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?
