At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
p.2 #1At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
I don’t think it’s just FPS and tele-converters that Sony is impacting. I’d wager that auto-focusing is also being impacted.
Nov 07, 2025 at 08:14 PM
p.2 #2At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
Sony hasn't slowed down at all. They are constantly coming out with great brilliance, from the incredibly light 300 gm to the astounding 50-150f2...
Nov 07, 2025 at 11:37 PM
p.2 #3At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
Not really. The delay from tamron along with the limited releases in general there is substantial.
RoamingScott wrote:
You can really tell who hasn't used Z 
Only Sigma is missing, and that's because the two companies have beef. There is a plethora of great 3rd party glass for Z with zero restrictions.
Canon's situation is PATHETIC.
RoamingScott wrote:
SNJOps wrote
When Canon and Nikon make the RF mount as open as E mount is but with no cap on FPS then you'll see Sony change their stance. The 1st part isn't happening so neither will the 2nd. Only Sigma is missing, and that's because the two companies have beef. There is a plethora of great 3rd party glass for Z with zero restrictions.Canon's situation is PATHETIC.
Nov 07, 2025 at 11:40 PM
p.2 #4At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
Sony won’t loosen restrictions until it starts hitting their sales. Right now, most pros just adapt Sigma or Tamron to Nikon and get full FPS. Once midrange bodies push 15–20 FPS and social media exposes the gap, we might see them react. Until then, they’re happy selling body+lens combos while letting workarounds do the talking.
Nov 09, 2025 at 10:48 AM
p.2 #5At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
Domako27 wrote:
Sony won’t loosen restrictions until it starts hitting their sales. Right now, most pros just adapt Sigma or Tamron to Nikon and get full FPS. Once midrange bodies push 15–20 FPS and social media exposes the gap, we might see them react. Until then, they’re happy selling body+lens combos while letting workarounds do the talking.
I have no idea what most pros use, but I see an awful lot of Canon gear at the sporting events…and Sony sells a lot of their professional cameras so I just don’t buy your view that most pros adapt to Nikon.
Sony won’t loosen restrictions until it starts hitting their sales. Right now, most pros just adapt Sigma or Tamron to Nikon and get full FPS. Once midrange bodies push 15–20 FPS and social media exposes the gap, we might see them react. Until then, they’re happy selling body+lens combos while letting workarounds do the talking.
I have no idea what most pros use, but I see an awful lot of Canon gear at the sporting events…and Sony sells a lot of their professional cameras so I just don’t buy your view that most pros adapt to Nikon.
Nov 09, 2025 at 11:48 AM
p.2 #6At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
tsdevine wrote:
Interestingly, there is a rumor of a Viltrox TC for E mount, which the masses had thought couldn't happen due to E mount licensing agreements. If it's okay for Viltrox to do it, then not sure why Sigma, etc can't do it. But that doesn't solve the FPS limit.
Sony TC licensing issue was confirmed in one of the interviews with Sigma's CEO, if I remember correctly. So, it's not about the masses
...
---------------------------------------------
DWOfPaul wrote:
I'm pretty sure that Viltrox is reverse-engineering, not licensing. So they can do whatever they want.Does anyone know if Viltrox lenses are limited to 15fps on Sony?
Yes, they are limited to 15 fps on Sony.
Interestingly, there is a rumor of a Viltrox TC for E mount, which the masses had thought couldn't happen due to E mount licensing agreements. If it's okay for Viltrox to do it, then not sure why Sigma, etc can't do it. But that doesn't solve the FPS limit.
Sony TC licensing issue was confirmed in one of the interviews with Sigma's CEO, if I remember correctly. So, it's not about the masses
...---------------------------------------------
DWOfPaul wrote:
MikeEvangelist wrote
tsdevine wrote
Interestingly, there is a rumor of a Viltrox TC for E mount, which the masses had thought couldn't happen due to E mount licensing agreements. If it's okay for Viltrox to do it, then not sure why Sigma, etc can't do it.Yes, they are limited to 15 fps on Sony.
Nov 09, 2025 at 01:23 PM
p.2 #7At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
j4nu wrote:
Sony TC licensing issue was confirmed in one of the interviews with Sigma's CEO, if I remember correctly. So, it's not about the masses ...
---------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure that Viltrox is reverse-engineering, not licensing. So they can do whatever they want.Does anyone know if Viltrox lenses are limited to 15fps on Sony?Yes, they are limited to 15 fps on Sony.
Yeah, I was pretty sure it was a licensing thing....but not realizing that Viltrox wasn't licensing was the key piece of info I didn't know. I was hoping there was a change in stance from Sony.
tsdevine wrote
Interestingly, there is a rumor of a Viltrox TC for E mount, which the masses had thought couldn't happen due to E mount licensing agreements. If it's okay for Viltrox to do it, then not sure why Sigma, etc can't do it. But that doesn't solve the FPS limit. ...---------------------------------------------
DWOfPaul wrote
MikeEvangelist wrote
tsdevine wrote
Interestingly, there is a rumor of a Viltrox TC for E mount, which the masses had thought couldn't happen due to E mount licensing agreements. If it's okay for Viltrox to do it, then not sure why Sigma, etc can't do it.Yeah, I was pretty sure it was a licensing thing....but not realizing that Viltrox wasn't licensing was the key piece of info I didn't know. I was hoping there was a change in stance from Sony.
Nov 09, 2025 at 03:00 PM
p.2 #8At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
Are photographers that paranoid what there missing out of 🤔, i had the em1mk2 that could shoot 60 fps never used it once, 10 was more than enough.no one is going to sell the a7iv for a new a7v because it might shoot 15 fps.
Nov 09, 2025 at 03:38 PM
p.2 #9At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
A74me wrote:
Are photographers that paranoid what there missing out of 🤔, i had the em1mk2 that could shoot 60 fps never used it once, 10 was more than enough.no one is going to sell the a7iv for a new a7v because it might shoot 15 fps.
I'm guessing it's mainly people with Sony cameras which are capable of shooting higher than the limit (a1 & a9), where they have use cases where faster is an advantage. Like birding, or maybe sports, etc. Same for the TC limitation.
I would imagine that people who have cameras that can't shoot above the limit, understandably, wouldn't be as interested in that capability. Now TCs...that's another story. They can be useful for telephotos irrespective of the camera body one has.
Are photographers that paranoid what there missing out of 🤔, i had the em1mk2 that could shoot 60 fps never used it once, 10 was more than enough.no one is going to sell the a7iv for a new a7v because it might shoot 15 fps.
I'm guessing it's mainly people with Sony cameras which are capable of shooting higher than the limit (a1 & a9), where they have use cases where faster is an advantage. Like birding, or maybe sports, etc. Same for the TC limitation.
I would imagine that people who have cameras that can't shoot above the limit, understandably, wouldn't be as interested in that capability. Now TCs...that's another story. They can be useful for telephotos irrespective of the camera body one has.
Nov 09, 2025 at 04:05 PM
p.2 #10At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
Nikon users can use a Megadap ETZ21 Pro+ (etc?) and add another set of 3rd party lenses to choose from. Sony users can use a Megadap ETZ21 Pro+ to add high performing bodies and save maybe $2000 to $3000? I can see growing user interest in taking that route. I'd think/hope Sony is looking at it too.
Nov 09, 2025 at 04:53 PM
|
p.2 #11At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
chez wrote:
I have no idea what most pros use, but I see an awful lot of Canon gear at the sporting events…and Sony sells a lot of their professional cameras so I just don’t buy your view that most pros adapt to Nikon.
If you are shooting professionally at 20FPS+ then you are most likely going to pay for the OEM glass and a Pro membership, so Sony on Sony, Nikon on Nikon, and Canon on Canon.
EBH
Domako27 wrote
Sony won’t loosen restrictions until it starts hitting their sales. Right now, most pros just adapt Sigma or Tamron to Nikon and get full FPS. Once midrange bodies push 15–20 FPS and social media exposes the gap, we might see them react. Until then, they’re happy selling body+lens combos while letting workarounds do the talking.If you are shooting professionally at 20FPS+ then you are most likely going to pay for the OEM glass and a Pro membership, so Sony on Sony, Nikon on Nikon, and Canon on Canon.
EBH
Nov 09, 2025 at 05:00 PM
p.2 #12At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
Just ignore. He is a post a run troll.
Nov 09, 2025 at 08:09 PM
p.2 #13At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
Anyone shooting wildlife will use all the fps available...More poses and potential for amazing things that would only be caught with that kind of speed.
A74me wrote:
Are photographers that paranoid what there missing out of 🤔, i had the em1mk2 that could shoot 60 fps never used it once, 10 was more than enough.no one is going to sell the a7iv for a new a7v because it might shoot 15 fps.
A74me wrote:
Are photographers that paranoid what there missing out of 🤔, i had the em1mk2 that could shoot 60 fps never used it once, 10 was more than enough.no one is going to sell the a7iv for a new a7v because it might shoot 15 fps.
Nov 10, 2025 at 07:18 AM
p.2 #14At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
I've shot with an A7III since introduction. I've never even bumped against the 15fps limit. I imagine that most people shooting on an A1II or A9III have GM glass on their bodies because, well, why wouldn't you? I would argue only recently has Sigma made options that don't have OEM equivalents like the 200 2 and the 135 4. I am guessing no one serious wants to shoot a consumer grade zoom lens at 120fps.
For all the people that complain about this, and about the A7V being DOA (which impressive considering it hasn't been announced), I wonder what they are shooting, and how much of their photography is actually limited by the stuff they are complaining about. I would be interested to see the attachment rate of lenses to all bodies that can shoot above 15fps. Again, I am guessing most people are on native glass...
For all the people that complain about this, and about the A7V being DOA (which impressive considering it hasn't been announced), I wonder what they are shooting, and how much of their photography is actually limited by the stuff they are complaining about. I would be interested to see the attachment rate of lenses to all bodies that can shoot above 15fps. Again, I am guessing most people are on native glass...
Nov 10, 2025 at 07:41 AM
p.2 #15At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
It is almost entirely about the long telephotos. The sigma 500, the new 200s. A handful of the long zooms. Anything for wildlife or sports.
Nov 10, 2025 at 07:53 AM
p.2 #16At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
I get it, but if you are shooting wildlife or sports and are serious about it, are you really shooting a 500 5.6 over a 400 2.8 or 600 4? Maybe you are, that's what I would love to know (if only because data reveals a lot about aggregate behavior). I've only seen people in the "good enough" camp (nothing wrong with that) with the 500 5.6, and I would argue 15fps is also good enough there. I am not even that serious but I want a 400 2.8 for my kids' sports, but 15fps still seems fine. I guess BIF is different, not something I am into...
shadow9d9 wrote:
It is almost entirely about the long telephotos. The sigma 500, the new 200s. A handful of the long zooms. Anything for wildlife or sports.
shadow9d9 wrote:
It is almost entirely about the long telephotos. The sigma 500, the new 200s. A handful of the long zooms. Anything for wildlife or sports.
Nov 10, 2025 at 08:20 AM
p.2 #17At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
Sony is just trying to protect us from inferior diaphragms that will explode beyond 15 fps and leave diaphragm bits all over our sensors.
Nov 10, 2025 at 09:26 AM
p.2 #18At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
Isn't the diaphragm in a fixed position at the higher FPS used in the a1 III? I don't know that diaphragms can handle even 30 or 40 FPS.
EBH
EBH
Nov 10, 2025 at 01:34 PM
p.2 #19At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
isyoox703 wrote:
I get it, but if you are shooting wildlife or sports and are serious about it, are you really shooting a 500 5.6 over a 400 2.8 or 600 4? Maybe you are, that's what I would love to know (if only because data reveals a lot about aggregate behavior). I've only seen people in the "good enough" camp (nothing wrong with that) with the 500 5.6, and I would argue 15fps is also good enough there. I am not even that serious but I want a 400 2.8 for my kids' sports, but 15fps still seems fine. I guess...Show more →
This lens is half the price of a Sony 400/600, just as sharp, and a constant F4 that zooms! The 15 FPS limit isn't a total killer, but man it would be nice to have the full song for the wildlife and field sports. Sigma is building some really really nice glass lately. If Sony didn't have the TC and FPS limit, I'd be willing to bet they'd sell more A9's and A1's, and Sigma would never have this lens in stock. It was hard enough to get as is.
Untitled by D.C. 83, on Flickr
I get it, but if you are shooting wildlife or sports and are serious about it, are you really shooting a 500 5.6 over a 400 2.8 or 600 4? Maybe you are, that's what I would love to know (if only because data reveals a lot about aggregate behavior). I've only seen people in the "good enough" camp (nothing wrong with that) with the 500 5.6, and I would argue 15fps is also good enough there. I am not even that serious but I want a 400 2.8 for my kids' sports, but 15fps still seems fine. I guess...Show more →
shadow9d9 wrote
It is almost entirely about the long telephotos. The sigma 500, the new 200s. A handful of the long zooms. Anything for wildlife or sports.This lens is half the price of a Sony 400/600, just as sharp, and a constant F4 that zooms! The 15 FPS limit isn't a total killer, but man it would be nice to have the full song for the wildlife and field sports. Sigma is building some really really nice glass lately. If Sony didn't have the TC and FPS limit, I'd be willing to bet they'd sell more A9's and A1's, and Sigma would never have this lens in stock. It was hard enough to get as is.
Untitled by D.C. 83, on FlickrNov 10, 2025 at 01:39 PM
p.2 #20At what point, Sony will decide not to cripple third party lenses.
David83 wrote:
This lens is half the price of a Sony 400/600, just as sharp, and a constant F4 that zooms! The 15 FPS limit isn't a total killer, but man it would be nice to have the full song for the wildlife and field sports. Sigma is building some really really nice glass lately. If Sony didn't have the TC and FPS limit, I'd be willing to bet they'd sell more A9's and A1's, and Sigma would never have this lens in stock. It was hard enough to get as is.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54906243551_af79c22c32_h.jpgUntitled by D.C. 83, on Flickr
They might sell more cameras, but they’d sell less lenses. Sony probably knows the elasticity with their cameras and lenses.
isyoox703 wrote
I get it, but if you are shooting wildlife or sports and are serious about it, are you really shooting a 500 5.6 over a 400 2.8 or 600 4? Maybe you are, that's what I would love to know (if only because data reveals a lot about aggregate behavior). I've only seen people in the "good enough" camp (nothing wrong with that) with the 500 5.6, and I would argue 15fps is also good enough there. I am not even that serious but I want a 400 2.8 for my kids' sports, but 15fps still seems fine. I guess BIF is different, not something I am into...shadow9d9 wrote
It is almost entirely about the long telephotos. The sigma 500, the new 200s. A handful of the long zooms. Anything for wildlife or sports.https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54906243551_af79c22c32_h.jpgUntitled by D.C. 83, on Flickr
They might sell more cameras, but they’d sell less lenses. Sony probably knows the elasticity with their cameras and lenses.
Nov 10, 2025 at 02:40 PM