Is lens manufacturing a money losing business

[classiccameras]

Yes, I know the mark up on glasses as my missus used to work for a high street chain, its criminal, yet people pay it.

I wonder what trade price dealers pay if they want to buy a bit of kit for themselves. I do know a bit of filching goes on with old stock, but that's another story.

[Greg Beetham]

I do think it’s easy to take lenses for granted a bit, I guess there would be some price gouging here and there especially in the UK where prices seem very high by comparison, but I think it’s mainly the government that has the hand in the till in that case with lots of add on taxes.
When you consider actually bringing a lens into reality starting from nothing but the thought or concept of making one for a particular purpose there is a large leap between the thought and reality, especially when the end product has to actually meet specifications and be of a design and function that will sell at a price that people would be willing to pay.
I know you can have computer design take a lot of the hard yards out of optical design and function, and you also have moulded elements now that are homogeneous (zero wave error internally) but as far as I know that only applies to some elements not the difficult to work brittle or soft rare earth expensive LD type glass.
A part of the design would be the carrier sleeves and lock ferrules for the elements which all have to hold the elements on their optical axis but some of them must still be able to move back and forth, sometimes there are two separate sleeve carriers with element groups moving in a coordinated related fashion.
Also the placement of the aperture and then the alloy parts (helical followers, mount, gear train, AF drive) have to be machined and finished to exact tolerance. Then there is the circuit board for various functions and the associated distance encoder, and some lenses have IS built in.

It’s a wonder there aren’t lots of lens making companies springing up in the west seeing as how there is such a huge margin to be made making lenses, it should be easy to make the same thing cheaper than those rip off prices surely?
If you copy an existing design rather than start from the ground up designing your own it should be easy to undercut the OEM lenses one would think, I wonder why there are so few doing that?
Here is a video on making some lens elements, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKNFW0YwDYw there are other videos on the same page that you can watch to get an idea how easy it would be to make camera lenses and put in place all of the associated equipment and infrastructure necessary.
Greg

[Mark K]

Thanks for all the responds. I was always in a doubt, after seething the charming growth of M43 and Fujifilm mirrorless market, why Sony put himself in such an embarrassing condition by launching numerous camera bodies with only a handful of quality lenses, especially comparing to the primes made by OM/Pana/Fuji. The launch of Nex 5 was so exited only there was zero quality prime at the time of launch. Please do not let A7/7r repeat the history, a rather ground breaking pair of bodies let down by the shortage of quality native primes.

[classiccameras]

Greg, back in the 35-mm SLR days, there were dozens of independant lens makers to numerous to mention. they all seemed to have markets, some dropped by the way side where as others amalgemated. There were some real jam jars out there as well.

[Greg Beetham]

Back then Pete SLR’s had only to actuate the lens aperture lever and the lens did the rest, stopped down to the preset aperture, thus anyone could accurately make a brand specific compliant lens, if they thought they could find a niche in the market that is juggling performance and price, and some actually did.

But Minolta fixed that little red wagon, they are the ones who brought the world the AF lens with no aperture ring and eventually more onboard electronics that made life very difficult for third party lens makers to build a fully compliant lens.
One of the reasons was the aperture was now set on the camera and controlled by the camera, the preset aperture travel stop on the lens was gone and it’s function was now done by a stepper motor in the camera body.

Still there are third party lens makers that do still survive even so, but like I said hardly any in the west making fully compatible lenses that work on the major maker’s cameras…that I know of.
You could say Zeiss for one but then how much do they actually make of a given lens? And apart from the tie-up with Sony where Sony apparently use the optics and make the rest ‘somewhere’ how compatible are they with Nikon and Canon? they are MF lenses as far as I know, I don’t know what happens with the aperture control on those, maybe they have access to Nikon and Canon that not many other lens makers are privy too.

Sigma and Tamron have obviously solved the various problems somehow as well, especially if you make a vary-focal zoom then the camera has to know the light fall off profile for the lens to be able to set the aperture accurately, maybe the pay a fee of some sort to get the info…who knows, but you couldn’t say those two were western lens makers either.
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

Greg you are right there were a lot more MF Lens makers around back in those days.
I can give some credit to A mount, so far (not tempting fate) but at least A mount will work with AF lenses all the way back to the original ones and meter too. Not sure what that Sigma SLT problem was though.

Same cannot be said for Nikon on their entry models, no metering no AF with older AF lenses.
Pentax have metering on their MF A lenses, but not the M ones (stop down metering) and they don't have the range of s/h AF lenses v Minolta (nowhere near it) plus those MF A lenses are actually in Europe many of them are more expensive than AF A mount lenses!

A mount will actually meter with a jam jar held on the front (ie just adjust the shutter speed) so despite changing the mount with AF at least it's mostly consistent.
Samyang are doing ok and are quite decently priced if you are ok about MF. I suspect they might venture into AF at some point.

As the trend has been towards in lens motors, and electronic aperture control v screw drive and mechanical aperture it's probably put off some would be Hong Kong lens makers. Nikon are quite sneaky too their new models not supporting Sigma lenses (but everyone else seems ok) I got put off Sigma with the reported SLT issues and it's not just A mount that's causing an issue. And I give one slight nod to Sony that they have not yet used firmware to try to lock out third party batteries (unlike Nikon)

One point to mention on the "Sony can't compete" argument
They are selling their 70-400mm G II for just over £1600, The Nikon equivalent is almost £1900

That for me tells me one thing, that Sony are able to be competitive with lens prices "if" they want to. I suspect that is a move to appeal to wildlife shooters, and quite deliberate too.

[Heidfirst]

The actual manufacture and assembly of lenses is going to vary. Higher end ones have better quality components and more elements possibly the material cost is more no question, but it's not as much as you might expect either. It's pretty obvious that the higher priced lenses attract better margins, so it's a mystery to me why one guy in a shop says the 135mm STF is a loss maker for Sony. He's smoking something called "I don't know what I'm talking about"

Something like a kit lens they will build in large enough quantities to be competitive, lower volume/more specialist lenses they will struggle in.
The STF is probably an extreme example but that's probably not a bad thing for this purpose.
a) Sony is probably paying KM a royalty on it. That's an extra cost in the chain & at a low level so will be magnified (3-4x?) by the time that it gets to retail price.
b) you don't build one of these at a time - you build them in batches. The larger the batch, the cheaper to build per item (cheaper component & packaging purchasing & less down time for the line switching product).
But you want to build in batch sizes that have a reasonable stock turn as stock & warehousing costs money. Now, your component suppliers have minimum order sizes (& the apodisation element at least is a specialist item) which may be larger than the batches that ideally you want to build.
How many STFs do you think that Sony sell per year? My guess would be (low) hundreds rather than 1000s so they potentially end up with several years worth of stock from just one batch build.

Particularly at the pro & ultra tele end Canon & Nikon probably sell 10x as many of a similar lens as Sony do. That's going to have a phenomenal effect on parts cost, production , planning etc.
Sigma, Tamron & Tokina survive because they do oem work for Canon, Nikon, Sony et al, make products for other markets & their own badged products for 85%+ of the interchangeable lens mount market (Tokina least, Sigma seem to be still releasing A & K mount lenses so they must be covering nearly 100%). Similarly for Samyang etc. who can sell essentially the same product to a larger market than Sony can (even being kind they have 15% or less of the interchangeable lens body market).
Iirc the market research says that for every body sold there is something like 1.5 lenses sold. Take out all the kit lenses (& some kits are dual lens kits) & you are under .5 extra lenses per body on average. For a company with a small market share in the mainstream market (we'll ignore veblen goods like Leica) that makes things harder than if you had 40% of the market.

Btw I'm told that taken in isolation in straight cost/sales return terms the likes of Canon & Nikon's 800mm don't make any money. Of course they can ascribe a marketing value to them & their existence may encourage system sales lower down the range.

And I give one slight nod to Sony that they have not yet used firmware to try to lock out third party batteries (unlike Nikon)

Canon too, apparently.

One point to mention on the "Sony can't compete" argument
They are selling their 70-400mm G II for just over £1600, The Nikon equivalent is almost £1900

That for me tells me one thing, that Sony are able to be competitive with lens prices "if" they want to. I suspect that is a move to appeal to wildlife shooters, and quite deliberate too.

The 70-400 II is a facelift/mid-life upgrade product though where a fair chunk of it's initial r&d etc. cost will already have been paid off/written down by the first version whereas the 80-400 VR II is a new design with later year R&D costs.

[classiccameras]

Greg, my local dealer had a Tamron open day a few Months back and the UK Tamron team were there. In one conversation I had with a team member he said Tamron had a big part to play in the Sony/Zeiss lenses and very little actually comes out of Germany although he was not specific.

I have had a bit of a dilemma of late as to what direction I will go, it all depends on what Sony have to offer in A mount next year. I might be in the market for a faster kit lens [F/2.8] and it really boils down to 2, Sony 16-50 and the Tamron 17-50, both F/2.8. any views would be appreciated. The Zeiss 16-80 is just out of reach price wise and its not as fast.
I'm also not sure if in camera distortion, CA etc corrections that work on Sony lenses will be an issue with the Tamron.

[Greg Beetham]

Pete DK did a review of the Sony 16-50/2.8 and wasn’t totally impressed with it from memory, (sort of good bits, and not so good bits), although some say its good, and some even give it glowing reports, I’ll go with DK I think.
The Tamron 17-50/2.8 seems to get rather decent reports from those who have used it/owned it, it just seems a bit short on the long end for me, but then I haven’t actually used it either.
I actually like my KM24-105, (plenty don’t) it is very small, light and quite sharp but doesn’t like any light coming back at you…at all, instant flare and CA but it does nice work on APS-C as a handy close up lens, almost a second macro (but not really a macro of course), good for flowers, cats, dogs, kids, people, street and some scenic work (you have to watch the barrel distortion at 24mm, even on APS-C).
The KM28-75 I have is a nice lens too, but it’s not wide enough at the wide end for interior work but might be ok on FF, good people lens though, it’s only other problem is it doesn’t have a very close focus in comparison to the, say 24-105, but it is constant 2.8 and it can do reasonable photos at 2.8 also.
I’ve heard DK, Birma and Yildiz all give the CZ16-80 the thumbs up on optical performance, a very decent lens by all accounts, the only thing is if I bought one I’d end up with a lemon for sure…with my luck. (body wise I mean, not optically) that’s why I never bought one, if you were willing to take a punt and didn’t mind the hip pocket pain that would be a good choice too.
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

The CZ 16-80 had mechanical issues on the early ones no question there, I'm not sure if they've improved that it's possible. I think someone did a tear down once and said it was mostly plastic "inside" which is not what you expect from a lens this price.

I thought it was good optically (it has some issues though), but that was years ago so I've no idea how it stacks up with the higher resolution sensors. Anyway, based on the potential QC issues and being too expensive for what it is, I passed on that one.

16-80mm is a great range to have on a crop body no question, but since I've a 17-50mm Tamron and the 18-135mm I have no real need for it. Granted I have to use 2 lenses one for speed, one for range...still there isn't a lot of point changing as optically I like both lenses.

Not used the Sony 16-50mm f2.8, the price is good for some reason (no idea why it's as cheap as it is for an SSM lens with sealing) I'm reluctant to judge it via online reviews only, the 18-135mm was significantly better than I read on some online reviews. From what I've seen there are a few lemon ones around that ended up on a few review sites (photography blog clearly had a dud no question) mix in if the person has AF issues or doesn't take care to nail the AF it's hard to know what the story is.

From what I've seen I don't see a compelling reason to ditch the Tamron for the Sony, the Tamron is quite compact, it's very good optically and I've a long warranty on the lens should any problems turn up. No question Tamron do make a few Sony lenses (28-75mm and 55-200mm def Tamron designs), how many outside that I'm not sure. I'm still of the view that there is no obvious reason why Sony can't compete and make a profit on lenses.

To Heidfirst, we still have some lenses that have had their R&D paid for a long time ago. The 70-200mm is a Minolta design and the II version added only coatings and a new AF motor, so there isn't any real reason for the price premium on that and I didn't read any information about sealing either something that should be on a lens of this class. Ditto with other lenses like the 50mm f1.4, actually more expensive than the newer Nikon G equivalent which was a newer design. I suspect Sony's main problem isn't being able to make a profit on lenses, but to attract enough users who might actually buy some of these lenses.

[alphaomega]

Barry Fitzgerald wrote

The CZ 16-80 had mechanical issues on the early ones no question there, I'm not sure if they've improved that it's possible. I think someone did a tear down once and said it was mostly plastic "inside" which is not what you expect from a lens this price.

I thought it was good optically (it has some issues though), but that was years ago so I've no idea how it stacks up with the higher resolution sensors. Anyway, based on the potential QC issues and being too expensive for what it is, I passed on that one.

.
I got one of the early ones as part of my A700 purchase.
It had a "wobble" at 70mm. I tested it extensively and could not detect a reduction in IQ so did not return the lens. May be plastic inside but still doing well after all these years. Use it on my A580 and it goes on if photographing inside the 16-80 mm range - which is most photography. My favourite A mount lens by far. Tended to zoom out when carried by DK's idea with the rubber band cured the problem.
Yes, £600 new here in UK and seems to be above the £350 or so mark used.

[classiccameras]

Thanks every one, some useful intel on the lenses. It looks like Tamron are the best value weighing it all up.
Greg, I have a Minolta 24-85 , later model which on a cropped body gives excellent centre sharpness and very good edge when stopped down, its build is excellent and feels like a very sturdy lens and no wobble, its just a bit less versatile at the short end.

[Heidfirst]

To Heidfirst, we still have some lenses that have had their R&D paid for a long time ago. The 70-200mm is a Minolta design and the II version added only coatings and a new AF motor, so there isn't any real reason for the price premium on that and I didn't read any information about sealing either something that should be on a lens of this class. Ditto with other lenses like the 50mm f1.4, actually more expensive than the newer Nikon G equivalent which was a newer design. I suspect Sony's main problem isn't being able to make a profit on lenses, but to attract enough users who might actually buy some of these lenses.

The optical design is indeed Minolta & again they are probably still paying KM a royalty on it.
Apparently there is sealing on it which I must admit surprised me as that will have involved some changes & hence additional costs (along with a cost for the better coatings & possibly one for a better motor & LSI).
As I previously said though it's precisely these kind of advanced amateur/pro products where Sony will struggle hardest to compete because they just don't have the volume to eke out the savings on parts & automation etc..
To give you an idea over the last 10 years Nikon made ~730,000 70-200 VR or VR 11s. In addition Nikon have made 75,000 of the latest version of the old 80-200 since 2006. Presumably Canon made even more.
Unfortunately KM/Sony figures don't appear to be available in the wild but could you see it being over 50,000 (again probably being generous)?

[Mark K]

I was about to talk about the crazy price of 500 F4 which was a dream lens to me and the dream was broken by the price. However I also observe that inexpensive lenses can also be very good and recent good examples are Canon 40mm f2.8 stm, Sigma 30 f2.8, 19 f2.8. Even the Sony 35f1.8DT, 50 f1.8, 85 f2.8 are similar products with great optics and great prices.
I also have the 24-85, 24-105, 16-80. My 24 85 and 16 80 have mechanical problems and were sent to Sony. Sony asked my not to repair the Minolta and charged me the lens of a brand new 24-105 for repairing the mechanical problem of 16-80