# Yongnuo 35mm f/2 Canon Clone on the Way



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 5, 2015)

```
<p>Yongnuo is continuing in their quest to make (clone) older Canon lenses and sell them for less. This 35mm f/2 has the same optical formula as Canon’s old 35mm f/2 non USM lens. Although the outside of the lens seems to resemble their 50mm f/1.8.</p>
<p><strong>First Chinese Made Wide-angle Fixed Auto Focus Lens YONGNUO YN 35mm F2  </strong></p>
<ul>
<li>The closest focusing distance up to 0.25 meter,when under close-up shooting,it is available to get the unique sense of depth of the wide-angle lens.</li>
<li>F2 large aperture,virtual background,which makes photography with more fun.</li>
<li>Support auto focus (AF) and manual focus (MF) mode.</li>
<li>The aperture blades up to 7 pieces,which allows you able to shoot the near-circular diffuse plaques,appropriately narrow the apertures can shoot the 14 astral effect.</li>
<li>Adopts chrome high precision metal bayonet,which effectively improve the goodness to fit the camera body and the bayonet strength, wear and corrosion resistance for durable use.</li>
<li>Full line of the products are glass lenses.</li>
<li>Supports full-frame and APS-C format cameras,supports M/AV/TV/P and other camera shooting modes,and can be displayed the aperture data in the EXIF Information.</li>
<li>Multi-coated lenses,effectively improve the transmittance and suppress the ghosting and flare when in backlit shooting .</li>
<li>Adopts gold plating for the metal contacts,effectively improve the signal conductivity and corrosion resistance.</li>
</ul>
<p>More pictures of the lens after the break…</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-18219" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/yongnuo35_4-575x575.jpg" alt="yongnuo35_4" width="575" height="575" /></p>
<p><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-18220" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/yongnuo35_3-575x575.jpg" alt="yongnuo35_3" width="575" height="575" /></p>
<p><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-18221" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/yongnuo35_2-575x575.jpg" alt="yongnuo35_2" width="575" height="575" /></p>
<p><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-18222" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/yongnuo35_1.jpeg" alt="yongnuo35_1" width="550" height="550" /></p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.hkyongnuo.com/e-detaily.php?ID=359" target="_blank">Yongnuo</a>] via [<a href="http://photorumors.com/2015/01/03/yongnuo-is-coming-with-a-35mm-f2-clone-lens-for-canon-dslr-cameras/" target="_blank">PR</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## pwp (Jan 5, 2015)

I love what must be Google translation in the main article.
Who could go past an f/2 lens with _"virtual background,which makes photography with more fun"_?

All that aside, if these inexpensive lenses are half decent, then what a boon for those on limited budgets.

-pw


----------



## KAS (Jan 5, 2015)

lol. And you just know it will be built to last.

I would not recommend anybody buy this.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 5, 2015)

I would think these lens clones are a pretty smart thing for Yongnuo to do, for the home market. The Chinese DSLR market is vast, and growing, to learn lens manufacturing on some simple lenses at bargain prices that give home consumers value for money and affordable options seems very clever to me, I hadn't seen the wisdom of it previously as I was only looking at it from an exporting and foreign currency raising exercise, which is comical because the postage costs nearly as much as half Yongnuo's products! 

As a first world resident I still don't see the point for export, but wow, to become China's leading lens manufacturer in the age of the economic cycle they are in, what an achievement! If they are successful I can see full clone bodies within five years and then we will have some real copyright and patent fights.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jan 5, 2015)

Yongunuo's 50mm 1.8 clone is actually better optically than Canon's. Perhaps this 35mm will be, too.


----------



## Chaitanya (Jan 5, 2015)

as long as its cheap and sharp.


----------



## agierke (Jan 5, 2015)

> then we will have some real copyright and patent fights.



this is the aspect of Yongnuo that just doesn't sit right for me. i'm not a fan of others stealing designs and then undercutting the price of the original product. i understand that there are some out there who wont care as long as they are saving as much money as possible, but my sense of fairness keeps me from purchasing anything from companies like Yongnuo (or almost anything coming out of china for that matter).

i know there are plenty of fans of Yongnuo on this site....just something to think about is all.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 5, 2015)

It is fairly common practice in the auto industry for first world countries to sell the production line complete with tooling etc of an old car manufacturing plant to get a last few dollars out of an otherwise dead line, maybe Canon and Yongnuo have a similar thing going on. I doubt it, but anything is possible.

Besides, this particular lens cloning can actually help Canon too, they make their bread and butter money from Rebel sales, if Chinese customers are more likely to buy Canon starter cameras over Nikon etc because there are readily available affordable lenses, even if those lenses are from Yongnuo, then Canon are leveraging that outdated lens line very well, and hopefully breeding a new generation of Canon users who will end up insisting on genuine L lenses and higher end bodies, but the core business is shipping millions of Rebels.

I do see hints of some battles ahead, particularly for third party batteries and FW lockouts. But generally massive corporations are too slow on their feet to micro manage that type of thing effectively for very long, somebody always ends up sourcing the chip, or the code/protocol to make their third party item work.

The other aspect is first party feature protection. I did buy a Yongnuo YN-E3-RT for the sole reason that it gave me Group mode with my four genuine 600-EX-RT's on my pre 2012 bodies, whereas Canon locked me out. The YN did that upgraded feature fine 99% of the time so Canon were being annoying and petty at best, which I wouldn't mind but they haven't given me a 1Ds MkIII upgrade to buy yet so they really gave me no option other than to buy the clone to get the features out of my $2,000 worth of genuine Canon flashes on their $6,000+ Canon camera.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 5, 2015)

Does it take TC's? If not .......... I am selling all my Canon gear and moving to Nikon.


----------



## Bennymiata (Jan 5, 2015)

While it looks just like it, the Yongi 50mm f1.8 is quite different from the Canon version internally, so it's not infringing IP.
I think this a good thing as it will not only give Canon some curry, but also Sigma, Tokina et al.

I reckon these cheap lenses are good to use in bad environments, and if you get a few good photos out of them and have to throw them away, why not?


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 5, 2015)

When can we expect a clone of the 200-400L? ;D


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 5, 2015)

Does anyone know, what kind of AF-drive Yongnuo is using? DC motors? And how well it will work with current and future canon bodies? And how about lens mount protocol? Presumably the Yongnuo lenses will spoof the lens ID code of some od, out of production canon lens - or will they use the codes of the lenses cloned (50/1.8, 36/2)? I recall some other third party manufacturer (tokina?) had some issues along with this a few years ago. 

For reasons like these I won't ever consider buying such lenses, but i welcome yongnuo bringing options to those on a tight budget (in china and elsewhere) and for possibly bringing some price pressure on Canon lenses - starting at the low end. Rumours have it that 50/1.4 is up next for cloning. As well as nikon lenses.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 5, 2015)

Chaitanya said:


> as long as its cheap and sharp.



I doubt these ancient designs can deliver "sharp" on 20mp+ digital corner-to-corner w/o major CA wide open. They only consist of two pieces of glass sandwiched together in a cheap plastic shell and an even cheaper stepper motor.

Yn's modifications won't change that basic premise, it's really only about "gimme a fast lens as cheap as possible". Yn might have a bit better bokeh tough, which isn't hard to archive given the original's performance.



AvTvM said:


> And how about lens mount protocol? Presumably the Yongnuo lenses will spoof the lens ID code of some od, out of production canon lens - or will they use the codes of the lenses cloned (50/1.8, 36/2)?



I don't see any reason not to use the originals' lens id codes, probably the lens correction of (in-camera and post-processing software) might even work on the clone as it's optically close to the original.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 5, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Chaitanya said:
> 
> 
> > as long as its cheap and sharp.
> ...



A two lens-one element 35 mm is not possible for EF cameras because you need the retrofocus construction to keep the mirror box clear. The negative front element of the photos gives a clear hint for retrofocus design too.

What I see from the Yongnuo images is at least 4 groups (counting reflections/lens borders) - the original lens had a 5/7 construction.

@privatebydesign
I asked myself why is Canon perhaps interested in clones - and came to a similar conclusion: Cheap lenses with good quality might drive the the decision for EF mount compatible cameras. If people have an EF mount camera they will perhaps upgrade.

Your remarks about the chinese market are very good: Include e.g. India and you have 2.5 Billion people that might buy Yongnuo lenses and ... Canon bodies.

Personal opinion: I ordered just yesterday an EF-M 22 to make my EOS M pocketable - and on the other hand I have the brilliant EF 40 with exceptional contra light contrast/flare resistance. So my interest in this lens isn't too large ...


----------



## Khnnielsen (Jan 5, 2015)

It reminds of the pharmaceutical industries, where there is an influx of cheaper "clone" medicine, when a patent expire, which is obviously great for the people who otherwise couldn't afford the potentially life saving medicine.

I am fairly sure that lenses can't save lives, but it's good news for people on a budget. A 35mm lens design is much more complicated than a 35mm, so it will be interesting to see what they can do.


----------



## 300D (Jan 5, 2015)

I too am uneasy buying Chinese cloned products, however I did finally Succumb and purchased the Yongnuo YN-E3-RT; because it gave me Group mode with my pre 2012 body 7D and Canon 600-EX-RT's. It also gives me second curtain sync in manual mode, and has a focus assist beam, functions the Canon version fails to include. 
I would have purchased the Canon version had it not been feature crippled, presuming better long term reliability, and would still do so if canon updated their version and included the missing features.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 5, 2015)

mb66energy said:


> What I see from the Yongnuo images is at least 4 groups (counting reflections/lens borders) - the original lens had a 5/7 construction.



Thanks, I stand corrected - I always assumed the 35mm and 50mm had a similar build (I only have Canon's 50/1.8). So if there's more glass involved, maybe Yn can make a difference to Canon's iq.




300D said:


> I too am uneasy buying Chinese cloned products, however I did finally Succumb and purchased the Yongnuo YN-E3-RT; because it gave me Group mode with my pre 2012 body 7D and Canon 600-EX-RT's. It also gives me second curtain sync in manual mode, and has a focus assist beam, functions the Canon version fails to include.



I've unfortunately also bought the unreliable Yn, and it's indeed unfortunate Canon ties their rt system to post-2012 cameras. However, as you pointed out the 2nd curtain remote is really very limited on the Yn.

And I can see why Canon didn't include an af assist: The Yn's beam pattern is a joke, the height doesn't account for subject distance and even if it's on target it's pure luck if a spot is under an af point. Given the limited space inside the transmitter, Canon seems to have opted to leave their full-fledged beam to the big flash.

As a result, Yn's rt transmitter clone is my "Waterloo" making me see cheap knockoffs in a much more critical light than before. Let's hope they'll do better with lenses, there's probably less to screw up there.


----------



## lintoni (Jan 5, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> It is fairly common practice in the auto industry for first world countries to sell the production line complete with tooling etc of an old car manufacturing plant to get a last few dollars out of an otherwise dead line, maybe Canon and Yongnuo have a similar thing going on. I doubt it, but anything is possible.
> 
> Besides, this particular lens cloning can actually help Canon too, they make their bread and butter money from Rebel sales, if Chinese customers are more likely to buy Canon starter cameras over Nikon etc because there are readily available affordable lenses, even if those lenses are from Yongnuo, then Canon are leveraging that outdated lens line very well, and hopefully breeding a new generation of Canon users who will end up insisting on genuine L lenses and higher end bodies, but the core business is shipping millions of Rebels.
> 
> ...


Good points well made!


----------



## 300D (Jan 5, 2015)

Hello Marsu42
Fortunately my YN-E3-RT is still fully functional though I have only had it for 7 weeks, and only used it indoors so far, out of reach of the British weather. I have read that others have found it unreliable hence my preference for an un-restricted canon version, but it is proving to be a very useful device so far. I also agree that the focus beam is hit and miss but useful at close range. I am a beginner but intend to use the second curtain for photographing moving models (cars, boats and trains) when I have had a bit more practice with it.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 5, 2015)

Lucky for me I can afford Canon products others maybe less fortunate. The Chinese dont care about patents unless they own them I was amazed at Photokina in the hall with the Chinese companies how many "other companies" products they had ripped off. Sure they make all of Apple products and just about anything else you buy these days but most of the IP is held by Western, Korean or Japanese companies. Anything successful they have no qualms in copying.


----------



## slclick (Jan 5, 2015)

Students win!


----------



## nebugeater (Jan 5, 2015)

> and then undercutting the price of the original product.





> More likely the price from Yongnuo reflects the true manufacturing cost of the lens plus a small bit on top for margin. That is, the Yongnuo price is not inflated because the lens has the word "Canon" on it, etc.



The cost or true manufacturing is only part of the cost. If that is the route you are happy with so be it but there are R&D costs and other development costs that have to be covered. IF you are happy with innovation girding to a stop then feel free to be happy with buying third party cones that have none of these costs others than a little up front revers engineering.


----------



## funkboy (Jan 5, 2015)

Any idea if the Canon patents on these old optical formulas have expired?


----------



## miah (Jan 5, 2015)

slclick said:


> Students win!



This is short-sighted thinking. No one wins when primary design work is stolen (although in this case, as pointed out earlier, Canon's patents may have already expired). Without a company--Canon, Apple, [insert innovative company here]--being able to reap the rewards of their labor, investment and _risk_ in R&D, they will have no incentive to develop better products. The patent system, though flawed, was created for a reason. It rewards innovation by giving the innovator a protected and relatively short period of time to establish their brand/product before everyone else is free to copy their design. If the design is good, and people are willing to buy it at the price offered, everyone benefits.

We vote with our dollars. I prefer mine to finance innovation and reward the risk takers.


----------



## kphoto99 (Jan 5, 2015)

miah said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Students win!
> ...



So basically you are saying that without competition Canon will produce innovating products at a good price.

How is that working out? Nobody is better then Canon in any areas?

Also, didn't Canon start by coping German camera manufactures products?


----------



## 300D (Jan 5, 2015)

Miah
I understand and agree with your view; apart from the YN-E3-RT my gear is all Canon or Sigma. But I was very frustrated to find that the Canon RT transmitter locked me out of a lot of the higher functionality of the device (and had less options), mainly because I only had a recent but not current camera body; so yes, in protest I voted with my £. I only hope that the YN-E3-RT proves to be reliable, and that canon updates this product giving me a first party option in the future.


----------



## miah (Jan 5, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> So basically you are saying that without competition Canon will produce innovating products at a good price.
> 
> How is that working out? Nobody is better then Canon in any areas?
> 
> Also, didn't Canon start by coping German camera manufactures products?



Patents don't preclude competition, far from it. They merely incite law-abiding competitors to find another way to skin the cat. And as far as price is concerned, if Canon or any other patent-holder doesn't offer their product at a price the market will bear, their patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Consumers--like ourselves--tell Canon everyday whether their prices are too high by voting with our dollars, as I said.

With regards to knowledge being cumulative, you're right. Just about everything we use today had some prequel or long series of prequels that led up to the device we own, just as there will be a long line of sequels that follow it into the future. Patents don't give anyone a monopoly; they give the innovator a deserved head start.


----------



## GammyKnee (Jan 5, 2015)

The thread title may say "clone" but it looks to me like this is going to be even less of a direct copy than their 50mm offering. The spec says 7 blades (versus 5 in the ancient Canon) and the focus ring is located right at the front of the lens (vs mid barrel on the Canon). Possibly the optical arrangement is different too.

Personally I think it's good to have another lens manufacturer starting up. I'll be particularly interested to see how the AF holds up in use. Maybe they can pressure Sigma to raise their game, and Canon to lower their prices a bit?


----------



## miah (Jan 5, 2015)

300D said:


> Miah
> I understand and agree with your view; apart from the YN-E3-RT my gear is all Canon or Sigma. But I was very frustrated to find that the Canon RT transmitter locked me out of a lot of the higher functionality of the device (and had less options), mainly because I only had a recent but not current camera body; so yes, in protest I voted with my £. I only hope that the YN-E3-RT proves to be reliable, and that canon updates this product giving me a fist party option in the future.



And right you were to vote for the third-party option, 300D, when Canon refused to offer the product you desired! That's the free market operating as it should. And if we're lucky, and Canon is smart, they're listening to the ways in which we're "voting."


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 5, 2015)

miah said:


> The patent system, though flawed, was created for a reason. It rewards innovation by giving the innovator a protected and relatively short period of time to establish their brand/product before everyone else is free to copy their design. If the design is good, and people are willing to buy it at the price offered, everyone benefits.



Imho the current patent system isn't flawed, it's broken: https://www.eff.org/patent

It's a nice idea alright, but it's getting torn apart between trivial patent lawsuits, long-term patents often only generating profits and not further innovation, and the money certainly not trickling down to the people doing the actual inventing. 

It certainly depends on the market at hand, audio/video entertainment, medical or consumer electronics. But Yn copying ancient Canon designs will only forward innovation because Canon is now underbid with their 50/1.8 and might at last come up with a new 50mm lens for the masses.

With Yn et al copying the rt lens protocol, and others the ef lens communication it's benefiting the customer, too because it prevents oems to isolate their markets and tie their customers down to their own policy - 440ex-rt anyone? Another example: If Magic Lantern wouldn't be around, no way we'd have seen 5/7 frames bracketing on the 6d, they'd still reserve that space-age feature to the 5d3+.

Massive counterfeiting of products is a problem, but that's outright fraud. As for getting a piece of the action goes, Yn prints their own name on 'em, you get what you pay (i.e. mediocre quality and support) and in this instance, I cannot see anything wrong with it.


----------



## bmwzimmer (Jan 5, 2015)

Design patents are valid for 20 years (in the US). I'm not saying it's right or wrong but any company can clone away if they choose.


----------



## miah (Jan 5, 2015)

bmwzimmer said:


> Design patents are valid for 20 years (in the US). I'm not saying it's right or wrong but any company can clone away if they choose.



Technically, Design Patents in the USA are only good for 14 years; it's 20 years for the stronger Utility Patent. And while a company can choose to "clone away" if it likes, doing so will open them up to a lawsuit for damages and lost sales from the patent holder.

This discussion is meandering a bit. First off, no one here, myself included, seems to know for sure if Yongnuo's 35mm lens actually infringes any of Canon's patents or whether or not Canon's applicable patents have expired. If it doesn't infringe or it merely "infringes" an expired patent, then Yongnuo has every legal right to offer their 35mm lens for sale on the open market and I'm glad they will.

Healthy competition gives rise to better products at more reasonable prices. My only argument is that the patent system--though seriously in need of a 21st century revamp--serves the very valuable purpose of incentivizing companies to push the envelope. Take away the profit motive--and progress will slow to a crawl.


----------



## PhotosbyChuck (Jan 5, 2015)

All this talk about infringement is a result of calling the lens a clone, when it's not. YN matched the specs (35mm f/2) but apparently didn't copy the design (the YN has a 7 blade diaphram, where the Canon has 5 ... and the elements are apparently different too).

I've never owned a YN product. Admittedly, YN design seems to close to Canon. But, why is it ok for Tamron and Sigma to make "copies" of lenses and not Yongnuo? For example, one of Canon's most successful lenses, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is essentially copied by both Tamron and Sigma. Do we think only Yongnuo took a Canon lens and disassembled it?

Seems to me that companies like Canon innovate and drive the market. Companies like Tamron, Sigma and Yongnuo try to compete on price after the fact. That's not new. That's not unique to camera gear. That's not unique to China. That's just business.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 5, 2015)

don't worry about patents. Probably we are only a few years away until we all can cheaply and easily 3D print such primitive lenses like the age-old 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 35/2 ... at home. Without even the Chinese involved. ;D


----------



## agierke (Jan 5, 2015)

wow! very interesting conversation that is being developed here. lots of interesting points being offered as well.

the term clone is certainly misleading, i had not looked closely at the design myself but rather assumed what the report was telling me was that it was a copy. you know what they say about assuming...

i stand by my notion of not supporting companies that copy and undercut, though it appears that is not what is happening here. i do understand the cultural differences within China and accept them...i just happen to personally fall on the other side of the fence. its completely a personal decision i am making and really cant fault the logic of those who do make those purchases.

as pointed out, the world economy still has alot to work out in terms of copyright law, intellectual property, labor laws etc etc. 

on the scale of interesting...this thread has really been refreshing to me. i really appreciate everyone's input and different points of view!


----------



## mrzero (Jan 5, 2015)

Well, if this keeps up, we may soon see a Yongnuo 24mm 2.8 and/or 28mm 2.8. I would also be curious to know when the patents on these older lenses expire(d). There isn't one at 85 or 100, though, and I doubt Yongnuo would try to replicate the 135 2.8 softfocus (although maybe without that little feature). 

Personally, I like the idea. I'd love to put together a super-cheap prime trio for my film set-up. Also would be a great way to get somebody started on primes with their new Rebel. Imagine hitting all the basic focal lengths for $200 -- now go see what focal lengths you like, and upgrade accordingly.


----------



## DRR (Jan 5, 2015)

Yongnuo should have invested minimal dollars in an external design to give them their own external "look." Patents or not, 5 blades vs 7, etc. you will always be called a "clone" if your product looks so similar to another.

Let's say that before Yongnuo announced their two 50mms and their 35mm, they figured out how to make their products look a little bit different. Maybe the focus ring is a little thicker, maybe the grip pattern is different, maybe they use a different typeface on it. What would the reaction be at that point? 

Probably significantly less outcry at "cloning" and "copying" even though they could have the exact same internals. At that point the conversation would be about an inexpensive Chinese manufacturer that produces decent prime lenses at a dirt cheap price, and available with AF for Canon mount! We'd be kissing their feet.

Instead they choose to directly copy, almost exactly, not only the internal design of the Canon lenses but the outside as well. And the perception completely changes. I don't know if this was a conscious decision that works better for sales in China and Asia but it was not the right decision for US/European markets.

As for the lenses themselves, I welcome them. And I doubt Canon cares very much. They're low margin products that further enhance the value of the EF mount and could potentially turn casual users into more serious users. They're not even making the 35/2 any more, I doubt Yn's offering is causing any panic in accounting. The 50/1.8 might well be the best selling lens of all time - but again this is a lens that Canon doesn't make much profit off of - the purpose of the lens from a marketing perspective is to give users a good option to move away from the 18-55 their Rebel came with. Canon probably welcomes Yn providing this lens as it provides the same purpose (evolving users, getting them locked in to EF mount) while Canon no longer has to take on as much manufacturing, or support, costs for this lens. The 50mm /1.4 is the only one that I can see the potential for ruffling Canon's feathers a bit.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 5, 2015)

GammyKnee said:


> Personally I think it's good to have another lens manufacturer starting up.



That's right a (really) long time ago, Japanese products were considered 'crap', now they're the summit of quality. Same is starting to become true for Taiwanese and Korean products. Next is China. Mind, we in 'the west' are in a brownfield economy. The bright future is for the 'emerging markets'. Imagine Yongnuo in 2040... maybe they will be the professional's brand of choice by then.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 5, 2015)

DRR said:


> Yongnuo should have invested minimal dollars in an external design to give them their own external "look." Patents or not, 5 blades vs 7, etc. you will always be called a "clone" if your product looks so similar to another.



It seems their marketing people don't think Yn is ready for an identity on its own which would involve higher prices - is it is, Canon does the marketing for them, Yn simply needs to do the copying. You need to have some uniqueness to the lineup like Sigma with their art primes to make the step into the big league.


----------



## PhotosbyChuck (Jan 5, 2015)

DRR said:


> Instead they choose to directly copy, almost exactly, not only the internal design of the Canon lenses but the outside as well. And the perception completely changes.



I don't see a basis for this at all. And again, I'm not a YN fan. I just don't see it.

The lens is not the same internally. The outer design is also different:

1) The Canon has a typical rubberized focus ring in the lens center. The YN appears to have more of a focusing collar from the photo. I'd find that more awkward to use, I think.

2) The AF/MF focus switch will be in a different position on the lens once mounted (judging by the red dot placement relative to the switches). This places the switch close to the lens release button. Again, making the YN more awkward.

3) The lens finish is different. Canon has a matte finish while the YN appears to be smooth.

4) Because it was mentioned, the fonts are both sans serif white on a black lens...but then, that's pretty much a given for any lens. The Canon font is easier to read in my opinion.

5) From the photos posted, the YN lacks a distance/DOF meter altogether. 

Although the lenses look similar, they are not identical inside or out. Now I certainly don't think YN designed this ground up. It does look similar to the Canon lens -- and certainly no one should argue that YN targeted the Canon lens. But it's not simply a clone at all.


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jan 5, 2015)

mrzero said:


> Well, if this keeps up, we may soon see a Yongnuo 24mm 2.8 and/or 28mm 2.8.



Yeah, maybe.
Maybe Canon really add a new 50 1.8 IS anyway this year, so it would be not easy to place the new one for 400€ against the 80€ cheap one, even with IS. But if they don't build it anymore (as 24, 28, 35) Yongnuo can sell them. It's not uncommon, that even the same company did that, to get the whole market, but of course not with the same name. A Canon enthusiast "have to" pay the full price anyway, others can buy cheaper.
Canon and Nikon have a big market, so the market for additional stuff (and even other vendor lenses like Sigma/Tokina/Tamron) add much quality to the camera line, even if its not "original". That is a big plus against Samsung, Sony and so on - currently.
So maybe even Canon don't have something against it...


----------



## futrtrubl (Jan 5, 2015)

DRR said:


> Instead they choose to directly copy, almost exactly, not only the internal design of the Canon lenses but the outside as well.



Perhaps you haven't actually looked at the 35mm lenses then.

People keep talking about the patents and infringement, but the Canon 35mm f2 was made in 1990 so is now no longer protected even if it had the stronger utility patent. Isn't 24 years long enough to recoup your development costs?
Hell, the Canon 50mm f1.8 was DISCONTINUED in 1990. Yongnuo has taken that and produced something cheaper and better (in all ways, from the reviews I have seen) than Canon's plastic replacement.

Edward


----------



## unfocused (Jan 5, 2015)

The big question will be pricing. The Yongnuo 50 f1/8 isn't much cheaper than the Canon. Unless there is a significant price differential (as in less expensive than the used market), I wonder how much demand there will be for these lenses.

Now, to really get the internet juices flowing: how about a Yongnuo APS-H camera body with a Canon mount?


----------



## mdomask (Jan 5, 2015)

Hi, all. I just joined this forum to comment on this, since I work for a company that supports intellectual property research. I'm actually pitching my boss on a white paper that uses YongNuo and these cloned lenses as a case study.

First, determining the status of a patent (active/inactive) is somewhat trickier than it seems. But, based on a few analysis tools on Canon's granted lens patents, it looks like the patents for a lot of old Canon lenses are probably expired at this point. This includes the 50 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 35 f/2, the old 20-35... pretty much anything patented in the early 90's or before.

It looks like a lot of these patents just cover the elements, their grouping, and how they bend light. The drawings in the patents are pretty much identical to the block diagrams on Canon's site with additional details about how each element bends light, etc.. Some of the patents cover image stabilization for a particular lens. So, YN can copy this portion of the lens design without running into any IP issues.

None of the patents cover things like external design or autofocus. (There are many separate patents for various autofocus technologies, though, some of which have likely expired.) However, exterior design can be controlled through copyright (in some cases) or trademark (much more likely). For example, I'm pretty sure no one can use the exact color of red ring that Canon uses due to trademark concerns. I wouldn't be surprised if there were trademarks on some of the external designs, too. This is where YN may get into trouble, because their designs pretty clearly mimic the Canon designs and could cause market confusion. (Trademarks have an indefinite length, because it's silly for say Coca Cola to lose use of their name just because a certain length of time passed.)

There's a lot of other expired Canon lens patents out there that companies could use to make lenses. Odds are that YN chose these ones for marketability and because factories are already tooled to make these lenses for Canon, Nikon, etc. But, patent concerns shouldn't be an issue for any of these lenses. From what I can tell, they're all well expired. For example, the US patent for the 50 f/1.4 expired 18 years ago!


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 5, 2015)

Welcome, that's great information!



mdomask said:


> This is where YN may get into trouble, because their designs pretty clearly mimic the Canon designs and could cause market confusion. (Trademarks have an indefinite length, because it's silly for say Coca Cola to lose use of their name just because a certain length of time passed.)



Do you expect for Canon to go for that, or will they simply ignore Yn copying their ancient lens' look because suing them will be bad publicity and might not even be a safe bet? After all, Canon's recent kit, "red" L or "golden" lenses look very different from say the 50/1.8.



mdomask said:


> For example, I'm pretty sure no one can use the exact color of red ring that Canon uses due to trademark concerns.



Oh well, that's modern society for you, the red ring "red" looks rather generic to me. Reminds me of a German telco enterprise suing everyone and their cat for using their kind of pink. Take this, company-I-won't name-here  :


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 5, 2015)

hehe Marsu, full ACK! And btw ... that nasty magenta really sucks! 8)

Looking forward to what Nikon lens Yongnuo will take on first. they already said, they'll "also do" Nikon lenses. 

Actuallly I would not mind a Yongnuo AF 135/2.0 NON-L ... for say € 299,- ... the Canon EF 135/2.0 L patent has probably also expired some time ago ...


----------



## mdomask (Jan 5, 2015)

Marsu42 said:


> Welcome, that's great information!


Thanks for the welcome!



mdomask said:


> This is where YN may get into trouble, because their designs pretty clearly mimic the Canon designs and could cause market confusion. (Trademarks have an indefinite length, because it's silly for say Coca Cola to lose use of their name just because a certain length of time passed.)



Do you expect for Canon to go for that, or will they simply ignore Yn copying their ancient lens' look because suing them will be bad publicity and might not even be a safe bet? After all, Canon's recent kit, "red" L or "golden" lenses look very different from say the 50/1.8.
[/quote]
Who knows? There's probably some team at Canon running the numbers on whether or not it's worth it to pursue Yn. Samsung v Apple dragged out for years in courts on multiple continents. I really don't know if Canon is the kind of company that files suit on principal or files suit only when it's "worth it" on the bottom line.



mdomask said:


> For example, I'm pretty sure no one can use the exact color of red ring that Canon uses due to trademark concerns.



Oh well, that's modern society for you, the red ring "red" looks rather generic to me. Reminds me of a German telco enterprise suing everyone and their cat for using their kind of pink. Take this, company-I-won't name-here  :
[/img]
[/quote]
My company has a few trademarked colors of our own, so no comment 



AvTvM said:


> hehe Marsu, full ACK! And btw ... that nasty magenta really sucks! 8)
> 
> Looking forward to what Nikon lens Yongnuo will take on first. they already said, they'll "also do" Nikon lenses.
> 
> Actuallly I would not mind a Yongnuo AF 135/2.0 NON-L ... for say € 299,- ... the Canon EF 135/2.0 L patent has probably also expired some time ago ...


I think I saw the "medium telephoto wide aperture" patent on my list while doing research... a lot of the patents aren't for specific focal lengths, but rather for elements/groups that can be combined to make lenses with a specific aperture. For example, I saw one patent for an optical system for an f/2.8 lens at several lengths (including 24 and 28)


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 5, 2015)

mdomask said:


> Who knows? There's probably some team at Canon running the numbers on whether or not it's worth it to pursue Yn. Samsung v Apple dragged out for years in courts on multiple continents. I really don't know if Canon is the kind of company that files suit on principal or files suit only when it's "worth it" on the bottom line.



I doubt it. Steve Jobs declared nuclear war on Samsung, but if Canon takes on Yn they're admitting that they pose a threat - either strategically or by drawing a lot of sales. Unless I'm missing something, the smart reaction is to ignore it, it's not like Yn is grabbing a core market like with a 5d3 clone.

That's because the natural reaction of customers would be a) interest: What's so great about Yn? Lemme try some! and b) loss of repuration: Goliath tries to stomp poor David, producing cheap lenses for those poor Chinese kids not being able to afford the fancy Japanese high-tech.


----------



## miah (Jan 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> miah said:
> 
> 
> > If it doesn't infringe or it merely "infringes" an expired patent,
> ...



Obviously, dilbert, that's why I put "infringes" in quotes.


----------



## martti (Jan 7, 2015)

I could very well see the Chinese buying Nikon and moving the production lines to China.
They have done this on several other branches of industry already. They just buy the factory, all its machines and the intellectual material that they consider worth it. And two years later they have the production up and running, killing off competition with their subsidized prices.
Yongnuo's two Canon clones are just an indication that they have the know how to run optical companies. Their commercial value as such is not of much relevance.


----------



## hgraf (Jan 7, 2015)

KAS said:


> lol. And you just know it will be built to last.
> 
> I would not recommend anybody buy this.



Have you ever used a Yongnuo product? If not, then I don't see why your recommendation would be worth anything.

FWIW, I HAVE some Yongnuo products, and all I can say is that they are VERY well built, and seem to hold up perfectly well for amateur use. The speedlight clones I use have never let me down, and the Yongnuo (damn that's hard for me to spell...) wireless flash remotes haven't caused me any problems either.

Early reports for the 50mm clone show it to me minimally as optically as good as the Canon, and better in many ways. Granted, the plastic fantastic isn't the paramount of build quality, but for amateurs it's more then good enough. Hell, my plastic fantastic has taken a beating and still works perfectly great.

I for one welcome this lens. If it's optically similar to the Canon equivalent it will be an absolute home run. The 50 and 40mm lenses from Canon are too narrow for crop users in many situations, 35mm is much more useful.

Plus, on top of this, I personally believe that the "big guys" need a kick in the bum, they've been releasing lackluster products for years. Sony has been doing a great job lately of showing what can be done on the higher end, and if Yongnuo can get things moving on the cheap glass side I'm all for it.

TTYL


----------



## Khufu (Jan 8, 2015)

If Yongnuo can wire/chip these things to fit and autofocus with Sony's a7 series' FE mount they'll make a killing selling them "10 for the price of 1!" relative to anything else what-so-ever that's available... and they're a faster lens!


----------

