Nikon 200-500

[ethanz]

Hello,

My dear Nikon friend (Jesus calls me to love my enemies, so I try) just bought a Nikon 200-500. He was showing it to me and it looks really sharp on his D810. I've read that there is extreme copy variation, so he must have just gotten a good copy. How much do you think Nikon is losing on selling that lens or are they actually breaking even? I think this may have been discussed before, but I couldn't find it.

Thanks for any insight

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Nikon is not losing money. Its a consumer grade lens and designed to sell for a low price. It is definitely a good deal for Nikon owners on a budget, but Nikon is not losing money on it. Don't think of it as comparing to a pro grade Nikon lens.

 

[Ryananthony]

Nikon is not losing money. Its a consumer grade lens and designed to sell for a low price. It is definitely a good deal for Nikon owners on a budget, but Nikon is not losing money on it. Don't think of it as comparing to a pro grade Nikon lens.

Basically this. I just purchased the d500 and 200-500 and have been really impressed so far with both focus speed and sharpness at 5.6 at 500. With that said, there is no confusing this for a high end big white equivalent from Nikon.

Ethan, what makes you think Nikon would be losing money on it?

 

[ethanz]

They may have thought that making a lens like that and pricing it so affordably would help to lure or keep customers, even if they did not make money on it. It just seems like it should be priced higher and cost more to produce.

 

[RGF]

Assuming Nikon is selling the lens above manufacturing cost then are making a something on the lens. Perhaps not as much as if they make on other (more expensive and likely higher margin lenses).

A couple of things to consider

- Does volume offset lower margins to help them cover the initial development costs?
- Does this lens help them fend off Sigma & Tamron 150-600 (or former versions) keep costumers in the Nikon fold? Hypothesis is that once they try a 3rd party manufacturer they may be more likely to buy another.

I could go on, ...

Rich

 

[Talys]

They may have thought that making a lens like that and pricing it so affordably would help to lure or keep customers, even if they did not make money on it. It just seems like it should be priced higher and cost more to produce.

I don't think so. It's not any better than a Sigma/Tamron 150-600 (they're all great consumer-grade telephotos), and for sure Sigma and Tamron aren't losing money on their lenses

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Assuming Nikon is selling the lens above manufacturing cost then are making a something on the lens. Perhaps not as much as if they make on other (more expensive and likely higher margin lenses).

A couple of things to consider

- Does volume offset lower margins to help them cover the initial development costs?
- Does this lens help them fend off Sigma & Tamron 150-600 (or former versions) keep costumers in the Nikon fold? Hypothesis is that once they try a 3rd party manufacturer they may be more likely to buy another.

I could go on, ...

Rich

I think you are right, the profit margin is less, but they steal the market away from the 3rd party manufacturers. Tamron and Sigma have cut into Nikon lens sales. Nikon lenses have typically been over priced, and for Nikon owners, Sigma and Tamron lenses are a good choice. Its not as clear cut for Canon, but I expect they feel the pinch as well.

 

[Talys]

I think you are right, the profit margin is less, but they steal the market away from the 3rd party manufacturers. Tamron and Sigma have cut into Nikon lens sales. Nikon lenses have typically been over priced, and for Nikon owners, Sigma and Tamron lenses are a good choice. Its not as clear cut for Canon, but I expect they feel the pinch as well.

I dunno, the only lens that competes with the 150-600 from Sigma/Tamron is the 100-400LII, and that really serves a different market. I kind of wish Canon would have a lens that competed with the 150-600, because then I would stop eyeing and dreaming of the 200-400, lol. Maybe.

 

[Don Haines]

You can get about 90 percent of the quality for about 50 percent of the cost. If Tamron and Sigma can make money with their 150-600 lenses, then it is a safe bet that Nikon can make money with the 200-500....

 

[Talys]

You can get about 90 percent of the quality for about 50 percent of the cost. If Tamron and Sigma can make money with their 150-600 lenses, then it is a safe bet that Nikon can make money with the 200-500....

I believe the 150-600 is better in sharpness and worse in autofocus than the 200-500, though I haven't ever played with the Tamron or Sigma on the Nikon, since everyone I've met with a newish Nikon that's a birder has the 200-500.

If I had to pick I'd take the sharpness (and 100mm on the telephoto end isn't anything to sneeze at either).

 

[ethanz]

I would stop eyeing and dreaming of the 200-400, lol. Maybe.

Just do it Talys, its so nice.

 

[Talys]

I would stop eyeing and dreaming of the 200-400, lol. Maybe.

Just do it Talys, its so nice.

Trust me, it's high on my wish-list. I want this lens more than any other camera gear.

1. HVAC for home
2. New roof
3. Canon 200-400

On the bright side, the Canon 200-400 is the cheapest of the 3!!

 

[aceflibble]

I can't provide a direct source because it comes from an in-person, real life conversation, but I asked a distribution contact I have about this when the 200-500 first launched and I saw the price, and was told that without shadow of doubt, Nikon is making a huge profit off this lens. It is selling way above cost.

Bear in mind that this is completely normal for any lens. Camera manufacturers do not make money from bodies. The average profit off any body sold is 5%, except for the 1D/Dx cameras (and, I believe, the Sony α9) which are a little further up. The figure I've been quoted is that for every £1000 a body costs on the shelf, the shop and manufacturer are making about £50 profit each. (Exact rate obviously varies depending on the specific model in question and whatever distribution deals are in place.) When manufacturers offer those cash rebates for £100 or £150 or so, that's usually them giving up their entire profit from that body sale.
... Conversely, lenses have a profit margin of closer to 400%.

This is why manufacturers are willing to sell bodies at barely-above cost. The idea is that for every body they sell, you'll buy at least one lens. One lens sale more than makes up for one body sale. Most people buy at least two lenses per body, so now we're talking big profits. For the serious enthusiasts and the working professionals who buy a huge range of lenses, the lack of money made on the body sale doesn't matter at all.

Bodies are made and sold to drive lens sales. Bodies rarely make much money; lenses always represent huge profits. As such, bodies are seen as making a profit by encouraging those lens sales.

So, no, Nikon is not selling the 200-500 at a loss, and they're not just breaking even, either. If they're selling anything at a loss, it's probably the D500, and it wouldn't surprise me if the D850 was only breaking even, too. The 200-500 is a giant cashcow.

 

[AlanF]

Well, if that's the case, Tamron and Sigma must have a nice marketing strategy. And if Canon was really smart, they would sell their lenses with Nikon, Sony and M4/3 mounts. And Nikon could fit the 200-500 with a Canon mount.

 

[IglooEater]

I would stop eyeing and dreaming of the 200-400, lol. Maybe.

Just do it Talys, its so nice.

Trust me, it's high on my wish-list. I want this lens more than any other camera gear.

1. HVAC for home
2. New roof
3. Canon 200-400

On the bright side, the Canon 200-400 is the cheapest of the 3!!

I can help you with 1 and 2. It will go towards a good cause, such as number 3 for me ;D

 

[Talys]

I would stop eyeing and dreaming of the 200-400, lol. Maybe.

Just do it Talys, its so nice.

Trust me, it's high on my wish-list. I want this lens more than any other camera gear.

1. HVAC for home
2. New roof
3. Canon 200-400

On the bright side, the Canon 200-400 is the cheapest of the 3!!

I can help you with 1 and 2. It will go towards a good cause, such as number 3 for me ;D

LOL Good one! ;D

 

[3kramd5]

The figure I've been quoted is that for every £1000 a body costs on the shelf, the shop and manufacturer are making about £50 profit each.

There is typically a distributor in the mix too, if not a whole seller, not just OEM and retailer.

Maybe, MAYBE companies like nikon have a direct relationship between major retailers like amazon, but generally not with Bob and Tom’s Electronics Emporium at the corner of 1st and Grand. Nikon sells to businesses who sell to businesses who sell to consumers. There has to be enough margin to go around, particularly for the retailer who uses up shelf space, deals with petty consumers (not rebuys like most B2B), processes credit at 1.5%-3% card fees, etc.

 

[privatebydesign]

The figure I've been quoted is that for every £1000 a body costs on the shelf, the shop and manufacturer are making about £50 profit each.

There is typically a distributor in the mix too, if not a whole seller, not just OEM and retailer.

Maybe, MAYBE companies like nikon have a direct relationship between major retailers like amazon, but generally not with Bob and Tom’s Electronics Emporium at the corner of 1st and Grand. Nikon sells to businesses who sell to businesses who sell to consumers. There has to be enough margin to go around, particularly for the retailer who uses up shelf space, deals with petty consumers (not rebuys like most B2B), processes credit at 1.5%-3% card fees, etc.

The distributer/importer, in the case of Canon and Nikon, are wholly owned subsidiaries of the main Japanese corporation. They get to double dip.

 

[3kramd5]

The figure I've been quoted is that for every £1000 a body costs on the shelf, the shop and manufacturer are making about £50 profit each.

There is typically a distributor in the mix too, if not a whole seller, not just OEM and retailer.

Maybe, MAYBE companies like nikon have a direct relationship between major retailers like amazon, but generally not with Bob and Tom’s Electronics Emporium at the corner of 1st and Grand. Nikon sells to businesses who sell to businesses who sell to consumers. There has to be enough margin to go around, particularly for the retailer who uses up shelf space, deals with petty consumers (not rebuys like most B2B), processes credit at 1.5%-3% card fees, etc.

The distributer/importer, in the case of Canon and Nikon, are wholly owned subsidiaries of the main Japanese corporation. They get to double dip.

Everywhere? That’s quite an operation! I suppose canon at least can leverage its office supply infrastructure.

 

[aceflibble]

Not quite "everywhere", but in most countries, yes.

This is why I generally don't factor in distribution costs when talking about The Big Three, because Nikon and Canon essentially own and operate their own, while Sony is such a vast corporation with fingers in so many pies, distributors fight each other to work for them. Distributor costs aren't really a factor for them.

Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax, Leica, Phase, now those are a different story.