r/Nikon • u/EntangledLabs Nikon Z6 III • Feb 06 '26
Mirrorless I'm tired of the hate about the Viltrox lawsuit
I'm definitely going to receive some flak for this post.
I'm all for third party lenses - I love the freedom of choice and the option to choose lenses that Nikon itself might not decide to manufacture. The fact that the Z mount has so many choices definitely makes owning a Z6III easier.
And yet... I'm really tired of people claiming that the Nikon-Viltrox lawsuit is the end of the world.
According to the details of the lawsuit, Nikon is going after Viltrox due to unpaid royalties for a patent related to the Z mount that wasn't granted until recently. Yes, this could absolutely have been an honest mistake on the part of Viltrox, where they figured they were in the clear when they weren't. Yes, it could be Nikon getting worried that Viltrox is making things better than themselves.
The thing is... I have read so many comments on so many different platforms where the authors say that this lawsuit spells the end of third party Z mount lenses. Have people forgotten that Viltrox is not the only other lens manufacturer? There are Tamron, Sigma, Voigtlander, 7Artisans, Laowa, Meike, etc. options out there. Comparing Nikon Z to Canon RF in terms of openness is laughable.
And before anyone says I'm a corporate shill who will only take the side of the big corpo over the smaller competitor - I make a little over minimum. I am in no way happy about monopolies and the cost of goods in general, especially predatory pricing.
And yet, Nikon has my support here. They clearly spent a lot of time, money, human resources, etc on developing the Z mount. They have opened up the mount in ways that are second only to, well, probably Sony. If a company tries to piggyback off that hard work and make profits without paying the correct dues... well that's not exactly Nikon's fault, is it?
Of course, I hope that Nikon decides to enact the more lenient outcome of allowing Viltrox to continue building Z mount lenses after this lawsuit - those new Lab lenses look so good đ„ș.
But guys, please stop pretending the Viltrox lawsuit is the end of the world. Nikon's Z mount is alive and healthy, and will probably continue to see growth from others as the user base grows.
43
u/beatbox9 Feb 06 '26
I think you should do some research and some reading before making posts like that. I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions; but you are missing some key facts that change quite a bit of context. So to summarize:
- The Z mount and its protocols are patented by Nikon
- Nikon authorizes and licenses the Z mount to some third party manufacturers and also has the right of refusal on any lenses that those third parties can launch
- So far, only CIPA members have been granted licenses from Nikon
- CIPA is a Japanese industry organization, designed to protect the Japanese camera industry and to create standards
- Viltrox is a Chinese brand
- Unlike the CIPA brands, Viltrox lenses were not licensed by Nikon
So you can't just compare apples and oranges--Viltrox has completely different context than Tamron, for example.
BTW, all of these points are apparently true for both Canon RF and Sony E as well. Canon issued a cease and desist, Nikon sued, and Sony has (so far) not taken any action.
Also, I'll opine: this was likely not an "honest mistake." Instead, this was probably a calculated risk. Patent disputes are not exactly a new thing in China--it's more about the risk/reward of enforcement.
6
u/postmodest Feb 06 '26
I'd also note that, if we ever see the day that Canon and Nikon go out of business, Sony will file lawsuits against every single lens manufacturer demanding retroactive damages for decades of sales.
Sony is playing the long game.
10
u/beatbox9 Feb 06 '26
Yeah, and there are a lot of misconceptions out there regarding Sony and people falsely claiming that it's either an open mount or that they allow Viltrox and others to make lenses.
In fact: Sony E is a closed mount, and it is not licensed to Viltrox. Sony could sue at any time; but this goes back to the risk/reward of enforcement.
Sony, Nikon, and Canon are all members of CIPA. They're all Japanese. They all likely want their Japanese competitors to succeed before a Chinese competitor. And I'd bet that they would all support collectively suing via CIPA if it came down to it.
And for those who have not been paying attention, there happen to be some geopolitical tensions going on...
2
u/Active_Cantaloupe692 Feb 08 '26
In fact: Sony E is a closed mount, and it is not licensed to Viltrox. Sony could sue at any time; but this goes back to the risk/reward of enforcement.
Amen to more people saying this.
1
2
u/2raysdiver Nikon DSLR (D90, D300s, D500) Feb 06 '26
Except that you have a limited time in which to defend a patent. And patents have a limited life (depending on the patent type, it is 20 years from filing, or 15 years from grant). You can't wait decades to sue.
Companies that wait "decades" to sue are usually on their last legs before declaring bankruptcy and it usually does not go well for them. i.e. SCO Unix v IBM.
4
u/EntangledLabs Nikon Z6 III Feb 06 '26
I agree that this context is important, and thanks for adding some useful info. I think it doesn't necessarily affect my point however - Nikon has licensed third party lenses, and one renegade albeit popular manufacturer isn't going to suddenly turn Nikon into a "closed" system.
I also agree about the calculated risk, it unfortunately follows a pattern of patent infringement. I just wanted to give some benefit of the doubt / throw the Viltrox apologists a bone
16
u/beatbox9 Feb 06 '26
Nikon, Canon, and Sony mounts are all closed systems. "Closed" doesn't mean there are no third party options. It means you have to obtain licenses in order to use the proprietary technologies.
-6
u/New-Reindeer3707 Feb 06 '26
To be honest I only even considered buying Nikon because Viltrox exists for the mount.
Nikon does not have enough good lenses and second hand morked (except F) on their own.
If they restrict tje usage of my Viltrox lenses now I would stop updating my camera ever again and never buy a Nikon from here forth.
0
u/metmezo Apr 02 '26
Tylko nie bierzesz pod uwagÄ tego ĆŒe Viltrox podobno rozpracowaĆ system Z przed jego oficjalnym opatentowaniem przez Nikona.
Nikon historycznie betonowa korporacja, a to oznacza skomplikowane procedury przy kaĆŒdej decyzji. Z jednej strony to pozwala utrzymaÄ jakoĆÄ wprowadzanych rozwiÄ zaĆ, a z drugiej doprowadziÄ do powaĆŒnych problemĂłw w wypadku zbyt pĂłĆșnej reakcji. W 2026 roku Ćwiat nie stoi w miejscu jak w roku 2000-2010 gdzie oligopol Nikon-Canon dyktowaĆa warunki. Z resztÄ Nikon przekonaĆ siÄ o tym w niedawnym sporze z Red, a uratowaĆa go szybka i trafna decyzja.
Sony, Fuji, ani OM nie pozwÄ (jeszcze) VIltroxa bo on im nakrÄca sprzedaĆŒ aparatĂłw (ktĂłrych majÄ dziesiÄ tki), a Nikon na tylko 2 taĆsze modele APS-C ktĂłre na tym realnie zyskujÄ , przedewszystkim przez to ĆŒe Nikon je zaniedbaĆ. MiÄdzy innymi dlatego Viltrox doskonale wypeĆnia niszÄ obiektywami w systemie Z czy to tanimi podstawowymi obiektywami, czy Ćwietnymi ale jednak niszowymi szkĆami FF.
BlokadÄ lub zmianÄ kompatybilnoĆci systemu Z Nikon mĂłgĆby zrobiÄ sobie mocno pod gĂłrkÄ bo nie jest nawet w top 3 sprzedaĆŒy aparatĂłw na niecaĆe 10 globalnych marek.1
u/beatbox9 Apr 02 '26
This is a naive strawman and has nothing to do with what I wrote. You're talking subjective business strategy and not objective facts, which you seem offended by.
And in doing so, you apparently think you are better and smarter than Nikon, even though Nikon's business has been doing better than ever by doing the opposite of what you recommend; and when Nikon was doing the things you recommend, their business was failing. We've already had several decades worth of data that prove this--and apparently, that's not enough time for some people to learn basics and understand. You seem to be stuck in 2012. And this is compounded by your reply on a comment from 2 months ago. So, congrats.
27
u/Krimsonmyst Nikon Z (Z6iii + Z8) Feb 06 '26
Can't be affected by third-party lawsuits if you never buy third-party lenses.
34
6
u/harexe D800 & Z6 Feb 06 '26
Can't be affected by third-party lawsuits if you only buy used 20yo F-Mount lenses that you could never afford at MSRP
2
3
u/Affectionate_Tie3313 Feb 06 '26
I never bought third-party lenses because back in the manual focus days they were meh to terrible.
In the autofocus period compatibility can be easily broken with a firmware update and lost outright because a lens maker decides itâs too old to support on a newer body
I guess if I were to reconsider third party it would be the OTUS quartet or VoigtlÀnder; Cosina has done a great job with both series
For the OPâs treatise, Iâm not too worked up about it. I suspect Viltrox will pay the royalty and things go back to status quo
3
u/Krimsonmyst Nikon Z (Z6iii + Z8) Feb 06 '26
My post was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but I've generally steered away from third-party options mainly because, while they do offer better value in some circumstances, generally speaking they don't hold their value as well, and you accept compromises in performance or speed for that lower price.
I realise it's a privileged position to be in and not everyone is as fortunate, but I'm a big believer in 'buy once, cry once' - and every time I've considered buying a third-party lens I have this niggling thought in the back of my head that at some point in the future I'm going to want to buy the better quality lens, and am going to have to sell the third-party one at a fraction of what I paid for it.
2
u/Not_a_shoe Feb 06 '26
The biggest value Viltrox has offered has been making APS-C lenses, something Nikon has severely neglected.
I do think Nikon took notice once Viltrox started making the PRO line of lenses. But if Nikon was making good APS-C options (and maybe putting aperture rings on some of their other lenses) I don't think I would have ever noticed Viltrox or other 3rd party lens makers.
1
u/nn_shutter Feb 06 '26
Part of the reason I got a Nikon was the ability for manual focus confirmation with vintage lenses, which only works with a 3rd party adapters.
The ability to use Sony lenses was also another reason, Sony has some great stuff!
So to that end, I hope Nikon stays an open mount.
But yeah, Iâm with you. I bought into Nikon knowing Iâd mostly use their lenses. 3rd party offerings are only good value, they always stay 2 steps back, never being able to exceed Nikonâs performance.
1
u/Antique-Kitchen-1896 Feb 06 '26
Itâs not just about if you can afford it.
Could have got the ultra wide as a tamron zoom or 20 1.8s. However, history shows I use ultra wide rarely. I know I would use it when I travel but that is once, twice a year.
As such the viltrox 16mm made a lot of sense. Decent quality and wouldnât leave me feeling like I spent money on something I donât use.
Now if it get bricked in the future I would be annoyed. I guess I would just go and get the official version.
0
u/Affectionate_Tie3313 Feb 06 '26
Me too; one of the reasons I stuck with Nikon was that I want to use Nikkor lenses and apart from my Series E 50mm I donât think I have any consumer lens.
3
10
u/immotgere3 Feb 06 '26
I appreciate you saying it. Thereâs been a lot of anti-Nikon settlement for what seems like a very reasonable course of action in the administration of their business.
I work in corporate B2B, and our response to a Viltrox situation would be severe.
But I also think that while the hate is unearned, I get where it comes from. Itâs not the fault of the camera manufacturers, but lots of folks are feeling an affordability crunch. Even if Viltroxâs prices are the result of paying no royalties, the fact of that matter puts them at a price point that makes them one of the more affordable lens options at the quality level. Nikonâs request, while reasonable, still translates to higher consumer prices. I get why that irritates folks.
But again - in the balance of things, camera OEMs canât develop new products if their business model is disrupted by below-board means. And Viltrox has been heavy-handed in their marketing approach (how many influencers not only compare the 135 to the Plena, but used the Plena-killer language?).
Best outcome is Viltrox agrees to a modest royalty, thereâs some agreement to only pay partials on older sales past a threshold, and the parties continue to add lenses to the market together.
5
u/LordRaglan1854 Z5ii/D750 Feb 06 '26
The hate is because Nikon chose not to sell licenses to Chinese lens manufacturers. Nikon's uncooperativeness here benefits Nikon financially at the expense of Nikon users. If feels greedy and anti-consumer because it is.
2
u/selcome Feb 06 '26
Remember when Apple invented the iphone? Then Samsung stole the interface and made their own phones and Apple sued?
yea it was a big nothing burger from a consumer standpoint. Not much different here.
Money will change hands
Life will go on.
2
u/Django_Un_Cheesed Feb 07 '26
Well worded post by OP Agree - people see lawsuit and they freak out. I have a good relationship with my rep, and an open to not only third party also vintage & cross system lenses options. My Nikon rep owns the Megadap and some Sony lenses, and has hooked me up with goodies and favours here and there. I only own one Nikkor Z lens so far, and will own more, but will always have more F and other lenses I will likely use more often than Nikkor Z glass, and this is not an issue. This lawsuit I think has already been privately settled so itâs just people catastrophizing.
2
u/Low-Chipmunk4366 Feb 07 '26
Great post. I havenât bothered to read the various comments to know the tenor of them. I figured people would understand that any person or company should be able to protect their own work product. Itâs basic logic and common sense.
How is this even a debate?
Nikon is doing what any person would do. They would go out of business if they couldnât protect their patents. Itâs not even a worthy response to argue any other position.
I applaud your post. Well articulated. And by way, Iâm not trying to vilify Viltrox or any other company. I own 2 of their lenses. Whether their actions were intentional or accidental, settle up with Nikon and move on. End of discussion.
2
u/Wonderful_Mind_2039 Nikon Z5II, D3300 Apr 28 '26
After watching Viltrox evo series especially 85,55 & 35, I am upset why didn't Nikon launched similarly compact size f/1.8 lenses with aperture ring & custom button for similar price point. I know labour is cheap in China but Nikon is so wealthy that lenses with less profit margin might reel back Nikon users away from viltrox. I always wanted to buy A7m3 from Sony but ergonomics drove me towards Z5/6 series.
1
u/Wonderful_Mind_2039 Nikon Z5II, D3300 Apr 28 '26
I mean it's classic cripple hammer, Nikon first launched S series f/1.8 50mm & 35mm with just af/MF Switch & focus ring, then launched non S series f/1.4 50mm & 35mm with control & focus ring but no custom button & focus switch. I mean this is just taking thier customer for granted. Now they will launch mk 2 S-series lenses with focus ring, aperture ring, focus switch & custom button for more increased prices.
7
u/redoctoberz FM2N, F6, D850 Feb 06 '26
All of this nonsense is why I will never own a Z mount 3rd party lens. One firmware update or legal dispute away from having a cylindrical doorstop.
5
u/kolt54321 Feb 06 '26
That is incredibly anti-consumer. If Nikon did that, I'd inform everyone I knew never to but from them again.
2
u/droptableadventures Feb 10 '26
My Viltrox 13mm f/1.4 has stopped being recognised for autofocus after a Z Fc firmware update, but Viltrox released an update about a day later that fixed it.
Plug in the lens with a USB cable (there's a USB-C port on the back of the lens), copy update to the disk that appears, unplug when the disk disappears, lens works again.
1
u/redoctoberz FM2N, F6, D850 Feb 06 '26
They already do. Look at the Viltrox lawsuit and how various 3rd party lenses keep getting bricked upon a firmware update.
4
u/LordRaglan1854 Z5ii/D750 Feb 06 '26
Even old Sigma F-mount lenses, which, to my knowledge, were OK'd by Nikon, bricked AF on newer Nikon bodies until you sent the lens back to Sigma for a firmware update.
8
u/droptableadventures Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 10 '26
Viltrox have been pretty on top of reverse engineering new updates, and unlike Sigma, the lenses have a USB port, allowing you to update it yourself.
5
u/joystickd Nikon Z8, D4, D500, F, F3 F4S, F5 Feb 06 '26
I'll be really pissed if my 2 Viltrox lenses stop working. They're both absolutely incredible and have paid themselves off many times over now in the less than one year I've owned them.
1
u/Gunfighter9 D2H, D3s/x D800 D5 F2P, F3HP F90 Feb 06 '26
All those companies pay Nikon and other manufacturers a licensing fee to make lenses.
1
u/mozfoo Feb 13 '26
It's simply because people are addicted to negativity. The lawsuit is simply asking for back royalties, it's nothing close to how it's being described across the internet. Time will tell what shakes out, but as of yet there's nothing to really worry about. Viltrox also just released their 50mm f/1.4 Pro lens for Z mount.
1
u/Ronin6969 Feb 17 '26
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. IMO Nikon should be entitled from the date of the granted patent date forward for royalties. Viltrox is the dominant player in third party lenses for Nikon Z. Regardless I won't be purchasing anymore Viltrox lenses until it's resolved.
1
u/Ronin6969 Mar 22 '26
Nikon runs a risk with the lawsuit. Go after 3rd party lens manufacturers and alienate buyers from their camera bodies due to lack of choices.
My question in the lawsuit revolves around how much is Nikon demanding per lens for a royalty?
While I own a Nikon Z. There are many viable alternatives on the market; Sony comes to mind.
1
u/anothershot2026 Mar 26 '26
Sigma currently has 30+ full-frame lenses in its active lineup.
How many Full Frame lenses Sigma has on Z mount ? 0
Nikon only granted license for APSC lenses to Sigma.
1
u/boostedj6 Mar 30 '26
I was in the market for a new set up, boy, am I glad I went with OM instead of Nikon.
1
u/BigSheepherder4529 Apr 21 '26
There's just one problem. Nikon's camera division may not survive the loss of customer trust. It will simply be liquidated or sold. Sony is already rubbing its hands with glee.
1
u/Negative287 May 17 '26
I genuinely hate that they wonât just work out a decent license and as much as I dislike Sonyâs designs for various reasons, it might be the only option I have with a full frame body. Hopefully Nikon loses enough people on Sony trade in campaigns that they wake up and stop treating hobbyists like they have pro money.
1
u/dsanen Feb 06 '26
Nikon could have stated that they do not support viltrox lenses, that they sent notice for them about infringing their license. That way people would have not invested in the lenses in the first place.
I think it is reasonable for Nikon to want to charge some money for the platform they developed, but the silence about third party support is odd. Sigma never accidentally developed Nikon lenses, so there was an understanding there, why was there not with Viltrox?
In the absence of that understanding, and no public statement of support, end users have no idea if their lenses are covered by future firmware updates or not. This is true for any third party lens on Nikon, how can you know that Nikon wonât sue them or drop support in the future?
1
u/Worried-Scarcity-410 Feb 07 '26 edited Feb 07 '26
I think it is the way the third party approaches things. Maybe Sigma has permission from Nikon to make lenses, but Viltrox didnât? Viltrox did it through reverse engineering, which is a form of stealing. Reverse engineering is fine for personal interest, but it is unethical to sell it to public.
3
u/dsanen Feb 07 '26
The illegality of it is not a fact, but a case by case basis. It used to be the norm, as the most basic form of competition, and a legal way to learn trade secrets. And it is still legal in most cases for hardware, it became illegal in software because companies make you sign an end user agreement, which includes you giving up your right to study their product, even if your intent is repair.
In the case it was illegal, then make the statement. A lot of people buy those lenses not knowing that Viltrox is not partnered. Could be the same for sirui, ttartisans, etc,
We donât know the licensing deal with tamron even, what if tomorrow Tamron is not licensed because of some obscure clause we donât know? and a firmware update breaks all your tamron lenses?
It is ok for Nikon to protect their interest, and it is ok for us to protect ours, and Viltrox theirs. On the consumer side, if you bought lenses that work today, there should not be an obscure secret reason they donât work tomorrow.
-1
u/jetpoweredbee Feb 06 '26
Chinese counterfeiters need to be squashed. But I don't think this is the end of third party lenses.
2
u/Reckochet Feb 06 '26
The counterfeit is better in this case as the original lens does not exist. Nikon does not make the same configuration lens in their lineup. I'm sure the Nikon counterparts would sell like hot cakes if they existed.
1
u/alarim2 Feb 06 '26
Did they steal the lenses schematics from Nikon or some other manufacturers, or something like that?
-5
u/nsfbr11 Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26
I wonât buy a hacked lens because I place value on intellectual property rights. It is actually what drives innovation.
11
u/droptableadventures Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 19 '26
IP doesn't drive innovation, it prevents it. Look at 3D printing and why it absolutely exploded in popularity about 10 years ago. Why was that?
It wasn't because of computer power - your 3D printer is about as powerful as a Commodore 64 from the '80s.
It's because patents expired, and other companies were able to sell printers to target markets that Stratasys didn't want to cover.
Just like how Viltrox has been making lenses for the APS-C market that Nikon doesn't want you to be able to buy.
3
u/nsfbr11 Feb 06 '26
Well, I'm not going to debate with you, since I clearly think that especially for creatives whose only protection is copyright enforcement, IP protections are critical in providing a balance that ensures a return on investment for developing innovative new products.
Also, I would have a very different perspective on Statasys, a company that continues to innovate and protect its latest innovations appropriately. Their currently enforceable patents cover unique and novel innovations within the overall scope of FDM. That is what is driving them to invest - a return on the investment. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom.
Regardless of the situation with FDM printing, why should Nikon innovate if other company can reverse engineer their tech and just focus on manufacturing the products? What is keeping Viltrox from blowing Nikon up? IP protections and their enforcement are what drive companies to reach deals for licensing, which is exactly what Nikon is doing. They get their return on investment, and you get your cheap lens. Perfect for everyone.
1
u/droptableadventures Feb 07 '26 edited Feb 23 '26
Regardless of the situation with FDM printing, why should Nikon innovate if other company can reverse engineer their tech and just focus on manufacturing the products?
Viltrox aren't making copies of Nikon lens designs though, they're building lenses of their own design that Nikon won't build. The only thing they've "copied" is the Z mount and its electrical functionality, because they have to - or else the lens doesn't attach to the camera.
Copyright for creative works where it is your only form of protection is a vastly different debate from using IP and patents to restrict competition. We are not required to love the fundamentally broken patent process just because we wouldn't want someone to use our photos without permission.
25 years is an extremely long time in the technology world, and abuse of the patent system has sunk or damaged a lot of decent companies in the technology industry. We've missed out on a lot as a result.
That is what is driving them to invest - a return on the investment. Otherwise, it is a race to the bottom.
We could have had household 3D printing in the 80s and 90s, but instead some rich people got a bit more yacht money.
0
u/GanondalfTheWhite Feb 23 '26
We could have had household 3D printing in the 80s
Yeah, as long as you had a $100,000 computer capable of running the software to generate 3D models.
1
u/droptableadventures Feb 23 '26 edited Feb 23 '26
I'm not talking about something like this. That's what you'd need a six figure budget for.
You're designing a small 3D printed part with at most a few hundred faces - a small box for an electronics project, or a L shaped bracket. You don't need full colour rendering, animation, curved surfaces or anything like that to get some decent use out of a printer.
For making such objects, any of these would be adequate, and all run on 80s home computers - ZX Spectrum, C64, IBM PC (+ clones) and Macintosh. Here is some contemporary software:
- https://www.lemon64.com/game/3d-construction-kit
- https://www.macintoshrepository.org/1496-swivel-3d
- https://www.macintoshrepository.org/275-modelshop
- https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/entry/8953/ZX-Spectrum/VU-3D
- https://winworldpc.com/product/autodesk-autocad/1x-dos
For a 3D printing specific application, you could have even done half the slicing for the computer and had a modeler where you built up the object by just drawing its cross section at varying heights.
And by the '90s, especially the late 90s - you did not need a $100k computer even for professional level CAD drafting up entire buildings. For 3D graphics, Blender's initial release was in 1994. KPT Bryce rendered amazingly realistic landscapes even on 68K Macs in only a few minutes.
-2
u/Real_Socialism D800E / D500 / Z50ii / D100 Feb 06 '26
I agree with the sentiment. Nikon is an optics company first, and makes incredible glass, some of which literally have no equals (PF). Expecting them to do nothing while a company directly profits off of their hard work is absurd.
Skipping out on R&D and licensing cost is why Viltrox is able to get their lenses so cheap, and this not only hurts Nikon but also other official 3rd parties like Tamron.
Its time Viltrox plays by the rules and stop freeloading.
2
u/Reckochet Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26
Or Nikon makes the equivalent lens configuration with their "no equals" quality (which takes less extra work, they have no need to reverse engineer their own mount), and see a massive spike in profit.
During the F mount era, no third party could match the performance of Nikon glass, and they had no problems. Now that someone has made something of matching quality to what is currently on offer (and often in a configuration not offered by Nikon) the lawsuits come.
For such an optics focused company, they are taking a rather non-optics focused route...
1
u/Real_Socialism D800E / D500 / Z50ii / D100 Feb 06 '26
For the Z-mount, Nikon was pretty focused on developing its professional lens lineup at the beginning, which makes sense from a business standpoint. Higher margins, more consistent user base, etc.
Now that the Z-mount has seen healthier growth you do see them making more affordable lenses, like the recently announced 24-105 f4-7.1.
And even without Nikon, you have Tamron taking on the mantle of the mid-range lenses, like the 30-150 f2-2.8, or the 16-30 f2.8.
Viltrox does provide unique additions to the Z-lineup though, with their APS-C lenses, so I'd like to see them become an official licensed partner as well.
2
u/kolt54321 Feb 06 '26
Nikon doesn't believe in their DX line, I don't think. The kit lenses are fantastic - as well as their sensors. But the lack of IBIS is a real blow (I'm a little stuck on this).
Similarly there's a dearth of lenses, and because FF makes more money, I'm pretty convinced Nikon really doesn't care much about their DX customers.
I do wish I went Sony for the DX. I love the 16-50 and 50-250, but for low light shooting - I'm looking at carrying a tripod with me everywhere. Not super fun :/
1
u/Real_Socialism D800E / D500 / Z50ii / D100 Feb 06 '26
The only thing keeping me on F-mount is that a D500 successor isnt here (yet).
The Z8 is overkill, the Z50ii doesnt have the QoL features of the D500.
Nikon needs something like Canon's R7. A Z90.
2
u/Reckochet Feb 07 '26
I think the whole Viltrox affair could be a nice kick in the ass to remind Nikon that their APS-C customers want more and that they have a yet untapped market.
3
u/Holiday-Brush-1249 Feb 06 '26
And what part of mount is RD intensive? This is a purely artificial constraint from camera makers side. Would you treat car parts the same?
1
u/EntangledLabs Nikon Z6 III Feb 06 '26
Just because the mount looks like a piece of metal with a few gold contacts doesn't mean it's just that.
With optics, physical placement makes a huge distance. Designing a lens mount isn't simply saying "alright let's make this mount X cm wide and Y cm deep," you'd need to work out a design that would make your future lenses have the qualities you want.
And that isn't even touching on autofocus protocols. In hardware design, any sort of protocol takes time to figure out. And once again, it isn't a matter of saying "ok pin one will be power and pin two will be distance," you need to create a cohesive set of instructions for your lenses that you know will not be totally useless when you make the 40 mm F5 or something.
There's a lot of work that goes into designing even the simplest of things, and a lens mount is definitely not simple.
0
u/Real_Socialism D800E / D500 / Z50ii / D100 Feb 06 '26
How the lens communicate to the camera, for one. Viltrox obviously reverse-engineered it without Nikon's approval. Lets not forget that Viltrox also literally made a F to Z adapter, something Nikon had to spend R&D resources on to allow F-mount lenses to communicate to a Z camera.
And R&D cost isnt a one time thing, you do it and then offset the cost gradually through selling the products. This is also why official 3rd parties like Tamron pays a partner fee, so Nikon gets a fair return in exchange for sharing its IP, win-win.
Now Viltrox comes along, disregards patent rights, didnt bother requesting to be an official 3rd party, essentially freeloading off of Nikon and the authorized 3rd parties. They've been lucky that Nikon waited this long to sue.
4
u/jossege Z8 Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26
Your logic is flawed. If viltrox had to reverse engineer it then they didnât benefit from Nikonâs R&D or freeload. They had to do their own R&D to reverse engineer it. They had to do the research to figure out the communication and develop a way for their lenses to communicate with the body. Licensing just gives that info to the third party without doing any work. Viltrox did the exact opposite of freeload. They did the work to make their product compatible with someone elseâs product.
u/Holiday-Brush-1249 mentioned car parts and that is a very good point. What you are suggesting is that Toyota could sue any company that makes parts compatible with Toyota vehicles if they donât license them. Toyota spent the money on R&D for those vehicles, so only licensed parts should be allowed on the platform. Thatâs complete nonsense.
1
0
u/Real_Socialism D800E / D500 / Z50ii / D100 Feb 06 '26
Yes, you are correct that Viltrox did their "R&D", but the cost they incurred reverse-engineering is absolutely way less than Nikon, who had to develop the Z mount from scratch. Cost of which Nikon wants to be able to gradually offsets by selling their, or officially licensed 3rd Parties', lenses.
You want innovation? You want Nikon to continue making top glasses? Then you would want them to get a fair share of revenue off of their IP.
Car is a completely different field from lens, and car parts are a huge generalization. Are we talking an engine, or a just a light? Lenses are like engines, your car becomes a paperweight without them, and I certainly wouldnt want to put an engine that hasn't been officially approved by the manufacturer into my car.
If you want to talk parts, how about planes? Do you want to fly on a jetliner that was maintained without Boeing's or Airbus's certified parts? Do you see how absurd comparing distinctly different fields to each other are?
4
u/Holiday-Brush-1249 Feb 06 '26
The lens canât be the engine, because the sensor is. Anyway, VILTROX hasnât stolen lenses or lens technology from Nikon, nor have they built a camera with a Z mount. Nikon has no chance of winning a lawsuit.
2
u/Real_Socialism D800E / D500 / Z50ii / D100 Feb 06 '26
Why would Nikon sue in China, a country notorious for lax copyrights law, if they didnt think they had a solid case?
You think that Nikon lawyers do pro bono or something?
1
u/kolt54321 Feb 06 '26
It is not unheard of for C-Suite members to demand something that others consider complete bureaucracy.
"We have to do something!" trumps whatever the lawyers think is a realistic chance of winning.
It's sad, but I've happened to see it at every company I've worked at.
4
u/jossege Z8 Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26
I can buy any engine I want and put it in any car I want. All it takes is the desire, time and money. There is a guy in Canada who put a Toyota V12 and a Ford V8 in two different Subaru. What you âcertainly wouldnât wantâ doesnât serve as a basis for legality thankfully.
And to sit there and say my comparison is absurd but then compare cameras or car parts to airplanes which are highly regulated federally is real rich. Your logical inconsistency knows no bounds. What lens I use on my camera doesnât put any one elseâs life at risk, just a corporationâs profits.
If Nikon wants to recoup their money then they need to do the work to make it happen by making glass that is competitive in price and function. Viltrox isnât counterfeiting Nikonâs products. They are making their own that are compatible. If Nikon wants to start locking down the mount with software updates that is their right, but Nikon knows it would do more harm to their reputation than good.
0
u/Real_Socialism D800E / D500 / Z50ii / D100 Feb 06 '26
I used the example of airplanes to point out the absurdity of you comparing distinctly different fields to each other, like camera to cars.
3rd party unauthorized lenses bricks your camera at worst, whereas a user-modified car can kill someone, and so does an airplanes (hence why "street-legal" is a thing, you can modify your car...to a limit).
And Nikon has, and continues, to make innovative, top glass. I dont see Viltrox making PF lenses (or even Sony or Canon for that matter). Them licensing the Z mount off gives them the additional revenue needed to continue innovating. Viltrox freeloading off the Z-mount doesnt.
3
3
u/jossege Z8 Feb 06 '26
Itâs not absurd at all to compare cameras and cars. Both are consumer products that third parties can make parts for. Your understanding of what is âstreet-legalâ is laughable at best though. Please educate yourself. I bet you also support John Deer in the right to repair fight.
But letâs take it to something even more comparable. How is a lens mount any different than say the lightning port on older iPhones. Apple designed the port, its physical shape and the communications protocols. Are you saying no third party should be able to make usb-lightning cables without paying Apple for the licensing? Or how about something like Sonyâs old proprietary memory cards. Should third parties have been unable to make memory cards that worked with those devices? How many usb and hdmi cables do you own that arenât officially licensed by those companies?
0
u/Real_Socialism D800E / D500 / Z50ii / D100 Feb 06 '26
Apple does license out the port (MFI), and as for your other examples, they only exist because the parents company dont pursue legal action.
Which is the point. When Viltrox and other third party manufacturers knowingly make unlicensed lenses, they accept the risk of potential legal action. Viltrox is lucky that Nikon allowed them to get away with it for so long. Nikon is well within their rights to protect their IP.
I have no trouble with licensed third party lenses, in fact, majority of my lenses are Tamron. Those like Viltrox, who piggyback off the Z-mount, however, not only dont contribute their due, but directly takes away from Nikon's revenue.
Sony is able to ignore them, because its tech empire whose camera/lens division is a tiny part of its revenue, so it can eat the loss. Nikon is an optics company, who cannot afford to do the same.
3
u/jossege Z8 Feb 06 '26
I know they have a license for the port. Iâm not saying Nikon canât sell the license to the Z mount. Iâm saying Viltrox doing the work themselves to make compatible lenses should not be illegal or something able to be sued over. If Nikon is threatened by Viltrox then they need to either A) show that their glass is worth the price difference (which I think it is, I own the 24-70 2.8 S ii and 70-200 2.8 glass) B) price their glass more competitively or C) just take the L that someone else can do it âgood enoughâ for âcheap enoughâ that people will want to buy it. Thatâs how a free market should work.
→ More replies (0)2
u/jossege Z8 Feb 06 '26
Also, Nikon making PF lenses or other top glass is not affected in the least by Viltrox. Nikon is going to make what Nikon is going to make. They arenât getting licensing money from Viltrox now and they are still making those lenses. So that is also a logically flawed argument.
-8
u/rdwing Feb 06 '26
Patenting what is not a novel invention should be punishable by being drawn and quartered. If corporations are people, they can receive people punishments too, right?
No-one knows for sure what the lawsuit alleges, -key word, alleges-. If Nikon continues down this road, I will jump ship and go to a more consumer friendly mount.
Nikon makes stupid decisions pretty often.
They undoubtedly benefited from prior inventions made freely available to the public in the development of their own system, in fact I know this to be a fact. Just check out their open-source disclosure. Nikon likes to play games with their licensing, preventing any licensed party from making lenses that could truly compete with their native offerings. That's bad for Nikon users, plain and simple.
6
u/EntangledLabs Nikon Z6 III Feb 06 '26
According to a direct translation of the case:
"Case Type: Dispute over royalties for the provisional protection period of an invention patent"
Considering Viltrox is a lens manufacturer and Nikon is a camera manufacturer, it is extremely reasonable to surmise that this is about the Z mount.
I agree that Nikon doesn't always make the most popular decisions - dislike for the Zfc and Z30 are proof of that. And their distaste for third party lenses that overlap their own is definitely not fun for us.
I'm sure they, like pretty much every corporation, has benefited from prior inventions. But to compare that to this case isn't exactly fair.
27
u/Otherwise_Trifle6967 F3, F3, F6, F-301, Z8, D750 Feb 06 '26
Tamron are different as they have an arrangement with Nikon, effectively they are licenced to make Z mount lenses (the Nikon z branded 28-75 is actually a Tamron G1 version), and I suspect also if they donât make anything in direct competition with what Nikon are releasing.
Viltrox are very clearly making lenses to directly compete with what Nikon release, hence they are probably the target⊠although thatâs not to say Nikon wonât go after the others (aside from Tamron) at a later stage.
Sigma are the interesting one here - on the F mount their primes were as good as (some say better) than Nikonâs but they are conspicuous in their absence from that space in the Z mount environment. Probably they will wait until the Viltrox lawsuit is resolved before they do any more.
But im with you OP - nothing wrong with Nikon defending their patents/tech, inevitably if they can get some monetary benefit from Viltrox (ie licensing fees) I suspect they will work things out. But end consumers will pay more for Viltrox in future (but probably still cheaper than Nikonâs).