DWOfPaul wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't mind paying, say, 10% more for a body if it meant a fully open system. But on the other hand, if lens prices keep people away from buying a Z body in the first place, they will never buy a Nikon Z lens. So Nikon would lose all around.
If bodies are a loss leader, and there exists a subset of people who buy them who would never buy native Z glass and want cheap Chinese lenses instead, Nikon will not make a profit from these people...that's where licensing comes in. Then Nikon gets a cut of every officially licensed third party lens, and Nikon can still profit off people that are Z-hesitant.
I think most people get into photography in this general way...get a cheaper body, get a bundled kit lens (or Chinese lenses) and then slowly upgrade into the native mount offerings. Nikon would be foolish to chop off this over-time customer base by shutting out the Chinese lenses entirely.
Jman13 wrote:
One of the big draws to Nikon over Canon is the fact that they have third party glass. If that goes away (except for a few Tamron lenses), it burns a lot of goodwill Nikon has earned over the past few years. Also, with Nikon in third place among full-frame mirrorless brands, I don't think they can afford to hemorrhage users to Sony, and that may very well happen if they start cutting out third party brands.
I said something similar on the DPReview boards and got ripped apart by people claiming it's "good for the consumer".
Canon can pull the stunt because they own something like 40%+ of the market. They also have enough users then to build numerous lower level lenses that aren't L and actually have some unique offerings (like the 600/800 F11 lenses) that are affordable.
Nikon is fighting for 3rd in the ILC market with Fuji, with around 10-12% of the market. Nikon was late to the game with a competitive AF system and took their time to update the lower end cameras.
There are certainly folks on these boards (along with Reddit, DPReview etc) that have huge budgets and can afford 1st party glass. I bought my original Z5 because it was the only affordable FF mirrorless with IBIS and since Canon locked down the RF mount and were missing a few lenses I wanted in my budget, I sold my EF gear and moved to Nikon.
I recently purchased a Viltrox 85 F2 for around $200 during their holiday sales to replace an old 85 1.8G. It's a better lens than the old G lens in almost every way. The reality is that I was never going to be a customer of the 1.8S, especially not new. I'm a hobbyist who shoots for fun. Does an engagement or family photos like once per year.
I understand that the S glass is better. But for me, it's not that much better... and certainly for my uses, isn't worth 3-4x the cost. If Nikon shuts out these cheaper 3rd parties, I probably would look seriously at Sony in a few years when I want to go from my Z5II.
My personal opinion is they're afraid with the new 135mm release of it taking away pro sales. If any of the Chinese brands ever take a stab at a light telephoto, like a 400-500 F5.6 or something and can make it affordable, that would be a huge blow to their more profitable lenses.
On the flip side, Nikon could also start developing more consumer grade lenses themselves. Competition is good for the market. If the only way Nikon exists and is profitable is to sue competition out of the market.... then I'm not sure what to say.
In my dream world, Nikon would introduce their own 85 1.4 for Z and sell it at $1200ish. I'd hold off on going to Viltrox if they did that, of course assuming all the things you'd want to assume - better native AF, match or exceed Viltrox's optical performance.
I'm just not going to spend $800 for their 1.8, which in effect is a step backward from the cheaper Viltrox; nor am I - probably ever - going to spend $2500 for a single lens to get their top tier performer.
I bought the original 85 1.4D years ago for $1100. The 1.4G came out at around $1600. I get that the world moves on, inflation, etc. but nesting a solid 85 1.4 somewhere in there lines up with what I'd hope for and am willing to spend.
jlafferty wrote:
In my dream world, Nikon would introduce their own 85 1.4 for Z and sell it at $1200ish. I'd hold off on going to Viltrox if they did that, of course assuming all the things you'd want to assume - better native AF, match or exceed Viltrox's optical performance.
I'm just not going to spend $800 for their 1.8, which in effect is a step backward from the cheaper Viltrox; nor am I - probably ever - going to spend $2500 for a single lens to get their top tier performer.
I bought the original 85 1.4D years ago for $1100. The 1.4G came out at around $1600. I get that the world moves on, inflation, etc. but nesting a solid 85 1.4 somewhere in there lines up with what I'd hope for and am willing to spend....Show more →
Nikon has an 85/1.4 in the pipeline that will have the same "character" rendering as the 35 and 50 1.4 lenses, so you'll be left with the same crappy choice you have now in those focal lengths...a 1.8 that is sharp and has better rendering, or a faster lens that has worse rendering.
The Viltrox 85/1.4 PRO will be the in-between option with a better build quality at around the same price point as the new 1.4
I will say I think the rendering on the Nikon 50/1.4 is a step up from the 35/1.4. I didn't care for the 35/1.4, but the 50/1.4 looks quite nice. It's not a perfect rendering, but it is less harsh than the DSLR design 50/1.4s that existed for years, and stopped down to f/1.8, the background looks remarkably similar to the 50/1.8S.
85s are generally easier to design with quality rendering, so it's quite possible the 85/1.4 from Nikon will actually look quite nice. I'm kind of hoping for a classic Nikon portrait lens rendering like the 85/1.4G.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't mind paying, say, 10% more for a body if it meant a fully open system. But on the other hand, if lens prices keep people away from buying a Z body in the first place, they will never buy a Nikon Z lens. So Nikon would lose all around.
I have to wonder how many people who buy a Viltrox 135mm at $900 would ever buy a Nikon 135mm at $2,600. In my opinion, there is probably very little overlap.
Let's take some looking to buy some f1.2 lenses.
Nikon 50mm f1.2: $2,250
Nikon 35mm f1.2: $3,000
vs
Sigma 50mm f1.2: $1,550
Sigma 35mm f1.2: $1,550
Now I am sure the Nikon lenses are better in some ways, but are they truly 2,250 better overall? Maybe if you're a working pro, but if you're mainly doing photography for fun, the savings of going with Sigma basically cover the cost of the camera to mount them to. Add a few more lenses to mix, and the cost savings become even more drastic.
If Nikon, Canon, and Sony end up catering their systems to only people looking to pay a premium for the best of the best. It's only a matter of time until we see a new system come out targeting the masses....Show more →
I sure as h*ll don't want to pay more for a Nikon body to subsidize the Chinese lenses. Nikon is maintaining a standard.
I can see a world where people keep an extra Nikon body at a lower firmware that is Chinese-lens compatible, much like folks held on to A7R2 bodies for the Smooth Reflections app.
Depends on the results. If Nikon Z ends up looking like Canon R, with almost no third Party AF lenses, Nikon is going to lose one of its main advantages over Canon. If Nikon ends up establishing official licensing that is cost efective (say something like $10 per Z lens sold), removes compatibility issues, and has no restrictions like Sony E. Nikon Z could become the best mount for 3rd party lenses.
EB-1 wrote:
I sure as h*ll don't want to pay more for a Nikon body to subsidize the Chinese lenses. Nikon is maintaining a standard.
EBH
EBH
Persoanlly I don't have any Chinese lenses in my kit, but I do have lenses from 7 different manufacturers. There are quite a few Sigma lenses that would be amazing on a Z8 / A1 / R5II level camera, unrestricted, which are what interests me the most. For the most part, I am brand agnostic. While I usually prefer Nikon when Nikon makes a similar lens to a lens from brand X, but if there is no Nikon equivalent, I have no problem using other brands. At the end of the day, I am looking for the best gear for my needs / wants.
Looking at the market as a whole, though, there is no denying that Chinese lenses are getting better and becoming a better value proposition by the year. Outside of major countries, this value proposition is amplified. The way I see it is Nikon can either leverage this to grow the number of Z system users, or attempt to slow it down and allow competitors to leverage Chinese lenses to grow their system. All it would take is Sony removing the 15fps and TC restriction, and Sony could dominate the photo landscape even more than they currently do. Even if Canon, Nikon, and Sony all severely limit Chinese lenses, my gut is that within a few years, a new Chinese camera system will emerge with a pricing advantage on lenses and bodies. Then the Japanese companies may really be in trouble.
Also, as an FYI, Scott was pointing out that camera companies often don't make much money on cameras, so they try to recoup their cost by increasing profit on lenses and restricting third party lenses. Since no lens company currently makes every lens I would like to have in my kit, paying a bit more for a camera with a truly open lens mount sounds like a viable option to me. Maybe then we could even get some first party lens discounts. It has nothing to do with wanting to subsidize the Chinese lenses.
Might be of interest, looks like early March to find out what is going on. I'd really like to get hold of representative sales data for many lenses, in particular those made by Viltrox, DZOFilm (Thypoch), Sirui, plus the legacy brands.
Very hard to find reliable data on this rather basic and interesting sales figures, anyone here in retail willing to give us a clue?
Things are moving so fast in the Middle Kingdom. We do know their domestic share of global photographic camera sales is over 30% and climbing, and that they prefer ILCs to the fancy FLCs that sell in the US and Japan.
'China is a massively shifting market for ILC shipments. After accounting for just 19% of the global market in 2022, China’s significance has increased every year. China’s share of ILC shipments was 24% in 2023, 27.6% in 2024, and is a whopping 30.5% so far in 2025, making it the largest market for ILCs by over five percentage points (the Americas is in second at 25.2%).'
Viltrox is a big fish already, very few would want to lose them from the marketplace. They made their first autofocus lens in 2019. So just six years seriously in the business. I hope the establishment (C/N/S) pick up their game, that would seem to be a good thing for them to attend to right now, post haste.
...
(use subtitles/mute if his accent puts you off like it did for me)
I'm another one of those hobbyists that simply can't justify the cost of modern 1st party lenses. It's why I left Canon R, twice lol.
It's why I bought Nikon... The 50/1.4Z is such an exception to the rule, and the cheap third party options are a breath of fresh air.
RoamingScott wrote:
I can see a world where people keep an extra Nikon body at a lower firmware that is Chinese-lens compatible, much like folks held on to A7R2 bodies for the Smooth Reflections app.
I have two Nikon Z7's. Nikon no longer give me firmware updates, so it's a win win for me, with regard to my Viltrox lenses
I do not see Nikon disabling third party lenses via firmware. I think if they cannot reach an agreement, it will likely result in no additional sales of those lenses, but existing lenses should continue to work.
If Nikon DOES disable them via firmware, it would be a monumentally stupid move, IMO, as it ONLY hurts their own customers at that point. Even the locked down Canon hasn't disabled the lenses they kicked off the RF mount (The RF Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f/1.4 still works on modern bodies and firmware).
Plus, it wouldn't really be effective since Z cameras can roll back firmware as easily as upgrading firmware.
Viltrox is eating Nikons lunch just like Sigma did with the Art line vs the F mount. Viltrox makes a line of lenses that are small and light with good image quality at a lower cost. However when it comes to the 135mm 1.2 and 35mm 1.2 Lab lenses I can see why Nikon would be upset. Hopefully Viltrox will come to an agreement so we can keep enjoying their glass.
Viltrox isn’t causing the situation, they’re exploiting the gap Nikon left open by keeping Sigma at arm’s length.
I would prefer Sigma over any other third party lens maker, including Tamron.
Tamron just doesn’t scratch that itch. Their zooms are fine. Sensible. Competent. But none of them make you go “oh damn, I need that.”
Tamron - Nikon deal is bad. Tamron has no real optical ambition, they rely more on “good enough” pragmatism. Not for “this lens exists because we wanted to make something exceptional.”
It's not cheap third-party vs cheap third-party. People would gladly pay more for Sigma over Viltrox for real service centers, 7 years warranty and proven long-term support for firmware and compatibility.
I own quite a few Viltrox af Z mount lenses. If Nikon did firmware updates that bricked those lenses, I wouldn’t do the updates. The Viltrox lenses I have either have no Nikon equivalent or have Nikon versions which are beyond my economic justification for buying them. I consider my current Z body line-up capable of doing what I want for years.
