I think we have two major changes at play in the photo industry.
On the entry level side, it's cheeper then ever to get into FF photography. Overall, I think this is great, but it has led to the rise of cheaper brands, and people expecting lower price points. Back when you needed to spend 3k+ to get a FF digital camera, you were already pricing out most of the people who would consider a $300 lens.
On the professional side, we now have Nikon, Sony, Canon, Sigma, and Tamron producing first party level lenses that are unique to their brands. A few quick examples of unique mirrorless lenses
Sigma:
14mm f1.4 (Canon is just about to catch up here)
15mm f1.4 fish eye
135mm f1.4
200mm f2
500mm f5.6
300-600mm f4
60-600mm f6.3
Tamron:
50-400 f6.3
35-150mm f2-2.8
Add in that some of these unique lenses are quite expensive, and that most photographers buying expensive lenses will have multiple cameras, and the idea of buying into multiple systems starts to make more sense than the DSLR days. Back then, the differences between Canon and Nikon mostly came down to their cameras and first party lenses, and the first party lenses were often very close in specs. Now, Canon, Nikon, and Sony all have cameras with similar specs and price in the 2-4k range. But the lenses that are available for their system are more different than ever.
In theory, Sony could at least close the gap on their side by removing third party lenses restrictions, but they seem to have no intention on doing so either. Maybe the L mount will eventually gain a stacked sensor camera and Tamron lenses. Maybe Nikon Z will gain unrestricted Sigma lenses. But until a shift happens, customers are kind of stuck in a hard place when trying to pick the lenses that best fit their needs due to the system restrictions.
Outstanding wrote:
The f/1.8 S might be kind of boring to some, looks, design, focus speed, and aperture wise but honestly, it has no weak spots and always delivers what you expect. It’s all about stability and just knowing it’ll work. I personally quite like the understatedness of the f/1.8 S line-up.
My Pro OTOH has some quirks like spherical aberration and focus shift if you’re wide open and close up so it’s a bit more unpredictable. That's what many reviewers are referring to as DSLR look when shot wide open.
f1.8 S probably has the creamiest bokeh of any f/1.8 out there, that helps in narrowing the gap vs f1.4 ...Show more →
Personally, I find the Z 50/1.8 S particularly outstanding for its price.
Especially when buying it used, the price seems ridiculously low considering the optical performance it delivers.
I only paid €350 for mine used, and I don't know of anything comparable in that price range.
The reviews of this lens are stellar, especially considering its price point, and you'd have to look at much more expensive lenses to achieve the same level of quality.
This was even more true when Nikon launched the lens.
Back then, there wasn't this selection of third-party AF lenses.
Even so, my used Z 50/1.8 S came with a 5-year warranty.
The previous owner hadn't registered it with Nikon, so in addition to the 1-year global warranty, it also received an additional 4 years from Nikon Germany.
Such prices for an OEM product of the optical quality of a Z 50/1.8 S are a real treat.
Sure, the lens design—just one AF/M switch—is rather basic, and due to the complex optical construction, it's also a bit bulky for a 50/1.8, but the Z 50/1.8 S never fails to impress me optically.
For me, this lens stands out from the f/1.8 S lineup in terms of its price/performance ratio.
Since I have sufficient vintage alternatives in 50mm, 55mm, and 58mm if a particular look/flaws/character/softness is needed, it is the perfect complement and has always served me well, especially in the field of event photography.
Agreed on the 50 1.8S Z mount lens. I got the 35 and 50 1.8S lenses together and recently sold the 35 because it wasn't producing the image that i'd have liked.
The 50 and the 85 come with me everywhere nowadays along with the zf.
I have bought two Viltrox lenses and both times, i didn't love them. I still have the 85 f2 EVO because I am too lazy to list it but it's not close to the 85 f1.8.
The whole point of buying into the Z mount ecosystem is to buy the best optics money can buy.
The chinese are known to play fast and loose with the rules with any product. Nikon was completely justified going after them. If that means closing down the Z mount for them, so be it.
nhmorgan wrote:
I really disagree with this. Nikon is IMO doing the best of any of the brands to balance sharpness with rendering. The three 1.2s primes are a.....prime...example of this. So were two of the last generation of F lenses, the 28mm 1.4e and 105mm 1.4e. The 35mm 1.2s and 85mm 1.2s absolutely carry on that tradition. They have really nice rendering while managing to have outstanding central sharpness. They also mostly manage to manage color aberrations better will still having a "look." The 50mm 1.2s isn't bad in this capacity either.
Compare to the Sony primes (the 24mm GM and 50mm 1.2 GM sort of being exceptions to this) that are just clinically sharp without much in the way of special look to them.
For all the talk about the Plena being a bokeh machine I find it to be the one lens that can tend to be oversharp.
Sigma seems to be going in the Sony direction lately, which sucks because trying to shrink everything to the smallest lightest form factor creates new problems like mechanical/aperture vignetting, distortion, breathing, etc. Sigma seems to have really taken that Bigma moniker personally. ...Show more →
Agreed 100%!
Having worked and owned with the supposedly best Sony GM lenses such as their 135mm f1.8 and compared it to the Plena there is just no way I would go Sony. They are indeed super sharp but produce, everything else being equal, flat and boring images. They are great material for deep grading but are IMHO not photographic at all.
On the other hand the Plena delivers images that are both extremely sharp and with a beautiful rendering. The gap is frankly huge.
mklass wrote:
It's all about option. Buy from teh Nikon limited selection at their price. Buy Sigma quality and pay a fair price, buy bargain lenses from Viltrox and others and get what you pay for.
The point is, Nikon is blocking those choices, which to me is a detriment to the Z system.
I shoot Z, and have shot Nikon since film days, I tried Sony, but switched back to Nikon for reasons that had nothing to do what Sony quality. Certain the Sonly system lens choices are far better than the Z system, and the IQ of images are on par.
Never-the-less, Nikon's most restrictions are a big negative....Show more →
I agree. I have been very patient with Nikon, and tip my hat to their latest lineup for 1.2 lenses, Plena and so on. But as a non-professional, but serious "enthusiast" I am seeing the end of the line here with my Nikon system. As I write this I am switching to Sony. I am well aware of what I will be giving up, but Nikons decisions and choices over the past 2 years are just not going to work for me.
RoamingScott wrote:
I'm struggling to figure out this sudden, vocal souring on Nikon, as if their first party lenses aren't excellent if not better than most other first party lenses on other brands.
I'm not interested in shooting the cheapest lenses to save a buck, but apparently that makes me an outlier these days
My main annoyance with Nikon is their handling of the f1.4 line, I'd rather we'd gotten modern rendering lenses vs the character lenses, but there are plenty of third party options out there and still appearing every passing week.
Scott, yes the handling of the 1.4 line was a major miss for me. That was a chance to "connect" with mid level photogs who want very competent lenses. And the fact that we are 5 years in on the Z7II (a camera I like a lot) with still some of its weak AF (I know buy the Z8) is just more that I can stand. The problem with third party is that they all have some AF nits that collide with the already marginal AF of the Nikon system.
As I write this I am running my E mounts on a A7RIII and have never been more confident of low light results. Yes I will have to conquer menus but at this point I do not have much choice.
I see the 24, 35, 50, 85, 135 Sony lenses as just perfect for me. I do not need nor desire 1.2 lenses. But want more that 1.8. Its a big deal for me, enough to drive me away from Nikon. Maybe they will figure this out one day.
Looks like the Viltrox 50mm f /1.4 Pro is available for Z mount. At their current prices of their Pro lenses (50/85) I’m not sure it is worth changing systems even with the pending litigation.
If you are looking for a Z7 replacement and need first party f/1.4 primes you will likely be looking at the Sony A7R V and their GM primes. I had this body and gave it to my daughter to take pics of our grandson with the 50mm f/1.2 GM, which is their best prime IMO.
While I agree Nikon needs to rethink their f/1.4 lineup, I prefer the Z system overall. I also prefer the ergonomics (Z8) and color science more on the Nikon bodies (Z8 and Zf).
I personally think Canon is the company way out in front on 1.4 primes. If that's the thing you care most about, consider the VCM line, which as an R5 II owner have been pound for pound the best and most enjoyable lenses I've ever used.
Of course, the downsides of the Canon system are well known at this point -- closed mount, greater expense, typically worse DR when comparing like-for-like bodies across systems, etc. But if you really want amazing 1.4 primes, my n=1 is that Canon is top dog.
jrscls wrote:
Looks like the Viltrox 50mm f /1.4 Pro is available for Z mount. At their current prices of their Pro lenses (50/85) I’m not sure it is worth changing systems even with the pending litigation.
If you are looking for a Z7 replacement and need first party f/1.4 primes you will likely be looking at the Sony A7R V and their GM primes. I had this body and gave it to my daughter to take pics of our grandson with the 50mm f/1.2 GM, which is their best prime IMO.
While I agree Nikon needs to rethink their f/1.4 lineup, I prefer the Z system overall. I also prefer the ergonomics (Z8) and color science more on the Nikon bodies (Z8 and Zf)....Show more →
Agree with ergonomics, color science and the fact that the Z8 fixes some of the AF questions I have struggled with. I can overcome color, and ergonomics. Cannot overcome lens decisions very easily, or missed AF. But, the Sony 50 1.4 hits a home run with me, and the 135 is luscious as well. Yes there is a difference between 1.8 and 1.4 that is quite apparent. The larger point is that Nikons decisions leave me with limited choices. Thankfully we all have options. Nikon should have done something about the Z7II by now. Looking at their pricing models, I suspect they have painted themselves in a bit of a corner. They want the high end market but its just not worth it to many. Sony/Sigma provides more options in my view for my needs/wants. Looking at the Sony A7R series I see a steady progression of improvement. Nikon has only made 1 major, 1 minor AF update to a camera that has been out for 5 years. I will not knock Nikon. Just business is all.
I think Nikon was deeply embarrassed when they rolled out the Z6/Z7 and got slammed. To their credit, they came back with a vengeance rolling out the Z9. But the have created a hole in their lineup. No doubt about it.
Not to get too far off topic, but I went from the Sony A7RV to the Z8 as I wanted the stacked sensor and access to the 600 PF for wildlife. With Sony to get this you need to get a much more expensive A1 II and they simply don’t offer the telephoto options that Nikon has. Good to have choices and all of them have their strengths as well as compromises. Getting back on topic, the Viltrox lenses are still being released for Nikon including the f/1.4 Pro series.
jrscls wrote:
Looks like the Viltrox 50mm f /1.4 Pro is available for Z mount. At their current prices of their Pro lenses (50/85) I’m not sure it is worth changing systems even with the pending litigation.
If you are looking for a Z7 replacement and need first party f/1.4 primes you will likely be looking at the Sony A7R V and their GM primes. I had this body and gave it to my daughter to take pics of our grandson with the 50mm f/1.2 GM, which is their best prime IMO.
While I agree Nikon needs to rethink their f/1.4 lineup, I prefer the Z system overall. I also prefer the ergonomics (Z8) and color science more on the Nikon bodies (Z8 and Zf)....Show more →
This is where I ended up, sadly. I really love the Z system for it's UI/UX and colors, it has great telephoto options... but as someone who primarily shoots portraits/people - the lack of a high MP body smaller than Z8 and not having a compact f/1.4 pro-level prime option caused me to switch back to Sony. A7RV + GM or Sigma 1.4 primes, etc. is just so much smaller than lugging a Z8 and f/1.2 S lens, and while the Nikons render beautifully, it just wasn't worth the compromise for me. Every system has it's pros/cons so really boils down to what you shoot and what you prioritize personally.
If Nikon had a Z7III and 35/1.4 "S" level lens that was compact and didn't have soap bubble bokeh, I would likely have stuck around.
I decided to try the Viltrox 50mm f/1.4 Pro for my Z8. After looking at several reviews I am liking what I see with a nice balance of sharpness and very pleasant rendering at a great price. Viltrox seems to be committed to Z mount so I think we will see the licensing issue resolved.
Nikon wants to take money from Viltrox. Viltrox will pay royalties. Z-mount Viltrox lenses will cost more than E-mount versions. We'll pay more for lenses.
That's all.
Feb 20, 2026 at 07:34 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Ripolini wrote:
Nikon wants to take money from Viltrox. Viltrox will pay royalties. Z-mount Viltrox lenses will cost more than E-mount versions. We'll pay more for lenses.
That's all.
Nikon, Sony, and Canon all have ways of limiting third party lenses on their mirrorless mounts and all of them potentially cost us money.
Nikon rebrands a few Tamron lenses and charges more for them as Nikon lenses than they would probably cost as non-Nikon lenses. They also allow a few lenses to have Nikon AF protocols but those protocols probably come at a cost. I think Ripolini is right that Viltrox will probably end up licensing the Z AF protocols from Nikon and pass the costs along to us. That isn't ideal but at least the lenses would stay in the market.
Canon basically allows people to use the EF mount that adapts well to RF as much as they like but then they are only letting people use the RF protocols when they don't really compete with Canon for anything they care about (e.g., APS-C and manual focus lenses). This costs us money because it reduces competition and lets Canon charge more for RF lenses with no competition.
Sony licenses their E mount protocols but restricts frames per second and the use of teleconverters. They might charge when people use their protocols passing the cost onto us but they are also restricting competition for the high value market of long lenses for action photography and these constraints will become more obvious over time as even the Sony A7V can shoot faster than the 15 fps limit they have imposed on 3rd party lenses.
DWOfPaul wrote:
On the professional side, we now have Nikon, Sony, Canon, Sigma, and Tamron producing first party level lenses that are unique to their brands. A few quick examples of unique mirrorless lenses
[...]
Add in that some of these unique lenses are quite expensive, and that most photographers buying expensive lenses will have multiple cameras, and the idea of buying into multiple systems starts to make more sense than the DSLR days. [...]
Camera systems having unique lenses is nothing new at all, especially if you consider their performance instead of just the focal lengths.
Professional photographers running multiple systems also happened in the DSLR days already. Any medium or large format shooter probably also had a small format for the appropiate occasions. Running a SLR and a Leica M system for their respective advantages was also pretty common.
One of Nikon's patents for the Z-mount is having a 2nd serial communication channel on the lens to give AF/IS feedback at high speeds to the camera body which in itself isn't that unique however other implementations, such as on m4/3 lenses have asynchronous communication, instead of synchronous communication.
The choice of taking it to a Chinese patent court also means Nikon has no intention of stopping Viltrox sales but are trying to get royalties from Viltrox for including the synchronous 2nd serial communication channel on their lenses?
Viltrox is showing zero signs of slowing down their Z releases based on my private conversations with them. It sure doesn't seem like they are worried about being frozen out of the mount.
One of Nikon's patents for the Z-mount is having a 2nd serial communication channel on the lens to give AF/IS feedback at high speeds to the camera body which in itself isn't that unique however other implementations, such as on m4/3 lenses have asynchronous communication, instead of synchronous communication.
The choice of taking it to a Chinese patent court also means Nikon has no intention of stopping Viltrox sales but are trying to get royalties from Viltrox for including the synchronous 2nd serial communication channel on their lenses?
That's what I got out of the article, too.
Assuming the article is correct. It most likely means Nikon is using a synchronous serial protocol, such as SPI or I2C, instead of an asynchronous serial protocol, such as UART. These are all known and widely used communication strategies. Only time will tell if the author is correct, and this is the direction Nikon uses. If so, we could quickly end up in the silly territory of patents. I also wonder if there is something specific about how patents work in China, which is why Nikon chose to hold the case there. For example, I know in the US, there is a risk of the defendant getting the patent invalidated. It will definitely be an interesting case to watch.
RoamingScott wrote:
Viltrox is showing zero signs of slowing down their Z releases based on my private conversations with them. It sure doesn't seem like they are worried about being frozen out of the mount.
