fredmiranda.com
Login

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell
1       2       3       4      
5
       6       …       9       10       end
   

Nikon sues Viltrox
  
 
RoamingScott
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #1 · Nikon sues Viltrox


Gotta love that all of the YouTube yappers are jumping on this to make clickbait videos, including King Yapper Thom.

No one knows anything outside of Nikon and Viltrox legal. We'll all know more after the first court date.
Jan 23, 2026 at 11:25 AM
mklass
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #2 · Nikon sues Viltrox


Viltrox lenses are AF and compatible with the electronics of the Z mount. This involves the intellectual properties of teh mount.

The others are mostly MF, which is just the physical properties of the mount.

Viltrox, has the most AF lenses, so they are the target.

I don't like this action by Nikon. They are stingy with licensing the AF Z mount, so have restricted consumers access to a better, wider variety of lenses.
Jan 23, 2026 at 11:41 AM
RustyRus
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #3 · Nikon sues Viltrox


mklass wrote:
Viltrox lenses are AF and compatible with the electronics of the Z mount. This involves the intellectual properties of teh mount.

The others are mostly MF, which is just the physical properties of the mount.

Viltrox, has the most AF lenses, so they are the target.

I don't like this action by Nikon. They are stingy with licensing the AF Z mount, so have restricted consumers access to a better, wider variety of lenses.

You need Nikon to be profitable if you want their camera bodies to keep evolving—things like meaningful firmware updates, long-term support, and continued innovation don’t happen for free.

You don’t need Viltrox.

More lens choices are obviously good for consumers, but Nikon still has to remain profitable to keep investing in R&D, making smart acquisitions (like RED), and pushing the system forward.

In the micro view, Viltrox allegedly reverse-engineering the mount feels like a win for consumers—cheaper lenses, more options.

In the macro view, though, Nikon being healthy and profitable is far better for us in the long run.

Ideally there is a fix to have both-




Jan 23, 2026 at 12:21 PM
DWOfPaul
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #4 · Nikon sues Viltrox


mklass wrote:
Viltrox lenses are AF and compatible with the electronics of the Z mount. This involves the intellectual properties of teh mount.


Personally, I doubt Nikon is doing anything truly novel in camera/lens communication. If so, I doubt we would have seen so many other companies figuring out Z mount communication and figuring it out quickly.

Most likely, Nikon has built there Z communication on top of a known communication protocol, such as serial communication. Since the communication channel is known, it's just a matter of figuring out the command structure, and it can be reproduced with off the shelf components. If these base technologies were not shared freely, developing electronics would be a lot more difficult and expensive, and compatibility between electronics would be almost non existent. If it weren't for shared communication protocols, the internet would either not exist or be owned entirely by one company.

Also, in the case of lens communication protocols, it's basically forced copying. As far as I know is no way for a third party to teach a camera to use another protocol. So for a lens to AF it's forced to copy the camera protocol. In my opinion, this would be like Ford coming up with a way to stop your car from turning on if you don't use Ford aproved tires. Unfortunately, tech is very complex, and most of the people in government do not understand it enough to pass reasonable laws. This lack of knowledge has also been taken advantage of by companies to cement their market positions, using laws instead of innovation. If you're curious, looking into the right to repair is a good starting point.


Jan 23, 2026 at 12:52 PM
fjablo
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #5 · Nikon sues Viltrox


RustyRus wrote:
You need Nikon to be profitable if you want their camera bodies to keep evolving—things like meaningful firmware updates, long-term support, and continued innovation don’t happen for free.

You don’t need Viltrox.

More lens choices are obviously good for consumers, but Nikon still has to remain profitable to keep investing in R&D, making smart acquisitions (like RED), and pushing the system forward.

In the micro view, Viltrox allegedly reverse-engineering the mount feels like a win for consumers—cheaper lenses, more options.

In the macro view, though, Nikon being healthy and profitable is far better for us in the long run.

Ideally there is a fix to...Show more →

Agree that we need Nikon to be profitable. But for that we also need Z mount to be competitive.

Access to third party lens options is a massive argument in favor of Sony E mount. And Sony cameras usually have very strong specs, too.

I personally prefer the user experience on Nikon cameras over Sony but that’s a very weak USP and won’t win you a lot of market share.

Canon is in the same boat. They can survive for a while by just selling into their DSLR user base (Canon‘s being about 1.5x the size of Nikon‘s), but that won’t work forever.

Ultimately what we as consumers need is a good licensing deal between Nikon and those third-party manufacturers.



Jan 23, 2026 at 12:58 PM
DWOfPaul
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #6 · Nikon sues Viltrox


RustyRus wrote:
You need Nikon to be profitable if you want their camera bodies to keep evolving—things like meaningful firmware updates, long-term support, and continued innovation don’t happen for free.

You don’t need Viltrox.

More lens choices are obviously good for consumers, but Nikon still has to remain profitable to keep investing in R&D, making smart acquisitions (like RED), and pushing the system forward.

In the micro view, Viltrox allegedly reverse-engineering the mount feels like a win for consumers—cheaper lenses, more options.

In the macro view, though, Nikon being healthy and profitable is far better for us in the long run.

Ideally there is a fix to...Show more →

Yes, at the end of the day, we need Nikon to be profitable at making cameras and lenses, or there will no longer be Nikon products on the market. Also, I agree that ideally, there is a fix for both. I am concerned, though, that losing third party lens support will hurt Nikon's market share and long term profitability.

First, photographers on a budget will probably not even look at the Z ecosystem in the first place.

Second, photographers who use multiple systems, or are willing to switch systems, may end up spending less on Nikon products.

Personally, I have more E mount gear (started in 2018) than Z gear (started in 2023), but I prefer Nikon. While I enjoyed and still do, some of the E mounts unique offerings, I never enjoyed it enough to replace my core lenses, such as a 24-70 f2.8 in E mount. Currently, I am waiting for a new high mp Z body (may very well be the Z9II) to fully build out my Z kit. But let's say Nikon did something extreme and killed all third party lenses and adapters, I know then the majority of my kit upgrade is going to end up going to Sony. At the end of the day, I am going to spend more on the system that covers more of my needs, and at the end of the day, there are lenses I want that Nikon does not make. Rendering, build quality, and price differences don't matter if the lens does not exist on the mount in the first place.
Jan 23, 2026 at 01:24 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #7 · Nikon sues Viltrox


It's become clear that having access to dirt cheap Chinese lenses is a path into photography for folks that felt priced out before, so in that respect, it's good that it's enabling a whole new swath of customers to enter the scene.

On the flip side...as someone with far higher standards than your entry level shooter, and someone that has a gear cabinet that is steadily filling with Chinese lenses as they keep showing up on my doorstep from these companies, I don't feel that any of them (short of the TTA 40 perhaps) are in any position to replace a native Z lens that I already had (and even then, it replaces a lens that is ostensibly the same price).

In general, the Chinese lenses' weather sealing tends to be worse, their coatings are worse, their reliability and warranties are worse, and their AF performance is worse. I think most folks with my level of discernment see the Chinese glass as a fun side piece but not things we'd use or trust for paying gigs or fine art in most cases.

Nikon righted their ship and became a big player in mirrorless again without these Chinese lenses, and the chatter around this glass over the last year comes mostly from new-to-Nikon shooters that don't want to see their cheapest options disappear. We are shortsighted and are looking at the currently absurd tariff'd prices of Z glass, forgetting that it wasn't always this way.

There is still SO much money to be saved by buying clean used or refurbished from Nikon that the laments of the loudest are falling on deaf ears to me.

Go shoot Sony with their ass ergos, garish menus, firmware updates that brick your camera, and absurd prices, just to have your middling quality, cheap lenses, I guess. I moved to Nikon for Nikon's gear and continue to be impressed by what has been released, if not mildly annoyed by what has not (small, aperture-ring'd lenses for the small cameras).
Jan 23, 2026 at 02:52 PM
Nifty Fifty
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #8 · Nikon sues Viltrox


RoamingScott wrote:
Go shoot Sony with their ass ergos, garish menus, firmware updates that brick your camera, and absurd prices, just to have your middling quality, cheap lenses, I guess. I moved to Nikon for Nikon's gear and continue to be impressed by what has been released, if not mildly annoyed by what has not (small, aperture-ring'd lenses for the small cameras).
I love posts from brand-obsessed fanboys. They always bring a pitying smile to my face.
Jan 23, 2026 at 03:40 PM
RoamingScott
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #9 · Nikon sues Viltrox


I spent enough time and treasure on Sony to earn my opinion, unlike many people here.

Nifty Fifty wrote:
I love posts from brand-obsessed fanboys. They always bring a pitying smile to my face.
Jan 23, 2026 at 03:50 PM
DWOfPaul
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #10 · Nikon sues Viltrox


RoamingScott wrote:
It's become clear that having access to dirt cheap Chinese lenses is a path into photography for folks that felt priced out before, so in that respect, it's good that it's enabling a whole new swath of customers to enter the scene.

On the flip side...as someone with far higher standards than your entry level shooter, and someone that has a gear cabinet that is steadily filling with Chinese lenses as they keep showing up on my doorstep from these companies, I don't feel that any of them (short of the TTA 40 perhaps) are in any position to replace a...Show more →

Sounds like you need to give some Sigma lenses a try. There I lenses sound exactly like what you are looking for. Personaly I have avoided them since I know if I start, it's going to easily grow into a 4-5 lens collection, and I really don't "need" more f2 lenses.

If you ever get a chance to check out the Sigma 14mm f1.4 I would be curious to hear your thoughts. I found the build quality extremely impressive. Probably the closest I have experienced an AF lens to the Zeiss ZF2 build quality. IQ is up there, too. I still prefer Nikon colors to Sigma, but I can't deny sigma is putting out some seriously impressive optics. No other manufacturer even has lenses like 14mm f1.4, 20mm f1.4, 135mm f1.4, and 300-600mm f4.



Jan 23, 2026 at 04:07 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

RoamingScott
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #11 · Nikon sues Viltrox


DWOfPaul wrote:
Sounds like you need to give some Sigma lenses a try. There I lenses sound exactly like what you are looking for. Personaly I have avoided them since I know if I start, it's going to easily grow into a 4-5 lens collection, and I really don't "need" more f2 lenses.

If you ever get a chance to check out the Sigma 14mm f1.4 I would be curious to hear your thoughts. I found the build quality extremely impressive. Probably the closest I have experienced an AF lens to the Zeiss ZF2 build quality. IQ is up there, too. I...Show more →

I've thought about it, but the added cost to adapt E (and the gotchas that come with it) have put me off.
Jan 23, 2026 at 04:10 PM
Nifty Fifty
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #12 · Nikon sues Viltrox




RoamingScott wrote:
I spent enough time and treasure on Sony to earn my opinion, unlike many people here.

Of course, the ability to form an opinion increases with the amount of money you've sunk into equipment. Haha. 😄
For me, it was enough to hold a Z6 and an A7iv to know that the latter felt better in my hand. It cost me nothing more than a smile.
The difference between you and me is that I don't consider my personal feelings a universal standard. But I also don't take myself too seriously in general. Something that would do some others good, too.
Jan 23, 2026 at 04:20 PM
jcw1982
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #13 · Nikon sues Viltrox


Maybe Nikon is suing Viltrox over their flashes. May as well throw that out here with all the other speculation.
Jan 23, 2026 at 05:10 PM
caverunner17
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #14 · Nikon sues Viltrox


RoamingScott wrote:
I don't feel that any of them (short of the TTA 40 perhaps) are in any position to replace a native Z lens that I already had (and even then, it replaces a lens that is ostensibly the same price).

There is still SO much money to be saved by buying clean used or refurbished from Nikon that the laments of the loudest are falling on deaf ears to me.


Even used Z glass is still (often) significantly pricier than the Chinese lens alternates new. The same thing could also be said buying used Chinese lenses being even cheaper.

I think it more falls down to that for a sizable percentage of users who don't shoot professionally. For years, the comments were to just adapt older F mount glass if you were on a budget. But many of these new Z lenses are simply superior to the F mount options, smaller, lighter, better AF, sharper -- and around the same price (or cheaper).

My personal experience is with the new Viltrox 85 2.0. I paid just over $200 or so for it back in November. It was superior in almost every way than my old 85 1.8G with the FTZ and used/refurbished 85 1.8S's are still at least 2x the price. I ended up selling my old 1.8G for $250 and actually made money off that switch.

It's the same reason I went with the Tamron 150-500 (from a member here) over the 180-600. I know the 180-600 is a better overall lens. However it's 50% more expensive even used and physically larger (harder to pack when traveling). I was okay with the tradeoffs.


Jan 23, 2026 at 05:39 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #15 · Nikon sues Viltrox


I could not find one Vilitrox lens that I'd even consider buying. They seem to be fixated on wide or short tele primes. I don't need any lens faster than f/2.8. Why no tele zooms; am I missing something?

EBH
Jan 23, 2026 at 06:01 PM
caverunner17
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #16 · Nikon sues Viltrox




EB-1 wrote:
I could not find one Vilitrox lens that I'd even consider buying. They seem to be fixated on wide or short tele primes. I don't need any lens faster than f/2.8. Why no tele zooms; am I missing something?

EBH
Does any Chinese manufacturer make a zoom at all?
Jan 23, 2026 at 06:36 PM
DWOfPaul
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #17 · Nikon sues Viltrox


EB-1 wrote:
I could not find one Vilitrox lens that I'd even consider buying. They seem to be fixated on wide or short tele primes. I don't need any lens faster than f/2.8. Why no tele zooms; am I missing something?

EBH

It semas that most lens companies start with MF primes, then AF primes, then AF zooms. It probably has to do with taking one complexity at a time as they build up there skils and infrastructure.


Jan 23, 2026 at 06:48 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #18 · Nikon sues Viltrox


Laowa has the 10-18mm for full frame.

caverunner17 wrote:
Does any Chinese manufacturer make a zoom at all?
Jan 23, 2026 at 07:37 PM
IlyaSnopchenko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #19 · Nikon sues Viltrox


Laowa also has a 12-24mm f/5.6 for FF and 8-16mm f/3.5-5.0 for APS-C, as well as a 8-15mm f/2.8 fisheye for FF, but all of these are completely "stone age" (which, I can imagine, is super irritating with variable aperture lenses especially).

Let's see how quickly they can get to making AF zooms. Samyang has already reached this point, even though their first zoom lens, the 24-70mm f/2.8, was not a good one.
Jan 24, 2026 at 08:40 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #20 · Nikon sues Viltrox


A small bit of anecdotal data I have access to via referral links:

Nearly half of all Viltrox lenses bought through my links are returned. Now, this could be people "renting" from Amazon and B&H, but if they truly liked the lenses, they wouldn't be returning them. I've found this extremely interesting to watch over time. This applies all the way up to and including the LAB lenses.

Whether their dissatisfaction stems from build quality, AF performance, rendering...who knows. But no other brand is returned as much as Viltrox.
Jan 24, 2026 at 02:16 PM
1       2       3       4      
5
       6       …       9       10       end
FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       4      
5
       6       …       9       10       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register