Knut. wrote:
The willingness to accommodate other makers of lenses is one of the biggest strengths of the Sony system. It really differentiates this company from many others whose restrictive mindset was ingrained in analog times.
(Unfortunately Canon isn‘t the only one, that needs to be called out on this issue).
It is one of the strengths with manual focus lenses, but for AF lenses Sony restricts the top frames per second and the use of teleconverters in a way that is a serious limitation. It seems to me that Sony too restricts competition. They just don't worry much about manual focus lenses, but focus their restriction of competition to AF lenses used with higher end bodies. That works if you like manual focus lenses, but not so much if you want to shoot sports or wildlife with third party lenses.
Steve Spencer wrote:
It is one of the strengths with manual focus lenses, but for AF lenses Sony restricts the top frames per second and the use of teleconverters in a way that is a serious limitation. It seems to me that Sony too restricts competition. They just don't worry much about manual focus lenses, but focus their restriction of competition to AF lenses used with higher end bodies. That works if you like manual focus lenses, but not so much if you want to shoot sports or wildlife with third party lenses.
I never figured out, if it was to exclude competition or to protect their products from mechanical or electronic strain. I can easily understand that extremely high frame rates put additional strain not only on the lenses (which couldn‘t bother Sony) but also on the body. This effect is not linear and there may be some concern that an increase of the mechanical resistance of some moving parts in a lens may increase heating in the corresponding components in the camera (higher electric currents etc.).
In this sense I would not call it a nastiness of Sony to limit frame rates, especially since they have no control whatsoever on the specifications other manufacturers implement for their lenses. There is a reason why not every lens of Sony (or every lens-body combination) can handle extremely high frames rates, these reasons just get uncontrollable if third party manufacturers add their lenses with different specifics.
And it must be remembered, they do allow frame rates up to 15 frames per second, which is reasonably fast. It is just the extreme frame rates above that, where they want full control of the whole process. To me that is fair game, just imagine people returning their camera on waranty because of having used (misused) their bodies with third party lenses (or claiming that the Sony body had killed their third party lens).
I‘m definitely sure that there would be some youtubers who would hold up their A1 or A9 and fire away at 30 frames / second for ten minutes until their third party lens goes up in smoke and then shitstorm Sony (even if the third party manufacturer would state that their lens is not built for such a frame rate).
As a manufacturer (Sony), this would rightfully piss me off. Suddenly they would be bad mouthed due to a process completely out of their control. Unfortunately the internet is not good natured and considerate. Better have clear limits when such problems are perceivable.
Knut. wrote:
I never figured out, if it was to exclude competition or to protect their products from mechanical or electronic strain. I can easily understand that extremely high frame rates put additional strain not only on the lenses (which couldn‘t bother Sony) but also on the body. This effect is not linear and there may be some concern that an increase of the mechanical resistance of some moving parts in a lens may increase heating in the corresponding components in the camera (higher electric currents etc.).
In this sense I would not call it a nastiness of Sony to limit frame rates, especially since they have no control whatsoever on the specifications other manufacturers implement for their lenses. There is a reason why not every lens of Sony (or every lens-body combination) can handle extremely high frames rates, these reasons just get uncontrollable if third party manufacturers add their lenses with different specifics.
And it must be remembered, they do allow frame rates up to 15 frames per second, which is reasonably fast. It is just the extreme frame rates above that, where they want full control of the whole process. To me that is fair game, just imagine people returning their camera on waranty because auf having used (misused) their bodies with third party lenses (or claiming that the Sony body had killed their third party lens).
I‘m definitely sure that there would be some youtubers who would hold up their A1 or A9 and fire away at 30 frames / second for ten minutes until their third party lens goes up in smoke and then shitstorm Sony (even if the third party manufacturer would state that their lens is not built for such a frame rate).
As a manufacturer (Sony) this would rightfully piss me off. Suddenly they would be bad mouthed due to a process completely out of their control. Unfortunately the internet is not good natured and considerate. Better have clear limits when such problems are perceivable....Show more →
There are ways to handle issues such as heat and current drain. Sony could simply require that third party lenses only draw a certain amount of current. They could limit the current the lens could draw. That would be addressing the issue you raise directly, instead of limiting the design parameters. Addressing the issue directly through design parameters, I see as legitimate. They limit the performance, which I don't see as legitimate. And they are the only manufacturer that does it. The Fuji X-H2S can shoot 40 fps does it limit the fps of third party lenses? No. The Canon R1 can shoot 40 fps does it limit the fps of third party lenses? No, they just hardly let any one build them which is probably worse. The Nikon Z9 can shoot 20 fps in RAW and 120 fps in jpeg, does it limit the fps of third party lenses? No.
I don't think it is about protecting the cameras from lenses that would damage them. What a horrible move it would be for third party lens makers to design lenses that even have a remote chance of damaging the camera. If there is even a hint they could damage the camera, then it would be really hard for third parties to sell that lens or any lens. It would totally ruin their reputation. Buying a cheap lens that might even with the slightest chance ruin your camera is not something hardly anyone would ever do. The market itself protects quite well for the worries you identify.
I think Sony's move to limit fps and not permit TC use is all about protecting the market for the high margin super telephoto lenses. Canon does its own protection which appears even more extensive, but I am not a fan of such protectionist behavior from any manufacturer.
Jan 27, 2026 at 09:30 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I am looking forward to Juha's reports on these prototypes. He goes almost every year and is going this year. His reports are detailed and he gives us a great sense of what the prototypes are like. We should know more soon.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I am looking forward to Juha's reports on these prototypes. He goes almost every year and is going this year. His reports are detailed and he gives us a great sense of the what the prototypes are like. We should know more soon.
Cosina will announce existing lenses in additional mounts, such as Z and RF. However, based on your text, the more interesting part is the possibility of new prototypes, which indicate entirely new optical designs rather than simple mount conversions.
Steve Spencer wrote:
There are ways to handle issues such as heat and current drain. Sony could simply require that third party lenses only draw a certain amount of current. They could limit the current the lens could draw. That would be addressing the issue you raise directly, instead of limiting the design parameters. Addressing the issue directly through design parameters, I see as legitimate. They limit the performance, which I don't see as legitimate. And they are the only manufacturer that does it. The Fuji X-H2S can shoot 40 fps does it limit the fps of third party lenses? No. The Canon R1 can shoot 40 fps does it limit the fps of third party lenses? No, they just hardly let any one build them which is probably worse. The Nikon Z9 can shoot 20 fps in RAW and 120 fps in jpeg, does it limit the fps of third party lenses? No.
I don't think it is about protecting the cameras from lenses that would damage them. What a horrible move it would be for third party lens makers to design lenses that even have a remote chance of damaging the camera. If there is even a hint they could damage the camera, then it would be really hard for third parties to sell that lens or any lens. It would totally ruin their reputation. Buying a cheap lens that might even with the slightest chance ruin your camera is not something hardly anyone would ever do. The market itself protects quite well for the worries you identify.
I think Sony's move to limit fps and not permit TC use is all about protecting the market for the high margin super telephoto lenses. Canon does its own protection which appears even more extensive, but I am not a fan of such protectionist behavior from any manufacturer....Show more →
I‘m really not sure that one has to see it in such a negative way. There is more to lens-body compatibility than what meets the first glance (AF integration being one important point).
Interestingly, this is allowed by firmware update on the lens and NOT by a firmware update on the body. To me this suggests, that the third party lens makers know how to allow a Sony body to run higher frame rates, but chose not to allow this to happen with their lenses.
Thus why blame Sony, if third party makers believe that these high frame rates are not good for their lenses? Tellingly they are quite tight lipped, why higher frame rates are not possible with their lenses. They wouldn‘t have to be, if it is due to a Sony policy, they could use public pressure to make Sony move (but of curse not, if they themselves do not want higher rates to be used on their lenses).
In the end, we really do not know what is going on, but assumptions expressed on the web clearly might not be true.
I‘m really not sure that one has to see it in such a negative way. There is more to lens-body compatibility than what meets the first glance (AF integration being one important point).
Interestingly, this is allowed by firmware update on the lens and NOT by a firmware update on the body. To me this suggests, that the third party lens makers know how to allow a Sony body to run higher frame rates, but chose not to allow this to happen with their lenses.
Thus why blame Sony, if third party makers believe that these high frame rates are not good for their lenses? Tellingly they are quite tight lipped, why higher frame rates are not possible with their lenses. They wouldn‘t have to be, if it is due to a Sony policy, they could use public pressure to make Sony move (but of curse not, if they themselves do not want higher rates to be used on their lenses).
In the end, we really do not know what is going on, but assumptions expressed on the web clearly might not be true....Show more →
You are ignoring that several third party lenses function at higher frame rates and with TC on other mounts. This is clearly a Sony issue. And why not call Sony out? I would think that would be obvious as calling out Sony publicly would not make sense if they hope Sony will change the policy. Such public pressure would be just as likely to backfire and piss Sony off ending the relationship as pushing them to change the policy.
You are acting as if the lenses are the limit. They clearly aren't as they function with higher frame rates and with TC on other mounts. It is clear Sony is limitation. I don't want to argue any more about this, however. I think you have an unrealistically positive view of Sony here. You obviously don't agree, so let's just agree to disagree.
Jan 27, 2026 at 11:44 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Note this firmware update is only for the A9 III and not for the A1 or A1 II and not for the Sigma 500 f/5.6 or the 200 f/2. Sure looks to me like Sony is protecting their super telephotos from competition to me. Removing the limits of a couple of consumer zooms is not opening up the market.
Steve Spencer wrote:
You are ignoring that several third party lenses function at higher frame rates and with TC on other mounts. This is clearly a Sony issue. And why not call Sony out? I would think that would be obvious as calling out Sony publicly would not make sense if they hope Sony will change the policy. Such public pressure would be just as likely to backfire and piss Sony off ending the relationship as pushing them to change the policy.
You are acting as if the lenses are the limit. They clearly aren't as they function with higher frame rates and with TC on other mounts. It is clear Sony is limitation. I don't want to argue any more about this, however. I think you have an unrealistically positive view of Sony here. You obviously don't agree, so let's just agree to disagree....Show more →
I agree we disagree, in a positive way.
The fact that the third party LENS MAKER needs to update his firmware to make higher frame rates possible (not Sony on its bodies) lets me doubt your critical view of Sony, especially your theory concerning the protection of the ultra teles of Sony. This protection is clearly deminished since Sigma has enabled high frame rates on all their long tele zooms(if it ever was true).
To me this just looks like a limit set by the lens maker (I understand, that we view this point differently)
Steve Spencer wrote:
Note this firmware update is only for the A9 III and not for the A1 or A1 II and not for the Sigma 500 f/5.6 or the 200 f/2. Sure looks to me like Sony is protecting their super telephotos from competition to me. Removing the limits of a couple of consumer zooms is not opening up the market.
You could be right. It could also well be, that these wide aperture lenses with a huge iris just cannot do > 15fps. To me, we just don’t know.
You might be right, but it might just as well be that Sigma sets this limit. The point I want to make is, unless one of the involved companies makes a statement about this, everything else is pure speculation.
This video, I just found after our discussion, sort of summarizes my view.
This is what I got on Perplexity concerning this issue:
Yes, substantial evidence supports Sony’s claim that frame rate caps on third-party lenses stem from genuine compatibility concerns rather than pure anti-competitive intent.[petapixel +2]
Sony’s Official Position
Sony states they do not guarantee third-party lens performance at high speeds (beyond 15fps) because they cannot test every optic for stability with advanced features like real-time tracking, eye AF, and subject recognition on bodies like the A1 or A9 III. Even some older native Sony lenses lack certification for max fps, underscoring that it’s a technical validation issue, not just exclusion.[sonyalpharumors +2]
Compatibility Risks Demonstrated
Firmware updates for new bodies (e.g., A7 V’s Bionz XR2 processor) have caused AF hunting, overheating, or shutter failures with untested third-party glass from Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox, and Chinese makers like Laowa—issues resolved only after lens makers released updates. Nikon Z8’s update similarly broke Tamron Z lenses temporarily, showing this affects all brands when pushing unvetted optics to extremes like 30fps bursts.[youtube +2]
Expert and Executive Views
Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki has publicly agreed: Sony can’t certify every third-party lens for high-fps reliability, prioritizing user experience over unrestricted access. PetaPixel investigations dismiss conspiracy theories, noting E-mount remains open but expects lens makers to adapt—Sony even collaborates with Sigma/Tamron on protocols. Forums document real-world AF dropouts at 20+fps with Sigma 500mm f/5.6, validating the caution.[fredmiranda +3]
Knut. wrote:
Compatibility Risks Demonstrated
Firmware updates for new bodies (e.g., A7 V’s Bionz XR2 processor) have caused AF hunting, overheating, or shutter failures with untested third-party glass from Sigma, Tamron, Viltrox, and Chinese makers like Laowa—issues resolved only after lens makers released updates. Nikon Z8’s update similarly broke Tamron Z lenses temporarily, showing this affects all brands when pushing unvetted optics to extremes like 30fps bursts.[youtube +2]
Expert and Executive Views
Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki has publicly agreed: Sony can’t certify every third-party lens for high-fps reliability, prioritizing user experience over unrestricted access. PetaPixel investigations dismiss conspiracy theories, noting E-mount remains open but expects lens makers to adapt—Sony even collaborates with Sigma/Tamron on protocols. Forums document real-world AF dropouts at 20+fps with Sigma 500mm f/5.6, validating the caution.[fredmiranda +3] ...Show more →
I also wonder if the code that Sony supplies third parties to produce lenses for FE mount might have some built-in limitations. I mean, third party lens manufacturers are not, to my understanding, reverse engineering Sony's camera-lens communication protocols. I believe this is also true with Nikon and Canon. Therefore, why would third party lenses break compatibility when a new camera is introduced or firmware is updated, yet the OEM's own lenses don't fail?
To me it seems like something is still withheld by the OEM. Perhaps there are legitimate technical or IP reasons for this. Perhaps it could restrict higher-end performance for seemingly legitimate reasons (from the OEM's perspective). Or it is to benefit the OEM's market position.
Whatever the case, from the consumer side it still looks like OEM restriction of third party compatibility when use of third party lenses limits frame rate or cannot be used with TCs. To avoid these incompatibilities, the user is obliged to buy OEM equipment and to avoid potential future incompatibilities, the consumer may 'self-censor' from the outset, purchases of third party lenses due to this concern. I mean, this was basically my approach back in the Canon EF days because of all the 'you never know' compatibility and performance concerns around third party EF lenses. But AFAIK, many, most or all of those were reverse engineered and therefore it would be expected that these problems might arise. Yet, with Sony FE or Nikon Z, one would expect that authorized third party lenses won't have these problems. That said, OEMs do push occasional lens firmware updates for their own lenses to maintain compatibility with new products or features, and I'd expect they would also share the information behind the need to do so with their licensed third party partners.
My understanding is that Sony specifically limits AFC for lenses over 15FPS. As Sony produced more bodies that supported more then 15FPS, Sigma put out Firmwares that allowed greater FPS in AFS and MF modes. Considering that there are Tamron lenses that perform over 15FPS on Nikon Z and Sigma lenses that perform greater than 15FPS on L mount, I doubt it's a limitation that Sigma and Tamron are unable to overcome on E mount. Even more interesting is that Sigma and Tamron lenses adapted to Z mount can go over 15FPS. If the 15FPS could damage their E lens, I would expect the 15FPS limit to be enforced in the lens firmware. This strongly points to the limitation being on the camera side.
Persoanlly it's the TC limitation that really annoys me. I can deal with 15FPS for the most part. But not being able to use a TC on lenses such as the Sigma 300-600f4 and 500mm f5.6, which Sony has no native alternatives for, really stings.
Add the TC and FPS limitations together, and it basically kills my interest in an A1II.
Anway now that the CV 28mm F2 APO is out, I wonder what the chances are for a 25mm F2 APO.
I would love to see a m-mount 135mm APO. I regretted selling my Leica 135mm APO but hard to justify buying again at current prices since it got discontinued.
The 110mm APO-Lanthar for E-mount I thought was only ok so hopefully they can do better.
Yeah, the fps limitation in AF-C (or TC for that matter) is 100% on Sony. We can try to argue every other way, but it's enough to mount an e-mount lens on a Nikon body and get > 15 fps in AF-C .
Fred Miranda wrote:
Cosina will announce existing lenses in additional mounts, such as Z and RF. However, based on your text, the more interesting part is the possibility of new prototypes, which indicate entirely new optical designs rather than simple mount conversions.
Portrait Heliar 75/1.8 for Z and RF were already announced officially in January for February release, and usually Cosina's February releases get officially released to market just before CP+, so that they bring them to CP+ as already released products (and not as special prototypes). Those already released products will be available for more flexible trials at their CP+ area (along with older products). However, since they are brand new they will provide some trial run excitement for interested users of those mounts.
Then a number of new upcoming products that are not officially announced yet will get pre-announced just prior to CP+ and all or some of them (as prototypes) will be available for trials at CP+ by borrowing from Cosina's CP+ booth. Those can be a mix of entirely new lenses and also some pre-existing lenses that will be released in additional mounts, and some could be minor new versions of earlier lenses etc. Also new releases under Zeiss brand that are produced by Cosina (in co-operation with Zeiss) can enter this mix (like Zeiss Otus ML last year).
Examples of pre-announcements from past couple of years: 2025 2024 2023
Sometimes they allow shooting with thoses prototypes around their whole CP+ demo area where they usually have some setups with various objects that can be used for test shooting, and sometimes they restrict trials to over the counter under close watch by their staff. This approach may be different depending on each new lens and sometimes it depends on how crowded their CP+ area is at the time.
In the last couple years they've had around 5 or slightly more new lenses available in this prototype testing category each year, but it might include variants of the same lens in multiple mounts (or multiple variants of same lens like 4 versions of APO-Lanthar 50/3.5 VM).
Then after CP+ those lenses will get official announcements and launch schedules sequentially usually one by one starting a couple of months later. The release order and schedules will usually be unknown until these official announcements come, but all of those pre-announced lenses tend to get releases later in the same year.
Cosina have been following this same pattern for many years, although there have been slight variations over time.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Then a number of new upcoming products that are not officially announced yet will get pre-announced just prior to CP+ and all or some of them (as prototypes) will be available for trials at CP+ by borrowing from Cosina's CP+ booth. Those can be a mix of entirely new lenses and also some pre-existing lenses that will be released in additional mounts, and some could be minor new versions of earlier lenses etc. Also new releases under Zeiss brand that are produced by Cosina (in co-operation with Zeiss) can enter this mix (like Zeiss Otus ML last year).
My guess is we will see some upcoming additional Nikon and Canon Voigtlanders for later in the year given the Portrait Heliar 75/1.8 for Z and RF is not a lens some Nikon and Canon shooters are not looking to buy. I also think we will see the next Zeiss Otus announced.
I second the need to fill the 24/25mm gap. I think a 24mm Ultron would be absolutely killer, in fact it's completely bizarre to me that they haven't done it yet. Coincidentally, on a 60MP body, that makes 35mm equivalent at 24MP in APS-C crop, making this focal length also rather interesting as a two-in-one prime lens solution for those with a high-res body. A 24/1.9 that is also a 35/2.8!
Besides that I'd also love to see (however unlikely it may be) Cosina at least collaborate with the L-mount Alliance in a very minor way to release their M-adapters for L mount. There are not many M-L helicoid adapters and those that do exist all have some sad caveat to them (LLL has play, Hawk's Factory is hard to find and wears down, Shoten spits grease).
Realistically though, it's probably just going to be some more boring ports to Z/RF
.