And yet more Chinese shovelware companies like 7A are full steam ahead with their own versions of lenses that compete directly with high end Z glass...
It would be nice if Nikon would release a statement about what exactly is happening in China and what their stance is on third party lenses moving forward.
I doubt Nikon will address it beyond their statement that consumers should buy lenses from licensed partners.
There were some rumors shortly after the Viltrox suit became public that Nikon sent cease and desist letters to all Chinese lens manufacturers. Sirui’s actions point to that likely being true and they have decided not to fight Nikon.
jpelt78 wrote:
I doubt Nikon will address it beyond their statement that consumers should buy lenses from licensed partners.
There were some rumors shortly after the Viltrox suit became public that Nikon sent cease and desist letters to all Chinese lens manufacturers.
Again, I have behind-the-scenes reasons to believe that isn't true, at least not in a blanket C&D way. There is unceasing development of new chipped Z mount glass that has yet to be announced from these companies, including the very one getting sued. The fact that only Sirui has done anything in the larger market points to this progressing in a case-by-case way.
RoamingScott wrote:
Again, I have behind-the-scenes reasons to believe that isn't true, at least not in a blanket C&D way. There is unceasing development of new chipped Z mount glass that has yet to be announced from these companies, including the very one getting sued. The fact that only Sirui has done anything in the larger market points to this progressing in a case-by-case way.
There is an interesting statement from Sigmas CEO
'Chinese Manufacturers:
Yamaki-san expressed respect for brands like Meike and Viltrox and that more choices are better for customers. He is also impressed by the speed with which Viltrox develops new lenses and rapid improvements. He respects Viltrox. He stated that Sigma must learn from their quick decision-making.'
Looks like we can expect a Viltrox 35 1.8 EVO. Hope its compact and on these images it comes with an aperture ring and programmable function button, like the compact Viltrox 85 2.0 EVO.
While this story isn't about Sigma it does make me believe even moreso what I was told a few years back by one of their UK reps that they were waiting on a license agreement from both Canon and Nikon. While Nikon has every right and duty to protect their platform and and only work with who they choose to; I don't think they want their users to have the level choice of glass like on E mount. Individuals will have to decide if that is ok for them or not.
jpelt78 wrote:
For some reason I thought the move away from leaded gas was a regulatory issue. Along with the phaseout of leaded solder. Nevermind eating camera lenses not being a thing. Wonder if the current OEM lenses could be even better with judicious use of a little bit of leaded glass.
The problem is many parts of the world still incinerate trash. This means if someone throws a product that contains lead or any number of other things in the trash, despite clearly instructed not to, those bad things get vaporized and blasted out a tall chimney not far away. Knowing how ineffective it is to ask people to separate and dispose of such products for recycling, they have no other choice than to ban them from sale.
SNJOps wrote:
While this story isn't about Sigma it does make me believe even moreso what I was told a few years back by one of their UK reps that they were waiting on a license agreement from both Canon and Nikon. While Nikon has every right and duty to protect their platform and and only work with who they choose to; I don't think they want their users to have the level choice of glass like on E mount. Individuals will have to decide if that is ok for them or not.
If that were true they would have killed the many FE to Z adapters years ago.
They are most probably just making sure that they get some money from every lens released for Z mount. This isn’t a desire to limit choice, it’s a reasonable business decision. But it has to be applied to all players equally. If not companies like Tamron and Sigma would be at a clear disadvantage.
I continue to think that those law suits are an early sign of a deal with Sigma that will result in them finally releasing differentiated FF lenses to Z mount in the coming months.
Do you blame Apple for taking 30% on every transaction through their App Store?
Sony was the incumbent and had to take decisions that may not be the smartest for them. It isn’t surprising that Nikon is playing their cards differently.
I honestly think not enough people buying Sony glass is the reason why they enforce an FPS limit and the focus breathing correction feature doesn't work on third party lenses. bernardl wrote:
If that were true they would have killed the many FE to Z adapters years ago.
They are most probably just making sure that they get some money from every lens released for Z mount. This isn’t a desire to limit choice, it’s a reasonable business decision.
Do you blame Apple for taking 30% on every transaction through their App Store?
Sony was the incumbent and had to take decisions that may not be the smartest for them. It isn’t surprising that Nikon is playing their cards differently.
Surely some of this has to do with the spiraling decline in Sino-Japanese relations. It's gone from fairly cordial to almost-at-war in a very short period of time, and they are flinging tariffs around at each other. And as things are going world wide, it feels in general like the free market is dying and trade protectionism is the order of the day.
It makes no sense from a platforming standpoint; better that Nikon users also have access to a good ecosystem of third-party products, rather than feel they have to change systems to get the option they want. But it makes perfect sense from a political standpoint.
Daniel Bliss wrote:
Surely some of this has to do with the spiraling decline in Sino-Japanese relations. It's gone from fairly cordial to almost-at-war in a very short period of time, and they are flinging tariffs around at each other. And as things are going world wide, it feels in general like the free market is dying and trade protectionism is the order of the day.
It makes no sense from a platforming standpoint; better that Nikon users also have access to a good ecosystem of third-party products, rather than feel they have to change systems to get the option they want. But it makes perfect sense from a political standpoint....Show more →
The smoothbrains on Reddit have yet to answer my very simple question on this.
"Would Nikon be in a worse position as a company if they made $15 per third party lens vs the $0 they make today?"
An open Nikon is a healthy Nikon, especially if Nikon continues to price out their own customers with rapidly rising MSRPs.
It's nice to be set, I can't imagine being a new customer to the system.
I agree it would be strange for anyone to use Nikon if they mostly wanted those Vilitriox lenses.
If I had plenty of money, I'd buy a Nikon system in a minute. But a full Nikon system is the price of an automobile.
Meike getting added to the mix, definitely sounds like this is a market wide shake up.
At the end of the day, we have no idea why Viltrox is moving along with new Z lenses and companies like Sirui are not. For example, Viltrox could have a larger cash reserve and is willing to take more risk, they could have a lawyer who has a novel approach on fighting off Nikon (like Nikon did with Red), or they could have other patents they believe Nikon is infringing on that they want to leverage to get Nikon to the negotiation table.
If Nikon wants to make a fixed rate per Z lens sold (say $10) or a fixed percentage per Z lens sold (say 2%), they should just come out and publicly say it. This would probably cause the script to flip. The companies not following a reasonable license requirement would look like the bad guy, and it would make Canon and Sony look bad for not having unrestricted third party lenses. This current situation is just causing uncertainty for anyone looking to buy into the Z ecosystem, and if anything makes Nikon look bad.
EB-1 wrote:
I agree it would be strange for anyone to use Nikon if they mostly wanted those Vilitriox lenses.
If I had plenty of money, I'd buy a Nikon system in a minute. But a full Nikon system is the price of an automobile.
EBH
Even if someone used mostly Vilitriox lenses, they may still prefer using a Nikon Z camera for Nikon colors and unrestricted FPS.
On one hand, it's possible someone buys a Nikon Z camera and never buys a Nikon lens, but on the other hand, someone who does not buy a Nikon Z camera will never buy a Nikon Z lens, since there are no other cameras Nikon Z lenses are adaptable to.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Even if someone used mostly Vilitriox lenses, they may still prefer using a Nikon Z camera for Nikon colors and unrestricted FPS.
On one hand, it's possible someone buys a Nikon Z camera and never buys a Nikon lens, but on the other hand, someone who does not buy a Nikon Z camera will never buy a Nikon Z lens, since there are no other cameras Nikon Z lenses are adaptable to.
The "brokie one-lens-kit to way-too-much-Z-glass-kit" pipeline is real, ask me how I know
You're 100% correct, a wise company can appreciate the not-now-but-later type of customer. It's better to have someone out there repping your brand and growing into your native offerings than shooting Sony. The Japanese are historically not great at being wise companies.
I was able to shoot with the Viltrox 35mm 1.8 Evo at WPPI on Tuesday and it looks like another winner for them. The rep said it’s coming out soon and will be priced like the 85mm 2.0 which I own. I asked about the lawsuit with Nikon and they looked unfazed by it.
bernardl wrote:
If that were true they would have killed the many FE to Z adapters years ago.
They are most probably just making sure that they get some money from every lens released for Z mount. This isn’t a desire to limit choice, it’s a reasonable business decision. But it has to be applied to all players equally. If not companies like Tamron and Sigma would be at a clear disadvantage.
I continue to think that those law suits are an early sign of a deal with Sigma that will result in them finally releasing differentiated FF lenses to Z mount in the coming months.
Do you blame Apple for taking 30% on every transaction through their App Store?
Sony was the incumbent and had to take decisions that may not be the smartest for them. It isn’t surprising that Nikon is playing their cards differently.
The Z mount platform has been out for nearly 8 years, in that time only Tamron has received a license to release FF lenses with AF.
As for this recent action by Nikon going after the Chinese lens makers is because a deal with Sigma is coming, Sigma already operate on emount with these same companies being un-licensed by Sony. Time will tell if we ever see Sigma lenses on Z mount but at this stage i'm extremely doubtful.
Again Nikon are perfectly within their right to operate as they see fit but so are their potential customers. Not everyone can afford/justify OEM lens prices but also the unique options that 3rd parties offer like Sigma's 28-105mm f2.8, 14mm f1.4 and 300-600mm f4
