” products, or else your numbers wouldn’t be very interesting as Canon is a big player in those markets.

              But still it would be hard to believe that Canon has lower photographic product revenue than Nikon does.

            • Thom Hogan

              Canon does indeed have other things in their imaging division, including some photo printers. But Nikon has some other things in their imaging division that aren’t called out, such as glass production for others.

            • PhilK

              I’d bet revenue for wholesale glass production at Nikon is in the noise financially.

              Tho they do have a significant business in areas like binoculars (Canon sells binoculars too), microscopes and other medical imaging (Canon is not much involved in that to my knowledge), etc.

            • Adam Brown

              Think Sony will do an APS-C version of the a9? (D500 competitor)
              Personally… if I were in Sony’s shoes, I’d attack from low and high aps-c in 2018 — a5200, a6000ii and a9000 (a9 with aps-c sensor priced at $2200)

            • Thom Hogan

              And the answer is…wait for it…wait for it…

              Again lenses.

              For what I would shoot a D500 for, the lenses are there, basically. Helps that Sigma filled some gaps, but as a “bargain sports/wildlife” camera the D500 has the lens support it needs. The A6500? Not so much.

              So Sony can make an A9000 if they want, but it’s going to be US$2000 and not have a solid fast mid-range zoom or telephoto zoom that’s appropriate. Things like the 70-200mm f/2.8 GM just would be seriously big on the little Axxxx bodies, so they’d also have to completely change the ergonomics, IMHO.

              Nikon need not worry about the D5, D500, and D850 until 2020, basically. They’re strong cameras with strong lens support (other than wide angle and midrange DX). They’re ergonomically sound.

              What Nikon has to worry about is the erosion below those models.

            • Adam Brown

              I think you misunderstood my suggestion — I’m not suggesting an A6___ body. Literally, use the A9 body (or something very similar), with an APS-C sensor. In other words, a “serious” APS-C camera with the bigger battery, dual card slots, real grip, etc…. So take the A9 or A7riii body but an APS-C sensor and the A9 tech. With 70-200 (2.8 and F4 options), 70-300, 100-400, and upcoming 400/2.8… that would a half-decent lens collection for serious APS-C shooters. Take the 400/2.8 plus 1.4 teleconverter plus 1.5 crop factor, add in blackout free viewfinder at 20fps — Sounds like a dream set-up for birders. Or even paired with the 70-300 or 100-400, would be a great kit for advanced amateur wildlife shooters (a big part of the D500 and 7Dii market)

            • Thom Hogan

              Don’t see the point given Sony’s current lenses.

      • citrate

        I am wondering how you reach those numbers.
        From Nikon and Sony’s fist half FY2017 report:
        Nikon’s sale in units: ILC 1.31 + Compact DSC 1.39 = 2.7 million in total.
        Sony’s sale in units: digital cameras (ILC+Compact) 2.35 million. Sony only reports total sale number. But it seems that Nikon sold more compact cameras than Sony, at least in Japan.
        Overall very close number between Sony and Nikon to me.

        • Thom Hogan

          Going by other data that isn’t publicly available, basically.

          Sony sells cameras Nikon doesn’t, such as the RX series. But in terms of ILC, it’s still a Canikon game, with those two between 70-75% of the units sold.

        • PhilK

          I was under the impression that Nikon has been either #1 or #2 in compact cameras (non-interchangeable lens) for at least a couple of years now, as other competitors have increasingly dropped off or quit the segment entirely.

  • DonSleza4e

    I purchased D750 few month ago. Great camera for a very good price.
    I looked at Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR… 2800$???
    Sorry, I purchased great Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD G2 for 1300$…..

    • Hans J

      The Nikon lens is made for Pros, not for you.

      • Allan

        So, Nikon should make also make a $1300 lens, so as not to lose his business.

        • Allan

          Lexus, Toyota.

          • Hans J

            Its called the Nikon 70-200 f4 or the older one.

            • Allan

              You’re right. I stand corrected.

        • bobgrant

          They do. It’s called the 70-200 F4 and it’s even better than the VRII that I eventually sold. The only thing the VRII 2.8 does better is go to 2.8. The F4 version has NO BREATHING, better VR and is easily as sharp or sharper while being easier to handle.

          • Mehdi R

            You missed two major differences and the most important between f/2.8 and f/4, low-light and DOF.

            • bobgrant

              I had the 70-200 F4 and the VRII. At closer distances the F4 has better subject isolation and shallower DOF begins it doesn’t give up 50mm of magnification. The VRII was such a dog that I added a TC1.4, which basically left it worse off than the F4 version, which was sharper and had better VR. I then sold the VRII and bought the FL version, which fixes all of the issues. I still kept the F4 because it’s far lighter and just a great lens. I don’t like 70-200 lenses that turn into 70-137mm lenses, which means the Tamron G2 is worthless to me.

        • Mehdi R

          It won’t happen to these pro series..

        • Actually they do have 70-200 f/4 but it may not appeal to all.

        • Allen_Wentz

          Nikon also makes the new 70-300mm AF-P f/4.5-56E VR, which does a very good job for $750.

      • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

        Uncalled and the shooter may be a full time pro. I remembered that the 70-200 mk 1 being around £1200 and we should question / boycott a supplier who prices lenses out of our budgets, in a declining market how much will Nikon charge for the 70-200 f2.8 replacement ? £3200 ? and where is the price controls / auditing within nikon, canon, sony, etc in controlling these prices ?

      • TurtleCat

        I’m pretty sure the Tamron is made for pros as well. But a pro photographer should be a business person first. Is the price difference worth it to the bottom line? Maybe for some, maybe not for others. Doesn’t make third party lenses any less pro.

        • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

          agree 100% as long as it does the business and yield satisfactory results for the pro / non pro photographer.

        • Allen_Wentz

          1) Less durability makes Tamron less pro.
          2) IQ and performance of the Nikkor 70-200E are unequivocally more pro.
          3) My clients perceive Nikon lenses as more pro than Tamron lenses. Yes even though there are plenty of lame Nikkor lenses.

          • TurtleCat

            More pro, less pro… That is indicative of the caste nature of photography rather than the tools themselves. The Nikon is a better lens in that it’s more capable but that doesn’t make it more pro. It just has more features.

            • PhilK

              Actually I think this whole practice of trying to demarcate what is “pro” vs “non-pro” (even when it comes to trying to label the photographers themselves beyond whether or not they get income from shooting) is a bit of a fool’s errand.

              And a divisive one at that.

            • In the real world, a PRO product is the one which is very durable(being able to be used in adverse conditions) and which can be used in a maximum variety of situations with ease. Anything else like features, IQ(to a certain extent) and technology advancements are just an icing on the cake.

            • TurtleCat

              And I imagine quite a few third party lenses can be used in that manner as well.

            • I would agree with observation regarding third party lenses. For very durable, read Dx cameras and trinity lenses in general. And maximum variety is served the most by Dx series because of their flexibility. And now D850 with a few caveats.

          • I think that this is a good point. If the client sees your lens, then you will probably get more respect, and more business, if you have a big bad ass Nikon attached to another big bad ass Nikon.

            Is it fair or reasonable, perhaps not.

            • TurtleCat

              I think it’s more of a justification than anything. Certainly some people know all about lenses and such but the majority of people just see a big lens on a camera. They don’t care about brands or even know the names of them.

          • It’s all in the perception of OEM v/s third party. We all have suffered from it time and again.

            • decentrist

              it was your self esteem, not your gear

            • You should try telling that to the silently judging client.

          • decentrist

            Oh God, the big dick argument again.

        • I think that how successful you are as a pro may inform this decision.

      • DonSleza4e

        I should agree, I’m not a pro… But pro guy will purchase a D850, not a D750

        • Mehdi R

          Nope, lots of pro’s switched from D800 to D750 not D810 because of ergonomics and tilting screen. Especially wedding photographers.

          • D700s

            Lots = ?

            • decentrist

              The D750 is better in bad lighting as to rendering and focus versus the D810, a better studio body.

      • bgbs

        In Soviet Russia, pros make lenses.

        • Allan

          ?.

          • RC Jenkins

            It’s a joke. Making fun of “Lenses make pros.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_reversal

            • Allan

              Thanks.

              I need to get out more.

            • Roger S

              I never would have got the joke, even though I became familiar with the form through a colleague from long ago. Well done.

        • TurtleCat

          Lol!

        • Peter Postmus

          Well that’s true I guess. Have you ever seen a lens that was made by an amateur?

          • PhilK

            I believe there are a significant number of amateur astronomers that actually build their own telescopes…. so, yes. 🙂

            • TurtleCat

              Quite a few actually.

    • bobgrant

      And at 12 feet and closer your Tamron 70-200 begins to breathe and ends up below 140mm. It can’t touch the Nikon version, especially for closer work, such as portraits.

      • bgbs

        Nikon VR-I and II breathed like a big bad wolf just as much and they still cost above $2k

        Tamron is a no brainer.

        • Thom Hogan

          VR II did, but VR I not so much.

          • 1/1250th ISO25600

            who cares about the vr2 breathing?

            a tele is used to compress the background/foreground.

            when using a tele upclose (where the vr2 breathes), there is essentially no background/foreground.

            with essentially no background/foreground, why are you using a tele???

            the only people that whine about the vr2 breathing are people trying to compress large noses in headshots, like tony northrup and his wife. the vr1 doesn’t breathe as much, but it’s not really a full frame lens. the corners vignette into total darkness at the extremes. the vr1 vignetting was way worse to deal with especially in the 6 or 10mp days… cropping was the only remedy.

            • I think that the focus breathing is a valid issue if you are an event photographer.

            • Peter Postmus

              You’re forgetting about people that want multipurpose lenses that can act as, for example, a semi-macro lens. If you’re at minimum focus distance the lens will simply not magnify as much. Depending on how you use the lens that might be an issue. No matter what you think of people that do so.

            • 1/1250th ISO25600

              if you are using a tele as a “semi-macro lens”, you are an idiot.

            • Peter Postmus

              And you, apparently, are a bully.

            • Thom Hogan

              The people that cared about it were those who had fixed positions they couldn’t move from. The II version wasn’t even 200mm at infinity, but at the distances we tend to use the lens at it was often 150-160mm.

            • And I thought the main reason for using a telephoto was to zoom in more!

          • PhilK

            Yeah, the VR-1 was just a fuzzball around the edges. 😀

        • Except the E does not breathe.

    • That is rational. But the Nikon 70-200 2.8E is in a class of its own. You pay for that.

      • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

        or perhaps you don’t as brand new but gray lenses, refurb, second hand or look for cheaper alternatives abeit not as good as the mk 3 70-200 2.8e

      • decentrist

        that’s funny…over twice the price for a slightly better lens

  • Allan

    Peter, do they publish the total number of sales for these 2/3 of all Japanese retail stores?

    Also, what percentage of world-wide sales come from Japan?

    • 1: I don’t think so
      2: not sure

      • Allan

        Not much meat with these numbers.

        • Mehdi R

          I always wish some one leak companies internal info on number of each camera models sales 🙂

  • Allan

    Even though the “numbers” are incomplete, the Nikon lens % should be scary for Nikon management. What percentage of lenses owned by Nikon camera owners are non-Nikon?

    • Mehdi R

      Not only Nikon but also scary for Canon. Just look at numbers in 2017 and 2018, sigma is going to catch Canon also!

      • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

        Bit more scarey that Nikon having 1/2 market share as Canon in DSLR and having no viable mirrorless system yet. Even if they are releasing Nikon 2 – leaving it late and playing catchup to Sony, Canon, Fuji and other mirrorless system.

        • Funny that you mentioned Fuji – they are not even in the ranking again and I think they have the better mirrorless solution.

          • Allan

            Makes me wonder, who are these people who will buy low- or high-end Nikon mirrorless cameras?

            • Mainly the current nikon users and a few who will switch back from sony. I doubt there will be any canon users. They will mostly have same problems(full system) and hopes as nikon users.

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              Doubt there will be many Mirrorless users who brought into a mirrorless system like Sony A6300, A7 coupled with some sizable investiment in the mirrorless system will switch back same as Nikon winning any DSLR’s switches who may have moved to Canon previously.

            • That is true. Same dilemma as any system switcher. But I was thinking about sony user having older camera and small system.

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              If someone has a A63xx or a FF Sony Mirrorless like Sony A7/A9 be extremely difficult justification for them to switch back and possibly sell at a big loss, even Sony Nex-3/5 coupled with some lenses still have difficulty in justifying a move back. One factor is what Nikon 2 system comprise of, Body, lenses, adaptors for F mount and how much will these likely to cost over how much the current system will cost to offload.

            • Mehdi R

              Those switched from Nikon to Sony..

            • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

              Depends on being captain obvious how much they have invested into Sony, how much will they lose switching back, Nikon’s pricing of their mirrorless and the spec of the new Nikon 2.

            • RC Jenkins

              I think mainly, low end = new, amateur photographers.

              high-end = existing DSLR users, from Nikon & Canon. Maybe some Sony & Fuji.

            • We shall see, I am curious too.

          • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

            True but Nikon has there work cut out to turn things around especially with their new mirrorless system when this comes out if there is how much % market left and how they’re priced it at in a declining camera market.

          • RC Jenkins

            That’s true, but it doesn’t necessarily say much.

            Combined, the top 3 mirrorless makers listed have under 70%.

            We don’t know, but Fuji and Panasonic could have around 15% each, which isn’t too far off those top 3.

          • A. F.O.

            ….if they not show up in this rankings in TOP 3…in the next 2 years…I will be surprised and…Fuji will fall.
            I still praise my F30 🙂

            • I have no explanation. If I have to buy a mirrorless system today, I will get a Fuji. I don’t understand why their sales are so low.

            • Claude Mayonnaise

              This is only an opinion but when you look at Sony, Canon and Nikon They offer choice in camera sensor types. When someone buys into a Sony they can start off with a cheaper A6500 with the possibility of moving up to a larger sensor and vice versa. Canon and Nikon users are betting on a full frame mirrorless as well as a crop system. It is nice to have so many options if one chooses. With m4/3 and Fuji you only have that one sensor choice. Fuji Has the larger format though but I don;t think it’s compatible with their other stuff if I’m correct.
              Fuji and m4/3 are excellent but still only offer one sensor. That limits your options.

            • Me too. Someday their APS-C and medium format will be a compelling dual format system for someone that wants both.

            • drororomon

              Fuji’s got better cameras and their lenses are really good, they are suffering from Nikonitis and are a tad expensive.
              As much flak as Canon gets for being “less innovative”, they positioned themselves at a sweet spot with a much more affordable mirrorless line up, and I guess that sells you more cameras and lenses.

            • Canon is a solid system. The only real issue is that their top end cameras are not as cutting edge as Nikon and a there is an argument that their top lenses are not quite as good.

              But that does not matter to the vast majority of users that don’t buy the top end. For them it is money for value and Canon is quite good in this area.

          • That is an excellent point. Also, the Canon results suggest that Nikon may do very well with a well executed mirrorless system.

          • PhilK

            That could also be an anomaly of the Japanese market these numbers pertain-to.

      • RC Jenkins

        Could be!

        I think it’s also important to remember that Sigma & Tamron produce lenses for pretty much all mounts, while Canon & Nikon only produce lenses for their own mounts.

        So while Nikon may sell 50 F-mount lenses, if Sigma sells 5 Nikon, 20 Canon, 20, Olympus, 20 Sony, etc., then they’ll outrank Nikon. 🙂

        It does show that Sigma is successful in their strategy. And maybe Nikon needs to think about how to sell or license more lenses or technologies to areas beyond dedicated cameras as the market shifts. Many people don’t realize this, but when they first started, Canon cameras used Nikon lenses. 🙂

        • Mehdi R

          True

        • I think that Nikon should put a microprocessor in the new mirrorless camera and associated lenses that prevents the camera from auto-focussing if a non-Nikon lens is mounted.

          • RC Jenkins

            Then they should name the new mirrorless camera the Nikon Seppuku.

            • Suicide? Nihongo o hanasumasuka?

              They will sell fewer cameras, but more lenses. And if they provide lenses that people want, they may not sell much fewer cameras.

              And maybe instead of outright turning the auto-focus off, they just slow it down. Make it miss every second time………

              But this is my opinion. That is all…….

          • PhilK

            Anti-trust actions have been filed in various jurisdictions around the world for that sort of thing.

            Most commonly against companies that make printers that try to prevent people from using 3rd-party consumables.

            The printer manufacturers lost in almost all the cases.

      • Farhad H.

        Especially if they start shipping popular lenses for E-mount too. However, remember Canikony are selling to a single brand shooters each while Sigma will be selling to (almost) all.

    • Allen_Wentz

      Zero for me…

    • bgbs

      I own sigma, Nikkor, and tamron. I have a rule that if a Nikkor lens costs more than the price of a camera, I pass for third party. Sigma and Tamron have not dissapointed me so far.

      • A. F.O.

        Good rule!

      • I don’t agree with that. Buy the best lens that you can afford. If you have to compromise, compromise on the camera. For example, I would prefer to shoot my 400 2.8E on a D610 then any alternative on a D850.

        But a reasonable person could come up with a different rule.

      • I hope you are not a sports or wildlife shooter. Or you would have very few nikkors.

    • Roger S

      I wonder if a contributing factor to Nikon’s poor showing in lens sales is the fact Nikon users in Japan rely on the vast supply of good used Nikon lenses out there. I have no idea if this is true, just a passing thought.

      • RC Jenkins

        Could be. One thing I’ve been saying for years is that Nikon should think about entering the used market or looking into different business models.

        I think a “buyback & certified pre-owned” program would do very well, as the market is pretty saturated with great equipment.

        I tend to buy used more than new–especially when it comes to lenses.

        • Markus

          Me too, I don’t have a new lens anymore. But I’m full in legacy mode 😉

      • Semaphore

        Another factor, given that these are Japanese rankings, is Nikon doesn’t make consumer lenses in Japan, while Canon/Sigma/Tamron does. I’m not trying saying it makes a difference in quality, but domestic production is a selling point to Japanese consumers.

      • BVS

        If we’re just looking at pure numbers, it probably also doesn’t help that the new lenses they released last year generally aren’t ones likely to move lots of volume, or had other issues/competition:

        28 1.4 – Expensive, and kind of an uncommon focal length for a lot of people, so probably low volume.

        10-20 AF-P DX – Resides in kit lens territory, so probably dismissed by many. Mediocre performance, AF-P compatibility issues, and similar releases by Sigma and Tamron probably hurt sales as well.

        8-15 Fisheye – Specialty lens. Low volume.

        70-300 AF-P FX – A good lens, and the most mainstream of the bunch, but a bit more expensive than many were expecting. Also, AF-P compatibility issues, the fact that many people already own the previous version, and the 100-400 releases by Sigma and Tamron probably lowered sales.

        180-400 – Specialty lens. Low volume. Only released recently.

  • Allan

    Without the total sales, these numbers are silly. Look at digital compact
    camera with integrated lens. If everyone’s sales have fallen dramatically, who cares what percentage that each have, before they all exit this market.

    • Mehdi R

      This is why Nikon and Sony are closing their P&S factories..

    • A. F.O.

      Japan: 127 million
      EUA: 323 million people.
      This numbers must have some importance.

  • Mehdi R

    Sigma is really doing great, just look at their numbers. Nikon really has tough rivals, Canon in DSLR Oly/Sony in MILC Sigma/Canon in lenses..

    • Lyle Cameron

      Agree, Nikon hit it out of the park with their Nikkor 70-200eFL but couldn’t touch Sigma’s 50mm Art.

      • I don’t understand why Nikon refuses to release a good 50mm lens with a gold ring… I just don’t get it.

        • OMG! Don’t get me started.

        • BVS

          I think maybe they consider the 58 1.4 to be that lens. Watching some of the Nikon commercials during CES they had the 58 in that slot and no mention of the 50 1.4.

          • The 58mm is a “specialty” lens, I would not classify it is a “regular” 50mm.

            • I don’t think it needs to be exactly 50. If they had a 40 and 58 1.4 in the same category as the 105 1.4E, how could we not be happy with that.

        • AYWY

          I suspect it is design preference or DNA.

          Nowadays, the best performing super-fast 50mm are big and heavy. Just check the Sony FE 50 f/1.4. (It looks retrofocus, but I’m no optics expert) The traditional smaller double gauss design seems unable to keep up with performance demands.

          Nikon could eventually show us a super-fast, high-performance 50mm. But it will no longer be compact.

          • Mehdi R

            Did you know Canon has produced 50mm f/1.0 from 1989 to 2000 !?

            • AYWY

              None of them are good wide open. And the Canon f/1 isn’t light.

              Only with the recent Sigma ART, Zeiss Otus, Sony FE that we start seeing fast 50s with wide open performance we marvel at. None of them seem to use the traditional Double Gauss. Any super-fast high performance 50 from Canikon shall be measured against these.

        • AnotherView

          “I don’t understand why Nikon refuses to release a good 50mm lens with a gold ring… ”

          Overheard in Nikon marketing dept: “We need good 50mm but 50mm’s are so passe, and everyone else already has one. I know! Let’s release a 58mm with quirky rendering … we can charge a fortune!”

  • peter

    I have purchased many many nikon products going back to the N8008… sigma lenses used to be weak.. nearly pitiful compared to a nikkor. Not so today… meanwhile i paid a whopping $2k for a nikkor 300f4 pf. Since that purchase, i have really curtailed new items… there is little noticable improvement and nikon has just killed the thrill of upgrading with expensive prices..

  • bgbs

    Nikon lenses are just too expensive. Third party guys stepped up their game, but instead of competing, Nikon decided to jack up its prices. So what ended up happening is, people invest in Nikon cameras, but not Nikon lenses.

    There is very little incentive a Nikon lens has over third-Party. It’s not like a Nikon lens weights twice lighter, and comes with fat more superior optics.

    Lower those prices Nikon.

    • Vinnypimages

      Figures are funny things. Nikon’s lens market share, despite those prices, has remained about the same despite dropping to 4th place. So why drop the prices. They still sell far more lenses in Nikon fit than Sigma and Tamron combined.

    • Nakayamahanzaemon

      I don’t think that Nikon’s lenses are much expensive. For example, a 24-85mm or a 18-35mm is a good, affordable lens for a FF system. Nikon also has a 35mm f1.8 or a 85mm f1.8, which isn’t that expensive either.

      • Eric Calabros

        Well if Nikon has no mirrorless body to sell, can’t sell lenses made for mirrorless body.

  • A. F.O.

    I think no-Pros try to buy the very best camera there money can reach…
    then…after the kit lens starts to feel too “narrow” they begin to look for a more expensive lens….tele-zoom, wider for landscape, good primes….but the Nikkors they see with the best reviews… costs more than the camera they’ve purchased some months ago!….So what are the options?….Buy Sigma, Tamron and even non AF-S lenses… like Rokinon, etc.
    Does Nikon can survive selling only, perhaps, 1/3 of nikkor lenses they could (should?) sell to nikon camera owners?…
    I’m no Nikon’s shareholder. So I will buy whatever my Money can buy and if Sigma gives me the same IQ etc with 1/2 of the price, the deal is easy.

    • Allen_Wentz

      Except that Sigma does NOT give “the same IQ etc with 1/2 of the price” under hard usage.

      • Vinnypimages

        Yes as a Sigma user there are compromises to be made they have they have the well reported off centre AF issues (now independently verified), no weather sealing and the only ones with the same IQ ( In fact better IMO)are over double the weight and 50% larger than the equivalent.

        • One way to increase IQ is to increase the size and it is cheaper than maintaining the same size. This is often overlooked.

  • raziel28

    Jesus, Canon is ahead of the competition even in the MILC segment!
    Regards

    • I am really surprised that so many people are surprised 🙂 – this has been going on for a while, at least since 2016. Of course this is just for the Japanese market.

      • Mehdi R

        I knew they’re selling more than others for like 10 years, what I didn’t know is their domination with %61 share. YUGE!

    • Neutron

      Internet is actually very biased. Websites these days track your history and study interests. Then they push contents you might find interesting to you. In the end people are living in a world they love to see.

    • AYWY

      They deliver a lot in the price-performance ratio. IMO they deliver the highest in that score now. Check the prices of EOS-M gear. While the lens selection is small, it is a very well thought-out selection that satisfies what most people want with a travel-friendly ILC. And it is cleverly priced within the range of what most people are willing to pay.

  • Mehdi R

    Admin, why does ad shows 6D II here on my browser?!

    • Did you recently Google Canon or something related?

      • Mehdi R

        Yes, it’s printers.

      • Mehdi R

        It’s funny they showed up my most hated camera of 2017, especially after its Dynamic Range fiasco.. 🙂

        • Shows that google algorithms are not perfect.

  • citrate

    Nikon’s DSLR market share is up by 3%. But considering the shrinking of overall DSLR sales, Nikon’s camera sale is probably down, not up.

    • ZoetMB

      Nikon has already told us that: their projection for this fiscal year, which ends at the end of March 2018, is 500,000 fewer DSLR units and 720,000 fewer lens units than last fiscal. They’ll release their final estimate around February 8th. And fiscal 2017 was down 940,000 DSLR units and 1.28 million lens units from fiscal 2016.

  • Artliner

    1. Canon lenses
    2. Sigma lenses
    3. Tamron lenses

    Nikon now in 4th spot after Tamron in lens sales. That’s insane.

    And yet these clowns at Nikon are still releasing insanely overpriced lenses.

    • ZoetMB

      Nikon’s current strategy is about margin and profitability, not market share and units, for better or worse. Not that they’re that profitable. For the first two quarters, they were running an 8.8% pretax margin.

      • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

        trouble is that selling more units and increasing market shares drives more brand satisfaction, value for money, kudos from customer to Nikon, possibly punters will purchase more items from Nikon with money left over / saved up and increase revenue and sales coming into Nikon.

        Like the Nikon Mh-26a for selling that £100 less the punter would be more satisfied that a meagre battery charge is £250 rather than a more steep price and could use that money to buy another Nikon product, e.g., Nikon ES-2 (when it comes out), SB-5000, etc.

        • RC Jenkins

          It’s also beyond that.

          In an ILC market (especially a competitive one), there’s a lot of synergy between cameras & lenses–and this is driven by the consumer’s incumbent system, and why market share is so important.

          People who buy cameras buy lenses and then newer cameras for those lenses, and then newer lenses for those cameras, etc.

          This in turns leads to more options in both cameras & lenses as well, which drives people to buy more cameras & lenses, which drives companies to design more cameras & lenses, etc.

          There’s also brand recognition–a lot of amateurs buy Canon simply because many pros use (or have used) Canon, and many tutorials are for Canons, etc.

          When launching a new system, a quick gain in market share is imperative up until a certain critical mass is reached–this is often at the cost of short term margins. Once the base is built, the synergistic machine starts working, and a company can focus on margins.

          Without this initial surge, many brands are doomed. Launching is very different from sustaining or expanding. Hopefully, Nikon recognizes this.

      • Semaphore

        Nikon’s profitable for a camera company. The problem they face is that unlike literally all of their competitors, Nikon doesn’t have a profitable side/main business to feed an unprofitable camera division anymore.

        • PhilK

          Yeah, they have several other product lines but not many of them are particularly profitable, I’m afraid. 😐

    • Markus

      I’m pretty sure the kit lenses are not included in the lens section. Means Nikon still sells more lenses than Sigma and Tamron.

      Nevertheless, both Tamron and Sigma tend to be stronger under Nikon users than under Canon users. Don’t know why.

    • PhilK

      Remember that Nikon doesn’t sell lenses that fit Canons, Sonys, Olympuses, Fujis…

      So when it comes to Nikon mount lenses, they are probably still selling much higher volumes than the 3rd-party makers.

    • Julian

      If you look at the quality of the lenses that Tamron and Sigma are producing and compare them side by side with the Nikkor equivalent, its not insane at all. I did this for my last 2 lens purchases, and one went to Sigma, the other to Nikkor.

  • Markus

    So, no Fuji and Panasonic in the top 3? And those 3 are gaining market share. Means Fuji and Pana don’t get moving. Pretty insane.

    • Enche Tjin

      That;s in Japan 😀 In other part of Asia maybe it will be very different.

    • Nikkor300f4VR

      Only in JP, would be good to see the global stats, trends.

    • NorthPol

      It’s gonna get even worse for them, including Sony too, when Canon and Nikon release FF/DX ML cameras (Canon already released DX).

  • Mohd Shamsul

    Sony going backwards. Those burnt by Sony consumer electronics simply won’t trust the brand.

  • RodneyKilo

    Looks like Nikon has just slightly bumped market share at the expense of Canon.

  • Bruce J. Hillier

    Just bought the Tamron 70-200 G2 after looking at soooo many reviews, and believe me, I am totally satisfied with the performance on my Nikon D850. I did consider, very briefly the Nikon 70-200 E(as I like to have the “best”, lol), but, for less than 1/2 the cost, the Tamron G2 and it’s great performance was a no-brainer…FYI, this is the first NON-OEM lens I have purchased. I used to be a Canon shooter with nothing but, “L” glass. Also, after looking at everything with the Tamron 24-70 G2, and comparing it to Nikon’s equivalent, and Tamron’s superb VR, and again 1/2 the price….another no-brainer. Just bought a Nikon 200-500 f/5.6E a few months ago and it’s already in the repair center for “soft images” (over 300+) shot and not ONE good one.

    • sandy

      The Nikon is over priced for my needs. It is also the standard by which all the other 70-200’s are measured. At the price I would buy the Tamron. But it is no way better and by all accounts has greater sample variation.

    • bobgrant

      The problem with the Tamron for many (and this was also the case for the previous VR2) is that it’s only 137mm at close focus. The 70-200 F4 and new E version actually do much better and are easily superior if you actually want the perspective and subject isolation that 200mm provides at closer distances. Nikon fixed the issue on their newer versions, but Tamron appears content to compete with the VRII rather than the F4 or E Nikon zooms.

      • decentrist

        The G2 has closer focus, and it more like a 160mm at minimum.

  • The pricing for 70-200e is IMO very reasonable compared to VR2. Not the case with newer 24-70 though which is quite a lot overpriced compared to older one.

    • bobgrant

      Agreed and I actually prefer the optics of the 24-70G, so the E looks even worse to me. The “no brainer” is in fact the 70-200 E. It’s hugely superior to the VR2 and Tamron G2, even those are okay lenses.

  • Back to top