If the rumors are true and Nikon is suing Viltrox, I really hope the two companies can find a middle ground that allows Nikon to get its fair share while Viltrox continues to produce Z-mount lenses. I’ve just finished writing my latest report on the much-talked-about beef between the ‘Big N’ and the ‘Big V’, and it made me think back to the tail end of 2024, when I declared cheap, third-party lenses good for consumers and good for camera manufacturers.
Having read through that article again, I really don’t think my position has changed. My research on the proposed lawsuit led me to a very interesting YouTube video (above) by photography YouTuber Matt Irwin, who offered up a similarly balanced opinion. However, he made the very good point that companies like Nikon don’t just spend money on building optics; they have to put huge amounts of time and money into developing their proprietary lens mounts and indeed the architecture of their compatible cameras.
As such, first-party lenses aren’t only more expensive because (you hope) they boast better optics and indeed build quality than cheaper third-party lenses, but you’re also paying for all of that costly development (not to mention brand heritage). As such, I do think it’s right that camera manufacturers are compensated accordingly by third-party lens manufacturers, even if that means price increases.
However, I do want camera manufacturers to remain reasonable in their limitations. It’s my opinion that cheap third-party lenses are an essential part of the industry. After all, they encourage a wider variety of consumers through the door: casual photographers, those on a budget, beginners looking to experiment with lenses, etc. Some of those users will progress to buying first-party lenses, some will not. But crucially, all of them will buy into the system via a first-party camera.
As such, I believe that Nikon is a more attractive prospect because it has, thus far, been rather generous with its Z mount. And besides, I still think plenty of consumers will buy first-party lenses anyway. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, Nikon’s FTZ adapter allows Z-system users to adapt cheap F-mount DSLR lenses, but it’s not seen as something that syphons Z-mount purchases.
Going back to Matt Irwin’s video. He makes another good point in that third-party lenses tend not to match up perfectly with their first-party counterparts, in that focal lengths and apertures tend to differ (although not always). So, if you’ve got your heart set on a first-party optic and it’s within your budget, there’s a good chance you’ll buy the lens you want instead of compromising on a focal length and aperture that's nearly the same, but not quite.
Nikon’s also been surprisingly adept at beating third-party manufacturers at their own game, too, with a really nice selection of cheap first-party glass. I personally own the Nikon Z 40mm f/2, which I purchased secondhand for an absolute steal, but that's far from the only cheap Nikon lens out there; just look at the recently announced Nikon Z 24-105mm f/4-7.1. Ultimately, if there’s truth to this rumored lawsuit, I’m hoping Nikon, Viltrox, and the consumer can all have their cake and eat it. We might just have to compromise a little on the flavor.
You might also like...
Check out the best cheap lenses and the best Nikon Z lenses. If you're thinking of picking up an affordable Nikon, here's the battle of the cheap Nikons: Why would you ever choose an old Nikon Z5 over the more technologically advanced Nikon Z50 II?
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.
