Philosophical question about Sigma Lenses - Why?

[CarlTN]

Sigma was and forever will be, a lens manufacturer

They started off as a third party lens company and why would they stop just because they introduced their own line of camera bodies?

Plus their bodies are very niche and unpopular

Microsoft just announced Office for iPad, you ought to ask them why they would bother introducing software for competitors when they have their own Surface tablets?


Why does Sony make CMOS for rival Nikons?

Why does Samsung make hardware for Apple who wants to sue them for everything they have?

etc...

the list can go on




but the point is



Sigma made lenses first, there's no Eureka moment 'because our bodies are bad', but rather, there are probably moments like 'We made a lot of money making third party lenses, let's start creating our own bodies yada yada'

Have you ever owned or tried a Sigma camera or body? Or are you just spouting bandwagon platitudes?

 

[SoullessPolack]

Have you ever owned or tried a Sigma camera or body? Or are you just spouting bandwagon platitudes?

I have, and I can back him up on his statement. It's sad really, because they have the capability and potential of being a real big player in this arena, but unfortunately aren't.

 

[jrista]

Just out of curiosity thanks to a conversation in Marketing 101 - why would a company like Sigma create products for other brands, specifically lenses for Canon? I'm curious about the thought process that went into a decision by such a company to create accessories and devices for someone else's products since they already have their own line of camera bodies...

There have been a bunch of good answers from other people, so I'll take a different tack.

I'm not sure the question needs to be "philosophical"...I think it really just boils down to a question of mere survival. If it wasn't for the fact that Sigma made lenses for other brands, there probably wouldn't be a Sigma! ;-P I mean, when you get right down to it, Sigma's cameras have basically "nil" for market share. Of the total camera market, Canon, Nikon, and Sony command some 87-92% (depending on which years data you reference, from the last 10 years). On average, there has been about 11.5% "other" market share, and from that 11.5%, Sigma doesn't even come up in any searches, graphs, charts, or tables, indicating it's share of that share is only a few percent.

Without lenses, Sigma's ~1-2% market share in cameras wouldn't be enough to keep them alive. They wouldn't have any money for R&D of any kind, let alone for lenses. Sigma is a lens company first and foremost, and they have become a good lens company. They are a camera or general photography company a distant second.

So, why does Sigma make lenses for other brands? Because THAT is their business: Lenses. (Just to be clear, I'm not bashing Sigma for this. I applaud Sigma for moving beyond their prior status as an "Decent" lens manufacturer in years past, and have moved into the realm of "Great" lens manufacturer. It's just that, quite simply, that's what Sigma is...a lens manufacturer. They aren't really a full blown imaging company like Canon or Nikon...who's core businesses involve several lucrative divisions and large, broad R&D departments spanning multiple markets from medical to industrial to cinematography to photography. Sigma's primary business is lens design and manufacture...so it's no surprise they produce lenses for third parties as well as their own cameras.)

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Just out of curiosity thanks to a conversation in Marketing 101 - why would a company like Sigma create products for other brands, specifically lenses for Canon? I'm curious about the thought process that went into a decision by such a company to create accessories and devices for someone else's products since they already have their own line of camera bodies...

There have been a bunch of good answers from other people, so I'll take a different tack.

I'm not sure the question needs to be "philosophical"...I think it really just boils down to a question of mere survival. If it wasn't for the fact that Sigma made lenses for other brands, there probably wouldn't be a Sigma! ;-P I mean, when you get right down to it, Sigma's cameras have basically "nil" for market share. Of the total camera market, Canon, Nikon, and Sony command some 87-92% (depending on which years data you reference, from the last 10 years). On average, there has been about 11.5% "other" market share, and from that 11.5%, Sigma doesn't even come up in any searches, graphs, charts, or tables, indicating it's share of that share is only a few percent.

Without lenses, Sigma's ~1-2% market share in cameras wouldn't be enough to keep them alive. They wouldn't have any money for R&D of any kind, let alone for lenses. Sigma is a lens company first and foremost, and they have become a good lens company. They are a camera or general photography company a distant second.

So, why does Sigma make lenses for other brands? Because THAT is their business: Lenses.

Says a lot about Foveon doesn't it.
Some capitalist have surmised that DSLR bodies are loss leaders to sell lenses, which is assumed where all the profit margins are.

 

[CarlTN]

Have you ever owned or tried a Sigma camera or body? Or are you just spouting bandwagon platitudes?

I have, and I can back him up on his statement. It's sad really, because they have the capability and potential of being a real big player in this arena, but unfortunately aren't.

I was talking to him, not you, but ok. What Sigma camera have you owned, and for how long, and how many images did you take with it?

So this is yet another Sigma bashing thread, big surprise. Yawn...

 

[GaryJ]

No offence but when CarlTN starts attacking it all becomes somewhat Ho-Hum

 

[EricFiskCGD]

It seems you are new to digital photography...it's good you are here trying to learn.

You’re absolutely right – I’ve always had a P&S (Point and Shoot) Canon camera for all of my work just to take pictures of things to put in my graphic design work but recently I’ve become far more serious about my images and upgraded to the Rebel to work with different settings, higher resolutions, and long exposures. I came here to learn via advice from my professor – gravitate to where all the smart people hang out and interact with them with intelligent questions.

Thank you and everyone for merely participating on this forum and contributing to the education of newbies like me and others.

Canon are the largest manufacturer of DSLR cameras in the world. Nikon and Sony are somewhere below that. Are you suggesting that a company that primarily makes lenses, only make lenses that will not fit on the cameras most people own?

Since I’ve had more time to think about this topic and read other people’s responses I think the title of this thread should have included the words “business model” like – Business Model & Philosophical question about Sigma Lenses - Why?”

Thanks to my marketing class I have my head full of questions about companies I like and admire (and some I’m interested in) and wonder out loud about their business plans. In fact I was actually thinking that if I could find enough information to cite in a bibliography I could do a report on Sigma’s original vision.

I’m not suggesting that Sigma do anything besides what they’re already doing – being a company that primary makes lenses for other people’s camera bodies and when I get enough scratch together I’ll be sure to buy one of their products.

There have been a bunch of good answers from other people, so I'll take a different tack.

I'm not sure the question needs to be "philosophical"...I think it really just boils down to a question of mere survival. If it wasn't for the fact that Sigma made lenses for other brands, there probably wouldn't be a Sigma! ;-P I mean, when you get right down to it, Sigma's cameras have basically "nil" for market share. Of the total camera market, Canon, Nikon, and Sony command some 87-92% (depending on which years data you reference, from the last 10 years). On average, there has been about 11.5% "other" market share, and from that 11.5%, Sigma doesn't even come up in any searches, graphs, charts, or tables, indicating it's share of that share is only a few percent.

Without lenses, Sigma's ~1-2% market share in cameras wouldn't be enough to keep them alive. They wouldn't have any money for R&D of any kind, let alone for lenses. Sigma is a lens company first and foremost, and they have become a good lens company. They are a camera or general photography company a distant second.

So, why does Sigma make lenses for other brands? Because THAT is their business: Lenses. (Just to be clear, I'm not bashing Sigma for this. I applaud Sigma for moving beyond their prior status as an "Decent" lens manufacturer in years past, and have moved into the realm of "Great" lens manufacturer. It's just that, quite simply, that's what Sigma is...a lens manufacturer. They aren't really a full blown imaging company like Canon or Nikon...who's core businesses involve several lucrative divisions and large, broad R&D departments spanning multiple markets from medical to industrial to cinematography to photography. Sigma's primary business is lens design and manufacture...so it's no surprise they produce lenses for third parties as well as their own cameras.)

And another great post. Like I said before – If I could rename this thread I would replace “Philosophy” with “Business Model.” From what I’ve read from almost all of the posts in this thread is that Sigma might have been better off remaining just a lens company because there seem to me more than a few who haven’t been happy with the Sigma bodies.

The question I have for you folks now (besides “What do you think their original business model looked like?”) is there ONE must-have Sigma lens for Canon owners?

So this is yet another Sigma bashing thread, big surprise. Yawn...

I hope that comment isn’t directed towards me – I have no opinion for nor against Sigma. I’m only interested in their original business model and how the founders of the company came to the conclusion of making lenses for other camera bodies out of pure academic curiosity.

 

[kphoto99]

I'm late to this thread, but I will give you a real car company example.

AC Delco (A GM company) makes car batteries for GM products, but also batteries for most other cars.

Batteries are bought by end customers, unlike examples of Sony sensors or Samsung LCD screens where the end customer does not have a choice what part is put into the final product.

 

[EricFiskCGD]

Thanks for the reply – regardless of how late to the party you are.

 

[pdirestajr]

"I have no opinion for nor against Sigma. I’m only interested in their original business model and how the founders of the company came to the conclusion of making lenses for other camera bodies out of pure academic curiosity."



3rd party accessories is a standard business practice across all consumer product categories. This is not unique to Sigma or the lens/ photography market.

Where there is a market, there will be competition to get a piece of the pie.

You have the products/ accessories from the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) that set a price. Then 3rd party manufacturers can offer more "cost effective" alternatives, or fill holes in the market by offering unique products not offered by the OEM.

Sometimes a cheaper product isn't even inferior to the original, but they can undercut the MSRP because they have a smaller advertising/ marketing budget, inferior customer service, or are using "open market" parts, or they can operate on making a smaller margin, etc...

Sigma can also reduce the cost of production because they create products for multiple mounts. This increases their MOQ (minimum order quantity), which helps drive down manufacturing costs.

There is a lot more that goes into the cost of a product than just cost of goods.

 

[jdramirez]

Pentax makes bodies and lenses but they aren't really on our radar screen.

It just depends on what you want to be. Do you want to make lenses and bodies or do you want to make systems. I think sigma is more the former than the latter.

 

[Grumbaki]

despite all relevant comparison already mentioned, I think I'd point out the Sega story. Better make money with other companies than die trying to force your proprietary system on consumers. (before all the others 80's kids come down on me, I have to say I was a a Sega boy )

 

[jdramirez]

despite all relevant comparison already mentioned, I think I'd point out the Sega story. Better make money with other companies than die trying to force your proprietary system on consumers. (before all the others 80's kids come down on me, I have to say I was a a Sega boy )

I liked the dream cast... but I want motivated to buy it. I went ps2. But I did buy crazy taxi and the other Sega related games... not all.. but some.

 

[TexPhoto]

“To make money” was the most obvious answer and I thought that was already covered but I appreciate your take on that – why limit your production to only one camera system.

It was only until today that I discovered that Sigma also makes camera bodies… I can’t recall a company making parts for themselves and and a competitor / rival. It’s akin to finding out Chevy also builds parts for their trucks and for Ford, too.

I am more interested in the actual thought process beyond that such as; “here’s a great company that makes great camera body – like us – let’s make lenses for them, too.” Was there a eureka moment that someone had and said “Since we can’t make the best cameras out there, why not we make the best lenses for the best cameras!?”

Actually...

I like your car example... it is very fitting.

In the camera world you have a couple of big players and a bunch of small players... same as the automotive world. In the automotive world it is very normal for specialty companies to take motors and transmissions from larger companies and to use them in their vehicles... remember Delorean and Bricklin???

I believe Sigma started off making lenses and did not have their own camera at first... the camera came later.

This is not unusual. It's probably unusual for a big company to not bleed into competitors products. Especially the way they buy smaller companies and sell of branches. When i worked for Lucent technologies we looked into buy a smaller company only to find out they were owned by a company we already owned. And we were their major supplier.

2nd, To borrow from your car theme, look at Lotus. They make cars, and they also provide engineering services for their clients including: Ford, Delorean, Vauxhaul, Dodge, Tesla, Austin Martin, Toyota, and I'm getting tired of typing them.

But this is far more common than you think. Sony sells cameras… and sensors to almost everybody who sells cameras. Microsoft sells Operating systems, and products for other operating systems.

But I think the best thing about Sigma is the are the wolves nipping at the heals of Canon and Nikon. Canon and Nikon are spurred to innovate to stay ahead, and keep prices tolerable.

 

[CarlTN]

It seems you are new to digital photography...it's good you are here trying to learn.

You’re absolutely right – I’ve always had a P&S (Point and Shoot) Canon camera for all of my work just to take pictures of things to put in my graphic design work but recently I’ve become far more serious about my images and upgraded to the Rebel to work with different settings, higher resolutions, and long exposures. I came here to learn via advice from my professor – gravitate to where all the smart people hang out and interact with them with intelligent questions.

Thank you and everyone for merely participating on this forum and contributing to the education of newbies like me and others.


The question I have for you folks now (besides “What do you think their original business model looked like?”) is there ONE must-have Sigma lens for Canon owners?

So this is yet another Sigma bashing thread, big surprise. Yawn...

I hope that comment isn’t directed towards me – I have no opinion for nor against Sigma. I’m only interested in their original business model and how the founders of the company came to the conclusion of making lenses for other camera bodies out of pure academic curiosity.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Sigma. I don't think the company began very recently, they have quite a history. Began in 1961.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma_Corporation

I'm not sure there is "one" Sigma lens that every Canon owner must have. Why would there need to be one "must have" lens? Does any camera company produce one "must have" product? And if so, is that a positive attribute for that company? Or would that serve to highlight the company's weaknesses?

Eric, I was not meaning to offend you. But it does seem your thread is meant to question Sigma's motives, implying you are wondering whether they should be in business or not. Naturally the snobs on this forum enjoy bashing third party lens manufacturers as often as they can, with Sigma being their number 1 target. Their thought process is "well, if you can afford to commit to photography, you buy the best, and in general Sigma are not the best camera company or lens manufacturer. Therefore, I'll get my jollies deriding Sigma and anyone who purchases its products, because I'm a forum troll overloaded with testosterone, and I need to point out the inferiority of others so that I can try to fill the hole of hate and inferiority in myself."

A thread like this, is kind of like a net, and the trolls, are the fishermen.

In my opinion, I wonder why more people don't bash Tamron? Their lenses, as a whole, are inferior to Sigma's. They don't even attempt to make cameras. Does that mean they are the inferior company?

Really, how dare Sigma manufacture cameras...the nerve of them. The nerve of anyone who would ever try one. They'd have to be a complete idiot, wouldn't they? What motivates them to be such an idiot?

 

[EricFiskCGD]

Hey again, Carl;

My curiosity was spurred by a conversation in Marketing class and the question “Why do companies do what they do, besides for money?” In my experience, nobody does something just for the money. They do what they because they are very good at something and they want to make money while doing that.

I have no reason nor desire to trash Sigma – if anything I’m extremely curious about their products and I’m looking forward to trying one of them out in the near future. I’m also curious about the company’s history after reading their website “about” page and watching their promotional video.

I’m not offended by your comments and I totally admit that I’m questioning Sigma’s motives but only in a positive way – how does one go about saying “I want to only make lenses for other people”? Or how does someone start a company specializing in a very specific aspect of the market; akin to why would Logitech want to build nothing but after-market keyboards and mice, or the origins of Wacom who makes tables. I’m curious about the origins of ventures and in this case I’m curious about the ‘origin story’ of Sigma.

I hope you didn't think I'm out to trash Sigma - not in the slightest bit. If so, amends.

As for my question about what’s the Sigma lens to have, you’re right that it’s an invalid question since it’s not specific enough… too general of a question. In the immediate future I need to do macro photography, closes ups of specific objects for graphic design projects like catalogs. What I really want to do is to astro-photography.

 

[CarlTN]

Hey again, Carl;

My curiosity was spurred by a conversation in Marketing class and the question “Why do companies do what they do, besides for money?” In my experience, nobody does something just for the money. They do what they because they are very good at something and they want to make money while doing that.

I have no reason nor desire to trash Sigma – if anything I’m extremely curious about their products and I’m looking forward to trying one of them out in the near future. I’m also curious about the company’s history after reading their website “about” page and watching their promotional video.

I’m not offended by your comments and I totally admit that I’m questioning Sigma’s motives but only in a positive way – how does one go about saying “I want to only make lenses for other people”? Or how does someone start a company specializing in a very specific aspect of the market; akin to why would Logitech want to build nothing but after-market keyboards and mice, or the origins of Wacom who makes tables. I’m curious about the origins of ventures and in this case I’m curious about the ‘origin story’ of Sigma.

I hope you didn't think I'm out to trash Sigma - not in the slightest bit. If so, amends.

As for my question about what’s the Sigma lens to have, you’re right that it’s an invalid question since it’s not specific enough… too general of a question. In the immediate future I need to do macro photography, closes ups of specific objects for graphic design projects like catalogs. What I really want to do is to astro-photography.

Those are different types of photography, but very likely what most other posters will suggest, is that you just buy the Canon 100L, and forget ever even trying Sigma lenses.

And again, it says Sigma started as a camera company, in the film days, 1961. This is just off the top of my head, but Post World War II Japan saw the influx of capitalism and free markets...the profit motive. Before this their markets were centered around pleasing their emperor, and his desire was to conquer the Pacific Rim countries. So it was an economy based on building the machines of war, since the early 20th century. America didn't like this, so we fought them...and they gave us a good excuse when they drew first blood attacking Pearl Harbor. Sigma's founders loved cameras and photography, so that was their motivation. I suspect that after a few years, they realized they couldn't compete with Canon and Nikon, so the focus turned more to just lenses (this likely became their primary focus by the late 1980's, if not before). As for their "foveon" sensor, it was designed by an American in California named "Merrill" in the late 1990's, hence they later named a recent generation of their cameras "Merrill".

 

[EricFiskCGD]

And again, it says Sigma started as a camera company, in the film days, 1961. This is just off the top of my head, but Post World War II Japan saw the influx of capitalism and free markets...the profit motive. Before this their markets were centered around pleasing their emperor, and his desire was to conquer the Pacific Rim countries. So it was an economy based on building the machines of war, since the early 20th century. America didn't like this, so we fought them...and they gave us a good excuse when they drew first blood attacking Pearl Harbor. Sigma's founders loved cameras and photography, so that was their motivation. I suspect that after a few years, they realized they couldn't compete with Canon and Nikon, so the focus turned more to just lenses (this likely became their primary focus by the late 1980's, if not before). As for their "foveon" sensor, it was designed by an American in California named "Merrill" in the late 1990's, hence they later named a recent generation of their cameras "Merrill".

Thanks! I think that's the background story I've been looking for.

Those are different types of photography, but very likely what most other posters will suggest, is that you just buy the Canon 100L, and forget ever even trying Sigma lenses.

I don't rule anything out and Sigma will be welcome in my Camera bag in the near future.

 

[CarlTN]

And again, it says Sigma started as a camera company, in the film days, 1961. This is just off the top of my head, but Post World War II Japan saw the influx of capitalism and free markets...the profit motive. Before this their markets were centered around pleasing their emperor, and his desire was to conquer the Pacific Rim countries. So it was an economy based on building the machines of war, since the early 20th century. America didn't like this, so we fought them...and they gave us a good excuse when they drew first blood attacking Pearl Harbor. Sigma's founders loved cameras and photography, so that was their motivation. I suspect that after a few years, they realized they couldn't compete with Canon and Nikon, so the focus turned more to just lenses (this likely became their primary focus by the late 1980's, if not before). As for their "foveon" sensor, it was designed by an American in California named "Merrill" in the late 1990's, hence they later named a recent generation of their cameras "Merrill".

Thanks! I think that's the background story I've been looking for.

Those are different types of photography, but very likely what most other posters will suggest, is that you just buy the Canon 100L, and forget ever even trying Sigma lenses.

I don't rule anything out and Sigma will be welcome in my Camera bag in the near future.

Well, that is good, glad I could help...I've not seen your posts before today, so I welcome you to the forum!

 

[AlanF]

And again, it says Sigma started as a camera company, in the film days, 1961. This is just off the top of my head, but Post World War II Japan saw the influx of capitalism and free markets...the profit motive. Before this their markets were centered around pleasing their emperor, and his desire was to conquer the Pacific Rim countries. So it was an economy based on building the machines of war, since the early 20th century. America didn't like this, so we fought them...and they gave us a good excuse when they drew first blood attacking Pearl Harbor. Sigma's founders loved cameras and photography, so that was their motivation. I suspect that after a few years, they realized they couldn't compete with Canon and Nikon, so the focus turned more to just lenses (this likely became their primary focus by the late 1980's, if not before). As for their "foveon" sensor, it was designed by an American in California named "Merrill" in the late 1990's, hence they later named a recent generation of their cameras "Merrill".

Thanks! I think that's the background story I've been looking for.

Those are different types of photography, but very likely what most other posters will suggest, is that you just buy the Canon 100L, and forget ever even trying Sigma lenses.

I don't rule anything out and Sigma will be welcome in my Camera bag in the near future.

Well, that is good, glad I could help...I've not seen your posts before today, so I welcome you to the forum!

According to Sigma's own official history, they started to produce their first lenses in 1961 but didn't produce their first SLR until 1976.

http://www.sigmauser.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=67