I tried a few Viltrox lenses but ultimately returned them. If I am going to go third party, I would rather pay a bit more for a licensed product to minimize reverse engineering issues and have better customer service. Let's hope that Viltrox can get a proper licensing agreement and step up with service center(s) in the U.S.
Damn, that's not good. I have two Viltrox lenses, and optically they are very near to Nikon. AF is just as good. And build quality is better than Nikon. I think Nikon are scared of the competition, especially given the competitive pricing that Viltrox have
pete478888 wrote:
They should not push Viltrox into building cameras. That would be a game they cant win..
This is utterly hilarious. There have been many attempts by companies to build cameras that have collapsed as fast as they began. If it was possible Tamron, Tokina, Sigma..... would have competitive cameras that rival Canon, Nikon, Sony..... and..... of course.... they don't. Viltrox is stealing intellectual property and they should be hammered if they can't play by patent law. Protection of intellectual property and patents is what allows big companies to spend the millions to develop new technology that allow us all to enjoy the quality of equipment that we enjoy. Companies that steal that technology are the same as if your neighbor moved his fence into your yard 10 feet. It's not allowed.
fnzmf25 wrote:
Just wondering anyone understands what exactly the technology viltrox is accused of from Nikon patent
It sounds like any company that makes Z lenses that communicate with the body would be in infringement of the Nikon patents if they didn't properly license the mount protocols.
You can tell these companies didn't, because newer features like focus limiting is very buggy on Chinese lenses. They are reverse-engineering the protocols.
I fully understand Nikon's protectionism here, now that you have talking heads on YouTube encouraging people to buy the Viltrox 35 and 135 lenses over the Nikon versions. It's costing Nikon real money.
EB-1 wrote:
I thought the E mount was open sourced
Right.
.EB-1 wrote:
.. since Sony had a piss-poor selection of lenses back in the day compared to nearly 100 Nikkors.
Nikon had a poor selection of Z-mount lenses too when they started (late) to manufacture MILCs (they have big gaps in their line-up even now, in 2026!). 100 F-mount lenses were just "adapted".
Now, according to AI:
Sony’s licensing model for the E-mount system is unique among major camera manufacturers: 1) Royalty-Free Access: Since 2011, Sony has disclosed the basic specifications of its E-mount to third-party manufacturers without charging any license fees.
2) Licensing Process: While there are no royalties, manufacturers must still apply for a license, meet Sony's qualification criteria, and sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to receive the official technical data.
Protectionist policies have never been good for the market, nor for those who apply them in an attempt to contain the forces of the free market.
Sony is n. 1 in the MILC market. For a reason.
RoamingScott wrote:
Just gonna ignore how Sony intentionally hamstrings the frame per second burst rate for all 3rd party lenses? It's not a truly open mount.
AI didn't spoon-feed you that info, so I get it.
Sounds like a great reason to buy Sony lenses for Sony cameras. " I'll teach you everything you know........ but not everything I know" Brilliant.
Nikon had a poor selection of Z-mount lenses too when they started (late) to manufacture MILCs (they have big gaps in their line-up even now, in 2026!). 100 F-mount lenses were just "adapted".
Now, according to AI:
Sony’s licensing model for the E-mount system is unique among major camera manufacturers: 1) Royalty-Free Access: Since 2011, Sony has disclosed the basic specifications of its E-mount to third-party manufacturers without charging any license fees.
2) Licensing Process: While there are no royalties, manufacturers must still apply for a license, meet Sony's qualification criteria, and sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to receive the official technical data.
Protectionist policies have never been good for the market, nor for those who apply them in an attempt to contain the forces of the free market.
Sony is n. 1 in the MILC market. For a reason. ...Show more →
I'm sure Nikon knows the math better than you. If they want to open source they can in the future, but for now they are not and we'll have to see what happens in the legal process. If you want to buy the Chinese lenses, then petition them to pay for the IP. It's not that difficult.
I would not risk buying tens of thousands in unlicensed lenses that may or may not have future support. I've been there and done that too many times. Penny wise and pounds foolish it can be.
EB-1 wrote:
I'm sure Nikon knows the math better than you. If they want to open source they can in the future, but for now they are not and we'll have to see what happens in the legal process. If you want to buy the Chinese lenses, then petition them to pay for the IP. It's not that difficult.
I would not risk buying tens of thousands in unlicensed lenses that may or may not have future support. I've been there and done that too many times. Penny wise and pounds foolish it can be.
Being a scientist ranked in the World's Top 2%, I know math probably better than guys at Nikon marketing and, for sure, better than Nikon lawyers. But we are not discussing about mathematics here. We are discussing about industrial policies and their effectiveness.
It makes me wonder why the company that has achieved the largest market share in the MILCs sector has been using more open and less closed policies for years.
P.S.: the only Made in China lens I owned were Nikkor lenses ...
One small anecdote that I had recognized before this came to light...Nikon's social team, who is usually pretty active on my IG, wouldn't touch any post with a Viltrox lens. Next post with a Nikon lens, all over it. Makes me wonder if they are operating on a directive to not engage with any posts with 3rd party glass.
Based on available information, it is unlikely that Viltrox pays licensing royalties to Sony for their E-mount lenses. Viltrox generally develops its lenses through reverse engineering rather than through official licensing agreements.
Reverse Engineering vs. Licensing: Unlike partners such as Sigma or Tamron, who have official licensing agreements with Sony, Viltrox reverse-engineers the E-mount protocols to create compatible autofocus lenses.
Sony's Open Policy: In 2011, Sony announced the release of E-mount specifications to "registered parties," allowing them to create lenses without paying royalties. However, this often involves signing non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and approval from Sony. There is no public evidence that Viltrox is an official, approved partner in this program.
Contrast with Other Brands: Recent reports (as of January 2026) indicate that Nikon is suing Viltrox over Z-mount patents and seeking royalties, highlighting that Viltrox does not generally pay upfront licensing fees to camera manufacturers.
In summary, Viltrox produces third-party E-mount lenses for the Sony market without the official, royalty-paying, licensed partnership that brands like Sigma or Tamron have.
Ripolini wrote:
Being a scientist ranked in the World's Top 2%, I know math probably better than guys at Nikon marketing and, for sure, better than Nikon lawyers. But we are not discussing about mathematics here. We are discussing about industrial policies and their effectiveness.
It makes me wonder why the company that has achieved the largest market share in the MILCs sector has been using more open and less closed policies for years.
P.S.: the only Made in China lens I owned were Nikkor lenses ...
It's probably the new~ish Viltrox Z-mount teleconverter that set Nikon off, since it contains not only the "male" mount as on lenses, but also the "female" one. Remember that Sony also disallows E-mount teleconverters by anyone else. Why is that, I have no idea.
It'd be a shame if Viltrox is driven out of Z mount altogether - I don't own any of these lenses yet, but if I ever decide to migrate to Z mount and replace my EF mount primes, the Viltrox entries like the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 are a no-brainer at this point. Maybe I should get the 16mm f/1.8 ASAP.
EB-1 wrote:
Of course I'm not. Either you license or you design around other's patents.
If Viltriox is so huge I'm sure they can develop their own camera system. It's just consumer camera gear, not like spending many billions of Euros landing on other planets.
Much bigger companies like Olympus and Fujifilm havent bothered to make their own full frame mirrorless, and for good reason they didnt.
Viltrox is only even smaller. They "only" do lenses.
Starting their own full frame mirrorless would be a "bold" move indeed, and is not likely to pay off.
LostLensCap wrote:
Maybe Nikon will buy Viktrox like they did Red
I dont see what Nikon would get out of that.
What Viltrox does is not hard to figure out. They use crystal glas, just like Leica, Zeiss and Voigtländer do.
Nikon doesnt need to buy Viltrox to know how to do such lenses. They don because crystal glas is very heavy and they are on this "lenses must be super light" trip.
DenverSteve wrote:
[...] Viltrox is stealing intellectual property [...]
Most extremely unlikely. What kind of genius stuff do you expect in mere lens communication protocols ?
Ripolini wrote:
It makes me wonder why the company that has achieved the largest market share in the MILCs sector has been using more open and less closed policies for years.
Thats a different discussion and it really doesnt have anything to do with how open or closed the lens mount is.
