Philosophical question about Sigma Lenses - Why?

[EricFiskCGD]

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...

 

[AcutancePhotography]

To make money?

Why limit your product to only one camera system?

I don't own any Sigma cameras, but I own several Sigma lenses.

Sigma made money off of me.

 

[EricFiskCGD]

“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!?”

 

[Don Haines]

“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.

 

[m]

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!?”

AcutancePhotography's answer is spot on.
There isn't really any eureka moment or philosophical question behind it.
It's straight forward business logic.

 

[wickidwombat]

because only 3 or 4 people bought the sigma camera bodies...

if they only made lenses for themselves they would certainly be broke
but by undercutting the oems prices of nikon and canon they instantly are open to a massive potential market

 

[IMG_0001]

Lets see,

Sony makes sensors for their cameras and sensors for... well Nikon, Fuji and Pentax and probably a few point and shoot and smart phones as well.

Samsung is one of the largest manufacturer of LCD panels for their own TVs and cell phones and most other as well.

In the car industry, ever realized the resemblance between a Ford Escape and a Mazda. Check out how many cars were built around Ford C1 platform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_C1_platform). Sahred car platforms are a norm, not an exception. Same for engines. Same for transmissions...

Markets are globalized and most people don't realize that very often, only a few companies provide the technologies globally.

 

[Steve]

Markets are globalized and most people don't realize that very often, only a few companies provide the technologies globally.

Its a little different since your examples are for corporations selling/licensing tech to other corporations, whereas Sigma, Tamron, etc are selling pieces directly to the consumer that are intended to be used with a competitors product. To keep with the car analogy, its like if Kia was making aftermarket parts for BMW's or something. It is a little odd but it's been going on in the camera industry for decades and decades and helps to fill a niche left wide open (possibly intentionally?) by Canon and Nikon.

 

[IMG_0001]

Markets are globalized and most people don't realize that very often, only a few companies provide the technologies globally.

Its a little different since your examples are for corporations selling/licensing tech to other corporations, whereas Sigma, Tamron, etc are selling pieces directly to the consumer that are intended to be used with a competitors product. To keep with the car analogy, its like if Kia was making aftermarket parts for BMW's or something. It is a little odd but it's been going on in the camera industry for decades and decades and helps to fill a niche left wide open (possibly intentionally?) by Canon and Nikon.

Personally, from the philosophic perspective, I see very little difference between a moral person selling to another moral person
(company A to company B) or a moral person selling to a physical person.

Otherwise lets try HP makes computers and printers but there is no garanty that an HP printer will be matedd to an HP printer...

Sigma produce optical components with the objective of selling them. Canon is the largest producer of interchangeable lens cameras. Sigma has all reasons to try and tap on that market. They are designing the lenses and there is only a fraction of the initial effort required to adapt these for multiple platforms. It is not like the market is saturated with affordable lenses...

 

[AlanF]

Sigma started off as a lens company and started making cameras as a sideline. It makes its cash from lenses.
Fuji started as by making film, went into making cameras as a sideline before the advent of digital, which saved them as they were pre-adapted to digital.

What would happen if Canon started producing their lenses with other mounts? Well, there would be lots of happy Sony bunnies and maybe some Nikons. But, Canon might lose more of its profitable sales of bodies that rapidly become obsolete than it gains from long-lived glass. Canon has most certainly done the calculations and will stick to Canon-only lenses.

 

[Halfrack]

The lenses came before the cameras. Sigma makes lenses for multiple platforms as a cost savings - literally taking one optical design, adjusting the distance from the flange to the sensor and swap out the AF control and selling it for what ever platform they decide on. Check out the Sigma zoom in either mount - the both zoom the same direction (Canon and Nikon oems zoom opposite each other).

The lifespan of a lens is also much longer than for a camera - notice how up in arms everyone is if there isn't a refresh every 12 months in the camera models? A good lens design with solid components can last for years.

 

[Albi86]

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...

Sigma is the third lens manufacturer in Japan by market share, not soooo far away from Canon and Nikon. When Canon sells lenses to Canon users only, Sigma sells to Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, etc etc.

 

[ecka]

“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!?”

Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Zeiss, Samyang, Voigtlander - they are all making money from bigger players lens mounts. There's nothing wrong with it. Samsung is making computer parts for Apple too.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Why is Canon making a camera (M15P-CL) that only comes in a Nikon F mount?

To make money from companies/people who have been investing in Nikon lenses for years.

Imagine if Canon were to attempt breaking into the industrial camera business by proclaiming "hey buy a Canon camera oh and by the way, you also need to buy all new lenses from Canon too." Probably would not get too far.

Much better to be able to say "you can keep all the Nikon lenses you have already purchased and like, but let us show you how using your existing Nikon lenses with our new Canon camera is better than your old Nikon camera system."

Politics may make for strange bedfellows but that's only because companies have been shacking up for far longer. LoL

 

[Longexposure]

Just like apple with iTunes

 

[Famateur]

Microsoft makes Office for Mac OS.
Amazon makes Kindle app for iPad.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Microsoft makes Office for Mac OS.
Amazon makes Kindle app for iPad.

Excellent examples! Micro$oft and Apple don't often see eye to eye but Micro$oft sure recognizes a way to get more money from Apple users.

 

[brad goda]

canon does the same and has been making huge lenses for TV production and have been making cinema lenses PL mount for years. when a manufacturer wants to make money and is confident in their product they make something .... when Zeiss released EF mount lenses everyone said wow... must be good. whats the diff "IF" its a good product.

 

[CarlTN]

“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!?”

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

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?

Sigma have made camera bodies since around 2000. They are all a crop sensor (originally 1.7x crop factor, now 1.5x). It only makes sense that they would make lenses for all "35mm" camera mounts, if they want to sell lenses.

Their biggest mistake, was not making their own mount, an EF Canon mount. That would have helped them sell more of their own camera bodies!

 

[willchao]

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'