One of the most compelling reasons for choosing a Sony as your first serious camera is the wealth of third-party lenses available. Why is it that there is still so little glass made by smaller manufacturers for the full frame mirrorless mounts from Canon and Nikon?
Dave McKeegan offers up some statistics to show the vast difference between Sony and every other manufacturer before offering his own theory on how this situation has come about. If he’s right, it could make things tricky for Canon and Nikon given that the entry-level market is huge, and locking customers into your mount and thus your ecosystem at such an early stage can be highly beneficial in the long term.
It’s been rumored that Canon is plotting an RF-mount camera that costs less than $800, but even if Sony doesn’t match this ridiculously low price with a model of its own, savvy customers will realize that once you start to add to your lens collection, going with Sony from the outset might make more sense thanks to the vast range of affordable glass from manufacturers such as Samyang/Rokinon, Tamron, Sigma, Viltrox, and more.
This might change in time but as it stands, I’m more likely to recommend Sony to friends pondering their first camera simply because while the bodies are more fiddly and less user friendly, the lens options make the system far more accessible.
Why do you think Canon and Nikon have so few third-party manufacturers making glass for their mirrorless mounts? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below.
It would likely be illegal (or problematic) to infringe on the Canon and Nikon mounts (new mounts, new patents, new protections) since you would have to reverse engineer proprietary software. Chinese brands don't give a f*ck since IP means nothing in China, but the serious manufacturers probably weighs this quite heavily.
As for Canon and Nikon the downside of having others compete with them is far larger in lost sales of lenses compared to the potential upsell of more bodies sold (just look at the financial reports on money made on lenses).
There's also the competitive aspect, initially Sony had pretty mediocre first party offerings so third parties could compete with quality (like Sigma) to expand the platform, now Sony has excellent first party offerings so you can only compete on price, which is a terrible business. Competing with Canon and Nikon on quality on RF and Z was dead from the start, they hit it out of the park from day one with their own lenses (and expanded on available offerings very quickly)
Reverse engineering to make compatible products is legal so no, that wouldn't be infringement. It's exactly what the third party makes always did with EF and F mount previously as Canon and Nikon didn't license those out, either.
The world is bigger than the US (and the laws for reverse engineering differs) and this is not strictly about a compatible product but a competitive one.
The F-Mount patents should have expired 1978 or so and EF 2007. Those were very different times (I’m aware third party lenses existed before that).
I don’t pretend to know what neither Canon or Nikon would or wouldn’t do in the case a reputable brand would start to offer competing products, we would have to wait and see.
You realize that Samyang (a Korean company) already makes autofocus lenses for Canon RF and Viltrox (a Chinese company) for Nikon Z, right? If Canon and Nikon actually cared, do you not think that they would have sued those companies to prevent sales of those products in the USA or Europe? The only reasons we haven't seen more AF lenses are because companies need to reverse engineer the mount (Sony's is open) and because companies need to determine whether the sales will justify the investment in research, development, and manufacturing.
https://www.samyanglens.com/en/m/product/product-srch.php?category=A&cam...
As I wrote before, I don’t pretend to know what they will or will not do, but the stuff from Viltrox is pure garbage so wasting resources on a legal battle there would be, well, a waste.
I disagree on the Vitrox lenses being garbage that's a bit of a blanket statement. I use Nikon, Sigma and Tamron F mount lenses on D6,D810/D850 and on Z6ii series with the FTZ , all top end F mount glass.
I got the Viltrox 85mm f1.8 z as a gap fill until there is a 85mm 1.2/1.4 native mount , and to be honest it's pretty good. The IQ is decent, the AF works fine, the bokeh is nice, the AF motor is quiet and seems well put together. I will grab the 35mm when I can get it to go in my travel bag.
Is it as good as the sigma 85mm art No!, however with the native mount I'm pretty impressed and do I miss that extra bit of light nope not really,
So to say they are garbage is utter bollocks.
They don't even fit correctly... You actually risk damaging your camera with the margins of error they have on their mounts. Add to that the small savings (if you buy Nikon during one of the two sales every year) for no sealing and worse picture quality. Actually, even if they were better than the Nikon glass, anything with that low level of QC is garbage.
mine fits fine and the reviews have been positive.
Companies don't determine whether they will sue for IP violation or not based on the quality of the infringing product. That's not how intellectual property rights work at all.
No they do it if they think they have anything to gain in relation to costs. Viltrox costs them nothing, there's zero reason to care about them (sometimes you should think for a minute before you reply, instead of assuming everyone but you is an idiot).
The decision to sue often has little to do with how much money they would recover, and a lot to do with the dangers of not suing, thereby creating a precedent of not protecting their IP rights that another company could later use in court against them. Have you heard the stories of large companies sending a C&D to a young child, because they're afraid that if they don't, they could end up with their trademark being ruled generic? It's a similar thing.
(sometimes you should think for a minute before you reply, instead of assuming everyone but you is an idiot).
Most of the Glass I buy for my Nikons are 3rd party lenses.
The lens selection for Sony did not come overnight. But as it stands now Sony have a mature system with all you need.
Canon looks great but it to expensive to get into, and it adds nothing compared to Sony. Nikon I hope will catch up with autofocus.
Of cause if you count in lenses from there old mount or if you have those, it’s different. So both Nikon and Canon have a great fan base to sell cameras to, and these people have time to wait for more lenses, I would expect.
I just bought a car I wanted for years but I kind of hate it. Nothing’s perfect, Tech and cameras is fun, but so is photography and taking pictures. If you have a system maybe stay with it. if you’re new Sony is a good option. But there must come a lot of second hand DSLR cameras and lenses to the market, cheep. Not just for mirtorless but because off phones :)
.
There simply aren't enough Z-mount bodies being sold to warrant producing lenses in Z-mount. I believe I originally heard this from the CEO of Sigma when asked when they would start making Z-mount compatible lenses. There is considerable investment to reverse engineer a lens which simply isn't economic at low volume production.
It's kind of a chicken and egg thing. Consumers don't buy Z-mount bodies because there aren't enough 3rd party lenses. 3rd party lens makers don't make z-mount lenses because there aren't enough bodies.
With the current pricing model of Sigma (looking at E mount) they really don't have anything to compete with, maybe the 24-70 on price, but other than that they would be the same price (or more expensive) and not fill any segment Nikon isn't already doing.
And people buy Z mount bodies because of Z mount lenses. I only see this "argument" in comment sections online that Z mount bodies require third party lenses to be interesting to people, but in real life four photographers (that I know personally) have bought multiple Z bodies. When I was shooting Sony I found the extra lenses to be just noise, at any focal length there was only one that was really good anyway (today there's usually a Sony and a Sigma, maybe a Tamron, but I only need one lens per focal length/zoom, not multiple).
Nikon's z mount bodies are selling terribly, so obviously something is wrong, and I would say that a wider variety of 3rd party lenses would help. People don't only buy z bodies just because of z mount lenses. Nikon as been trying to convince people on the z mount bodies by selling them with their F mount adapter to persuade Nikon DSLR users to stay on board and use their legacy glass.
For someone without legacy glass to carry over, Sony offers the most broad ecosystem in terms of performance and value. They have something to offer every user from beginner to professional and between their lens offerings and 3rd party, they have the broadest coverage for users.
There is a reason Sony was the top seller in 2020 for mirrorless. They have good products at good price points with a broad ecosystem. Canon is a close second, and Nikon is trailing significantly in performance, pricing, and offerings (first and third party)
According to whom? Nikon is selling above their expectations…
A camera system is more than their lenses and there are good reasons to not buy Sony (as with the others), it depends on your needs.
When talking about beginners remember that most don’t even buy an extra lens if they buy a kit lens.
I wonder what offerings Nikon is trailing in, except tele lenses, I have more lenses available than I can find a use for.
"Nikon is selling above their expectations…"
Source? I haven't seen Nikon say this and even if it's true, that just means that they set their expectations extremely low because it's well known that the Z mount does not own much market share at all.
"I wonder what offerings Nikon is trailing in, except tele lenses"
Lenses that Nikon could use on their Z system:
1. f/1.2 or f/1.4 primes across the board.
2. Telephotos (105mm f/1.4, 135mm prime, 180/200mm prime, 70-200mm f/4)
3. Super Telephotos (All of them)
4. Slower compact primes suitable for travel/street photography (eg. Sony 35mm f/2.8, Samyang 35mm f/2.8, Sigma 35mm f/2)
5. Ultra-wide lens that reaches 12mm or 11mm on the wide end for full frame (eg. Sony 12-28mm f/2.8 and Canon 11-24mm f/4).
6. Z-mount Fisheye
7. Z-mount Tilt-Shift
You may have all of the lenses you need, but there are still tons of other photographers out there with many different shooting styles that are waiting for options that suit their tastes. I'm sure most of them are coming, but opening the mount up to third parties would certainly speed things up quite a bit as they could port over existing optical designs developed for other mirrorless systems.
Which third part manufacturer even comes close to supplying those lenses? This weird ask for 1.4 is moot when it’s clear 1.2 is where both Canon and Nikon is going, and Sony now too.
But as I suspected, those are all extremes and won’t move bodies one way or another (tele being the exception which I already mentioned).
If Nikon licensed their mount they would go out of business, it’s really that simple, just look at their financial reports. Canon might be able to do it but it would be throwing money in the water, both of them are in this for decades, not a five year horizon.
Notice that in #1 I said f/1.2 or f/1.4 and I clearly meant fast primes, which are currently lacking in Nikon's line-up even if many of them will be filled within the next year or two. I specified f/1.4 for the 105mm because they have a 105mm macro lens so I thought it was important to specify that it was a fast 105mm that they were missing.
As for saying that those are extreme lenses, they really aren't Super telephoto lenses are standard lenses in sports and wildlife photography. A 70-200mm f/4 is hardly an extreme lens-just the completion of the f/4 set. Tilt-shift lenses are standard in architectural and real estate photography. Slow compacts are the furthest thing from "extreme lenses". Fisheyes and 11mm/12mm ultra-wides are probably the most niche thing in that list with fisheyes being standard gear in the growing world of 360 photography.
What makes you think that Nikon licensing their mount would force them out of business? If that was the case, they may as well be a dead company walking because you're basically claiming that the only reason they're able to stay in business is by artificially forcing people to use their own first-party lenses. If Nikon opened their mount, many people would still opt to purchase Nikon lenses because of their quality and many people who wouldn't otherwise purchase one of their bodies due to their first-party lenses being expensive may opt to do so because they can afford the third party options. Having more bodies sold would put them in a far stronger position overall than trying to make an extra buck from their lenses.
As it stands, none of these companies can plan for "decades". The entire camera industry is perpetually a few bad years away from ruin at this point. Trying to implement a decades-long strategy in a year-by-year market is a terrible business strategy because we've literally no clue what the market will look like 10 years from now, much less 20. Having a large market share is the closest thing that any of these companies have in terms of insurance for an uncertain future.
As for who is providing those lenses, Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, and Samyang all provide many of those options save for the super telephotos and the tilt-shift lenses which are not likely to be AF anyway.
Next time you reply to me, read what I write instead of going of on tangents that are completely irrelevant to the post you replied to.
According to a friend of mine at a major retailer, they can't give away Nikon Z cameras. It's BAD for Nikon sales currently.
That is what’s called anecdotal (and irrelevant). Nikon is a global brand and while they will have issues in some markets they can succeed in others.
Just do a little research, Nikon's sales are a tiny fraction of Canon and Sony's. If they are happy with those sales they should be firing the higher ups.
And that is blatantly false that beginners don't buy multiple lenses. Sure some will buy a camera with kit lens and never upgrade, but many get further into the hobby and buy more lenses. I was a complete beginner as of last year, and now I have the original kit lens, Sony 70-300G, Tamron 24mm, and Rokinon 12mm. Currently shopping for an upgraded body, and would like to add a Tamron 150-500mm in the near future.
So please tell us more about how 3rd party lens support doesn't matter, and how beginners don't buy more lenses, and about how Nikon is doing great with Z bodies because you personally know 4 photographers that have them
Hello Mark, when someone writes "most", do not assume you're the representative for that group.
"Just do a little research", is the official financial reports research enough or do want some crazy YouTuber take on it?
Revenue:
"Imaging Products : Revised upward ¥5.0B reflect to better-than-expected Q1 performance"
Operating Profit:
"Imaging Products : Revised upward ¥7.0B reflect to better-than-expected revenue, improved product mix and higher sales price of products."
I see the example with the four photographers flew right over your head as an example of meaningless anecdotal statistics.
Also, make sure you understand the difference between units manufactured and units sold (the 1.15 and 1.05 you used in another post).
None of the manufacturers are sitting on stockpiles of cameras. They manufacture them and sell them to retailers. Canon and Sony are vastly outselling Nikon, that fact cannot be argued.
Secondly, I don't really care if Nikon is happy with their market share and profits, that wasn't the point of this article or any of the commentary. It was about lack of third party lenses.
Thirdly, my name is not Mark, your reading comprehension seems to be failing you.
Canon sold more MILCs than Sony in 2020.
No, Sony at 1.15million, Canon at 1.05million.
"And people buy Z mount bodies because of Z mount lenses."
I bought my Z body because I liked the feel of the Z body. The lenses had little to do with it although I did appreciate the fact that the mount meant that I could pretty much adapt any full frame lens in existence including Sony's lenses.
As for why third party options are desirable, it's simply because first party options tend to be significantly more expensive for similar quality.
I like the Z bodies, they are very nice and well spec'd cameras. I just wish Nikon would either produce a wider variety of lenses at multiple price points, or work more with third parties to allow them to fill the gaps. Unfortunately at this point it doesn't make sense for many third parties to get into the Z mount market because of low sales.
Nikon makes great cameras and great lenses, just not the best business / marketing decisions
I'm not sure that I agree with
"people buy Z bodies because they want Z mount lenses"
I know several people getting into wildlife photography who have done research and determined that they want to start out with the Sigma 150-600mm f6.3 lens. After they figure that out, they then do more research to see what kind of camera bodies perform best with that lens.
Lens first, then decide on a body based on it's autofocus performance with that one particular lens. That is how many budding wildlife and bird photographers are making decisions these days.
Definetely not a a lot, and I wish f.ex. Sigma would join. But CR has an overview over most available 3rd party lenses for Canon RF mount: https://www.canonrumors.com/whats-happening-with-third-party-lenses-for-...
I think I read that Sigma considers both Canon and Nikon support. But currently Sigma are unable to produce and deliver the amount of lenses they are able to sell for the mounts they already supports. So the motivation to add more mounts to support right now are pretty low.
As for Canon though, don't forget that EF-lenses also are supported as native lenses on the R cameras (The cameras "speaks" both RF and EF protocol). But of course an adapter is needed and lens-designs cannot take advantage of the shorter flange distance.
[PS. Haven't watched the video]
WHERE are articles and WHY everything has to be explained with a video?
I hate the SEO nonsense that the Internet has became...
A lot of these camera blogs don't do much other than link to other people's thoughts.
"One of the most compelling reasons for choosing a Sony as your first serious camera is the wealth of third-party lenses available."
Huh? If a budding photographer is looking for a "first serious camera," the size of the lens aftermarket should be way down on the decision tree, almost irrelevant. All manufacturers of serious cameras offer a wealth of fine native lenses. All offer an entry-level (but "serious") camera with a decent "kit" lens, typically a mid-range zoom. That's ample ammo for a first foray into serious photography, right there.
Once a newbie knows what an initial setup lacks, it should be easy to expand using native or (some) aftermarket lenses. Yes, aftermarket lenses are often less expensive than native lenses of comparable quality and if that's an issue, the budding photographer has plenty of time to figure out how to deal with that. There may be more aftermarket choices for Sony than Canon or Nikon (or Olympus, or Fuji, or Panasonic for that matter) but what beginner or intermediate photographer needs that many choices?
Choose a first camera based on ease of use, shallowness of learning curve, familiarity to one's friends who may become advisors on the journey, and other factors. Only a Sony marketing advisor or misguided brand bigot would claim that the size of the lens aftermarket is important.
The size of lens aftermarket is important, specifically due to offerings at multiple price points. I purchased a Sony body last year and since then have bought 3 additional lenses to supplement the kit lens, one oriented to wildlife, one towards astrophotography, and 24mm prime for landscapes. I am planning to get another Sony body by end of year as well.
Having a wealth of lens options at multiple price points allows the beginner to dabble in different areas of photography and lens uses without breaking the bank / heavily investing in something they do not use much. The current Z lenses are either very expensive 1st party lenses (great lenses, not arguing that) or you are looking at adapting F mount glass.
For me the third party offerings for Sony E mount are a huge plus. I can get 3 well reviewed Tamron prime lenses for the cost of one Sony G prime lens. Tamron's new 150-500mm super zoom looks great and comes in well under price of Sony's 100-400 or 200-600 offerings. The broader ecosystem just gives you more options at more price points, which is a big factor when you are looking at what body you are going to get.
This entire article is based on a premise that is obsolete. Namely, that anyone just beginning to show an interest in photography HAS to have a low cost dedicated ILC. Today's beginners start out by buying a phone with a better camera than their previous phone. By the time they're ready for an ILC the "cheapest" option isn't the highest priority. The highest quality option is what most are interested in choosing.
I think you are confused if you think that people jump from photography on a phone to the highest price / best optioned mirrorless cameras on the market. If that were true, the sales of crop sensor cameras and super zooms etc. would be non existent.
Case in point, I went from photos on my phone, to a Canon powershot, to a Sony aps-c, and now shopping for Sony full frame.
Most people don't go zero to 60. They upgrade as their interest in the hobby, needs, and budget allow.
Cost and development, even Sigma has had notable issues reverse engineering the EF mount and even then they have to revisit the reverse engineering the protocols as Canon updates the lenses and cameras. I've also heard the new RF mount protocol is encrypted but that wasn't really reliable source, so if anyone can confirm or deny this that'll confirm if we'll get third party lenses or not.
Personally I don't think it is, but you never know. As mentioned patents will be the key blocker at least in the short to medium term. In the case of Canon there's little need for third party lenses on the RF as it'll take any EF mount lens from the last 30 odd years. Meaning you can find bargains if you shop around for both Nikon and Canon it's a saturated market out-with speciality lenses.
I've got to say that I went Nikon for my first mirrorless. A Z5. love the camera. I hate the lack of lenses. The FTZ mount was free, so I figured it would be fine to use with all the old glass I have. It's not an improvement to use the old lenses on a new body. May as well stick with DSLR until you can also get lenses designed for the new bodies. I do with there were more 3rd party lenses for the Nikon Z's. Might help Nikon's sales numbers if there were.
Who cares. The only lens I need is the Canon 28-70 f/2 RF. Hate on the size and price all you want, (but add the weight and price of your 24,35,50 and 85 primes and it's not that laughable anymore) as an event and wedding photographer, I'm shooting 80% of everything with this badass glass.
Beginners should have one or two lenses, and the most user-friendly camera (buttons/grip/menus/touch/flippy screen).
That's NOT Sony.
Canon / Nikon / Fuji / Panasonic / Olympus bodies are far better choices.
Or keep using their phone while fine tuning subject/composition/light, and editing.
I do not think it has anything to do with the reverse engineering side, and more they wanted to see what was going to happen with what is the current gen RF and Z camera sales in general. Probably did not want to put the money into R&D tell they knew those companies next gen cameras were going to be a hit. I would think we will see some Tamron Lenses for Canon soon enough since they are taking back market share in the camera division. Or they wanted to wait tell the RF and Z lens series had more lens options, so they could make sure what the bring to the market was about as good or better in some cases. But lets be honest, the RF lenses and the 1.4 and 2.8 Z lenses are crazy amazing, so I am sure they are shooting to be as close to on par with those as they can. If they are not every review known to man will tell people to just spend they few hundred extra dollars and get the RF or Z lens instead. but only time will tell.