Nikon Z System News and Commentary
Are Chinese Lenses Really a Threat to the Z-Mount?
I'll answer the headline question up front: not really. Not at this time (but read through the entire article).
I'll posit an answer for Nikon, too: I don't believe that Nikon thinks that they're so much a threat, but rather they are disturbed that others are benefiting from Nikon's intellectual property and what that implies for the future.
The headline question comes from a reader, who also wonders what the real story is behind Nikon's sudden legal effort. As they pointed out, the vast majority of the lenses sold by the camera makers are zooms, not primes. The "rule of thumb" at dealers is that most customers buy two lenses and that's it. Both tend to be zooms, because convenience and extensive capability are their two top goals.
Those of you reading this are likely to have ten or more lenses in your gear closet (I know this from site reader surveys). Yes, you bought some zooms, but you're supplementing them with a variety of primes, and now some of those primes might be of Chinese origin. This is one reason why I wrote my piece the other day: Nikon's legal action could seriously erode support from Nikon's very best customers, and those customers do Nikon's best marketing. You can see that on the Internet by just how much discussion is going on about this topic in the various fora, which in turn are being fed by headlines in the news sections, and some of those are absolutely clickbait (e.g. "Nikon in Revenge Mode: Third-Party Z-Mount Lenses Vanish from Shelves").
Thing is, we've been through this before, though with little legal action (other than Nikon suing Sigma over violation of a VR patent). During the late SLR and DSLR eras, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina were constantly reverse engineering lens mount communications and providing third-party lens options. And every now and then an update to an existing camera or an entirely new camera would change something slightly in mount communications and I'd get a slew of "how do I fix this" questions, plus you'd see "Nikon broke my [Third-Party] lens" posts. The lens company in question would (usually) eventually come up with a firmware update that fixed the problem, but back then we didn't have ways of doing that in the field, so the lens had to go back to manufacture to get new firmware. Nikon's customer support line was on the front lines constantly having to deal with the customer question when they knew nothing about the lens that was having trouble.
I know that Nikon didn't like that. Almost always the finger was pointed at Nikon as intentionally doing something to break compatibility. In my talks with Nikon engineers and product managers, though, the answer was always something akin to "we just wanted to improve our product; we don't test against third party lenses."
I suspect that Nikon now sees third party lenses as a potential support issue if they're not licensing the mount communications from Nikon. Even there, we recently had a problem with at least a couple of licensed Tamron lenses when a camera firmware update was released, but this was resolved by both parties quickly, as there was official communication going on between the organizations behind the scenes.
I know that when the Zfc was introduced, Nikon was actually supportive of Viltrox's lenses for the mount, particularly in Asia. The Zfc would have been a problematic mistake in Asia if there was only one small Nikon prime for it. As it was, Nikon had to point to two FX lenses (28mm f/2.8 and 40mm f/2), which don't exactly fit in a nice 35mm or 50mm equivalent box.
Somewhere along the way Nikon decided that they would license the mount. That Cosina (Voigtlander) and Tamron were the first two to sign on isn't surprising, as these companies have worked with Nikon on an OEM basis way back into the film era and had close relationships. I think it was Nikon deciding that everyone making a lens for the Z-mount using the communications protocols should be a licensee that things started to break.
You might note that Z-mount versions of Tamron lenses tend to be about US$30 more than the E-mount versions. I don't believe this is due to sales volume or special parts needed for the Z-mount. I suspect that it's because Nikon is charging a small per lens licensing fee. At US$30 to the consumer, that would imply something significantly less than US$10 a lens. On a US$1000+ lens, that's not a big deal and not likely to change demand. But what happens on a US$200 lens? You start distorting pricing upwards enough to potentially impact sales. The Chinese have been using pricing to drive sales, and I suspect that they're balking at paying a mount fee (it seems clear that Viltrox and Nikon were talking before the suit was filed). When you also add in the potential tariff hits, I suspect the rice counters in Shanghai and Hong Kong began complaining about bottom lines and cash flows.
Personally, I was never a fan of the third-party lenses in the F-mount. The only time I'd opt for one was when it was the only choice, and even then I'd hesitate. That's because the mount logistics just kept causing issues, first with focus, then with VR, then with... well, you get the idea. Mount licensing has the potential to put that kind of problem behind us, as the quick fix for the Tamrons showed. If that means US$30 more a lens, I'm all for it. I believe that's Nikon's stance, too, but I'm reading a lot between the lines here.
Bonus: We've already seen issues with the Chinese reverse engineering. For the most part that doesn't show up for still photo use, but I've seen multiple problems with video autofocus and aperture control on several third party lenses that aren't mount licensed.
Still Transfer to frame.io Now Supported
If you have a Nikon ZR, Z6III, Z8, or Z9 with current firmware and NX MobileAir, you can now directly push still photos through your mobile device to Adobe's frame.io service. Images on frame.io can be immediately processed using Lightroom, or shared with others (e.g. your client).
Once NX MobileAir is paired with both your camera and frame.io, you basically have "hands free" transfer of images into the cloud, either automatically or by selecting images manually on the camera for transfer. This is simpler to set up and less fussy than using an FTP server, though because a third party is involved, there is a cost to using it. Frame.io has a free 2GB storage plan for Creative Cloud users, but if you're really going to use this method to upload, process, and share photos you probably want the US$15/month plan that includes 2TB and a number of other useful features. [adobe frame.io page]
Nikon's first implementation of frame.io integration worked with videos, but I didn't notice when they updated that to handling stills. The current NX MobileAir documentation describes how to set things up with your frame.io account and then use it.
You can also do a similar thing using Nikon Imaging Cloud, but I find it to be less seamless than the NX MobileAir version.
Be Careful What You Wish Sue For
It’s becoming increasingly clear that Nikon’s lawyers have been sending letters to Chinese lens makers. At least three now publicly admit to having received some form of a “license the mount (e.g. pay us) or else” letter. The Viltrox suit previously mentioned is now in progress in Chinese courts. Meanwhile, Sirui apparently has withdrawn their Z-mount autofocus lenses in China (half of which are APS-C, or DX, and fill clear gaps in Nikon’s DX lineup). Mieke also seems to have withdrawn their autofocus lenses.
None of the Japanese camera makers seems happy with the recent onslaught of Chinese optics that keep getting progressively better. CIPA and camera makers are reporting attachment rates—number of lenses sold per body—going down.
In the case of Nikon, they’re sending mixed signals more visibly than a teenager trying to find a date to the prom. Nikon made a big thing about higher end cameras being their goal, and then came out with the Z50II and Z5II and found that they’re selling so many entry bodies that it’s lowered their average selling cost. And then the Chinese come along and sell those new low-end camera buyers low-cost lenses. "Oh woe is me” say the beancounters. “You’re doing it to yourself” says I.
We did eventually get two more Nikon DX lenses to go with the quite great Z50II. But that still only makes a total of seven, and there are clear gaps in what’s available. Of course customers are going to build out their lens sets by looking elsewhere. Meanwhile, we see something similar with the Z5II: it finally received a 24-105mm f/4-7.1 companion, but there are probably only four FX primes and five FX zooms that track well with the Z5II's size and price point. Of course customers will go elsewhere when you leave a partial vacuum.
Stopping low-cost Chinese lenses in the mount doesn’t solve a problem for Nikon. Instead, it creates a new one: after two years of customers thinkng that the Z-mount is open, they are now starting to believe that the mount is closed. This has some contemplating buying cameras with more open mount stances, particularly from the two companies that Nikon most fears in terms of market share: Fujifilm and Sony. How do you say “oopsie” in Japanese? And how deep will you need to bow?
Don’t get me wrong. Nikon should protect their patents. However, in doing so they need to be doing one of two things to fully succeed: (1) produce every lens that’s needed in the system; or (2) find a FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing solution that treats everyone equally and encourages third-party lenses filling in the system quickly. Nikon is currently doing (3) micromanaging in ways that they think benefit Nikon but are rattling customers. Plus, once Nikon picks #1 and/or #2, they need to communicate that clearly to the customer.
Cameras are a consumer business, and cameras (other than perhaps compacts) are systems, and these systems only benefit if they fill out quickly and fully.
Let me approach the issue from my point of view. I’m a key influencer when it comes to cameras, and particularly Nikon ones. I can’t begin to tell you how many people I’ve gotten started with something like a Nikon Z50II, one or two of Nikon’s DX zooms, and then finding one or two primes that fill in the holes in the all-Nikon approach (which right now means fast Chinese DX primes). If Nikon wants to take the Chinese lenses off the table, influencers such as myself start pointing out that Fujifilm X may be a better starting point, simply because it offers more optical choices (i.e. is a more filled out system, seems to have no third-party constraint, and thus might be more conducive to whatever you want to do in the future).
I’m not sure that Nikon understands who they’re in competition with. For about two decades, the choice was Canon or Nikon. Sometimes Canon won, sometimes Nikon won. Between the two, they controlled 75 to 85% of the market in any year. As Nikon started retreating from peak camera, Canon didn’t, so Nikon simply isn’t competing with them any more: Canon wants to (and mostly does) own 50% of the market, and Nikon has now drifted down to one-fifth the volume of their former rival. Nikon now finds themselves tucked into a market share war between Fujifilm just below them, and Sony a fair way above them. Drifting below Fujifilm would make Nikon a marginal brand, I believe. Nikon instead needs to grow volume and erode Sony. But neither Fujifilm nor Sony appear to be limiting Chinese lenses (even though they too are starting to feel the sting of lost lens sales). (I’m really going to have to look up the Japanese word for “oopsie,” aren’t I?)
Everything’s exacerbated by the fact that all the camera companies are having difficulties in launching their next cameras, thus they want to sell as many lenses as possible to make up some slack. The miniscule camera market doesn’t have the clout to get new sensors and ASICs on fab in a timely fashion, let alone buy enough DRAM and other short-supply parts for all their future cameras. Since the pandemic, parts supply has been a real problem for the camera makers. Now with AI gobbling up chips coupled with plant disruptions due to the new-fangled tariff war and a host of other issues, this has put every camera introduction I’m aware of behind schedule. Four products that I had been told were scheduled for late 2025 or early 2026 now are tentatively “second half 2026” announcements.
Nikon, I believe, has misinterpreted this as a “we need to circle our wagons” event. Perhaps they think that they can keep sales up by selling more lenses, but not in the way they seem to be going about it. I’ve written for decades about business frictions and their impacts. Nikon just upgraded from drum to disc brakes and is generating more friction than ever. Lens mount licensing needs to get resolved, stat.
I’ll have more to say about this in my WPPI commentary on byThom. I spent part of my time at the trade show tracking down Chinese lens makers and asking some pointed questions.