# Notice: Caution Regarding Counterfeit Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 15, 2016)

```
Thank you for using Canon products.</p>
<p align="left">It has come to our attention that there are instances of counterfeit EF 50mm f/1.8 II lenses for digital SLR cameras being brought into Canon service centers for repair. These counterfeit products have neither  been designed nor manufactured by Canon, yet they fraudulently display the Canon logo and other Canon trademarks, and, as illegal products, they infringe on Canon Inc.’s trademark rights. Canon has taken a strong stance in eradicating these counterfeit products which infringe on the intellectual property rights of our company.</p>
<p align="left">While the exterior of the counterfeit EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens elaborately imitates the exterior of the genuine lens, the parts and electric circuits used inside the counterfeit lens are different from the those used inside the genuine lens. As such, these counterfeit products do not satisfy the safety standards of various countries and the safety/quality standards of Canon. Please note that Canon cannot be held liable for any malfunction, phenomena, damage or injury that occurs due to the use of these counterfeit products, so please exercise caution when making your purchase.</p>
<p align="left">We truly appreciate your continued patronage of Canon products.</p>
<p align="left"><!--more--></p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Exterior differences</strong></p>
<p align="left">See below for the differences between genuine and counterfeit products that have been confirmed as of now and that can be identified by customers.</p>
<p align="left">Please review the location of the Company Name on the mount with the lens cap removed as indicated in the image below.</p>
<p align="left"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ef50_lens.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-27676" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ef50_lens.jpg" alt="ef50_lens" width="244" height="248" /></a></p>
<table border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top">Genuine</td>
<td>Counterfeit</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ef50_genuine.jpg"><img class="aligncenter wp-image-27677 size-thumbnail" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ef50_genuine-168x168.jpg" alt="ef50_genuine" width="168" height="168" /></a>

There is a space between “CANON” and “INC.”</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p align="left">The company name is shown in either printed or molded letters (two types exist).</p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ef50_fake.jpg"><img class="aligncenter wp-image-27678 size-thumbnail" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/ef50_fake-168x168.jpg" alt="ef50_fake" width="168" height="168" /></a>

There is no space between “CANON” and “INC.”</p>
<hr />
<p><strong>Support</strong></p>
<div>
<p align="left">If you have not already done so, <a href="https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/registration">please register your Canon Product</a>. By registering, we will be able to notify you via email about future announcements.</p>
<p align="left">This information is for residents of the United States and its five territories only. If you do not reside in the USA or its five territories, please contact the Canon Customer Support Center in your region.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Thank you,

Customer Support Operations

Canon U.S.A., Inc</p>
<table border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"><strong>Contact Information for Inquiries</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">Canon Customer Support Center</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Phone:</td>
<td>1-855-46-CANON</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>Monday-Friday from 8:00am – Midnight EST</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Email:</td>
<td><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">Support options and hours of operation: <a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/support">www.usa.canon.com/support</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Regarding counterfeit products, there is various information on our Web site. Please access the link below for additional information.

<a href="https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/explore/product-showcases/about-counterfeits" target="_blank">https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/explore/product-showcases/about-counterfeits</a></p>
</div>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Dec 15, 2016)

I wonder if this is basically the Yongnuo 50/1.8 with a different exterior to create a forgery - which will sell for more than double the price of the Yongnuo? It's hard to imagine anybody creating a forgery from scratch, but a few exterior components to fit around an existing, legitimate, very low cost lens - could easily happen.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 15, 2016)

Steve Balcombe said:


> I wonder if this is basically the Yongnuo 50/1.8 with a different exterior to create a forgery - which will sell for more than double the price of the Yongnuo? It's hard to imagine anybody creating a forgery from scratch, but a few exterior components to fit around an existing, legitimate, very low cost lens - could easily happen.



that's exactly what I think it is.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 15, 2016)

I wonder if the innards are the same as the Yongnuo 50mm lens?


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 15, 2016)

Guess I wasn't alone 

One thing I've noticed is that the Yongnuo 50mm doesn't play well with the Metabones adaptor on the Sony A7RII whereas the real Canon 50mm f/1.8 II works fine.


----------



## Ryananthony (Dec 15, 2016)

What happens to the fakes that are unknowingly brought to canon for repair? Do they get returned to sender? Confiscated, and destroyed?


----------



## jtaylor2 (Dec 15, 2016)

Even the official 50 1.8 II's feel like a cheap counterfeit of some sort.


----------



## RTPVid (Dec 15, 2016)

Isn't that a bit like counterfeiting $1 bills?


----------



## Joe M (Dec 15, 2016)

RTPVid said:


> Isn't that a bit like counterfeiting $1 bills?



That's what I was thinking. What is the profit margin on counterfeiting this already low-priced lens? I guess it never occurred to whomever that they might want to make some 24-70 2.8s or 70-200 2.8s and so on instead. Lucky for us they don't (I hope) but in the end, I guess it's a lesson to always buy from trusted sources.


----------



## LordofTackle (Dec 15, 2016)

Joe M said:


> RTPVid said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that a bit like counterfeiting $1 bills?
> ...



Well, as someone pointed out, this is probably a Yongnuo with different shell. So rather easy to do. To make a forgery of the much more advanced 70-200 or 24-70 would be magnitudes more difficult. And I guess rather easy to identify for (semi)pros who already had such lenses in their hands..


----------



## Ryananthony (Dec 15, 2016)

LordofTackle said:


> Joe M said:
> 
> 
> > RTPVid said:
> ...



Yea, there may not be a big profit margin, but at least there is a knockoff to recase. How would someone make a counterfeit big white, or even one the fast zooms? Try and recase a Tamron or sigma? I don't see that working well.


----------



## Joe M (Dec 15, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


> LordofTackle said:
> 
> 
> > Joe M said:
> ...



Sigh, yes I know. Was just saying that I'll never understand the amount of effort someone will go through to make a few bucks, as easy as it may be.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Dec 15, 2016)

Due to the odd formatting of the announcement, I can't tell if the real Canon lens has a space in the company name or not.

Can anyone tell?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 15, 2016)

drmikeinpdx said:


> Due to the odd formatting of the announcement, I can't tell if the real Canon lens has a space in the company name or not.
> 
> Can anyone tell?


Yes, the original Canon has a space between the words "Canon inc".


----------



## slclick (Dec 15, 2016)

There should be an option for those who submit their lens to have it replaced at a special cost. Say $50 USD


----------



## slclick (Dec 15, 2016)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> drmikeinpdx said:
> 
> 
> > Due to the odd formatting of the announcement, I can't tell if the real Canon lens has a space in the company name or not.
> ...


----------



## Old Sarge (Dec 15, 2016)

slclick said:


> There should be an option for those who submit their lens to have it replaced at a special cost. Say $50 USD


Why?


----------



## mitchel2002 (Dec 15, 2016)

jtaylor2 said:


> Even the official 50 1.8 II's feel like a cheap counterfeit of some sort.


+1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 15, 2016)

Old Sarge said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > There should be an option for those who submit their lens to have it replaced at a special cost. Say $50 USD
> ...



Because someone else should always pay for your mistakes, right? :

Actually, that makes sense if you bought a counterfeit lens from a Canon Authorized dealer. If you bought it on fleeBay, you're SOL for good reason.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 16, 2016)

I wonder what the lens reports itself as in the EXIF data?


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 16, 2016)

AlanF said:


> I wonder what the lens reports itself as in the EXIF data?



probably the same lens codexas the Sigma Art and the Zeiss Otus. ;-)


----------



## Khufu (Dec 16, 2016)

I'd be willing to bet that most of the lens casing pieces came out of the exact same factory as those of the legitimate models. 

Canon: "bang out another 10,000 cheap, plastic cases, worker-monkies!"
Underpaid victims of globalisation: "Sure. Here are the requested 10,000 of the 15,000 crap plastic things we just machined..."


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 16, 2016)

Joe M said:


> RTPVid said:
> 
> 
> > Isn't that a bit like counterfeiting $1 bills?
> ...



The odds are that the lenses can be had for almost nothing. The Chinese can turn out plastics for amazingly low cost. So, there is a big enough markup to get a reasonable profit. Remember, just a few dollars goes a long way in China. Counterfeit operations churn out a batch, then move to a new location and make another hundred or two. Buyers on ebay jump on the low price, just like counterfeit batteries and memory cards.

I did spot one on ebay selling for $25.99 from China. Its now been removed by ebay. There will be more. There are plenty of well known legitimate lens sellers on ebay, the counterfeiters feed on greed.


----------



## Joe M (Dec 16, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Joe M said:
> 
> 
> > RTPVid said:
> ...



Indeed. It will of course depend upon how many they can make as to how worthwhile their efforts are. Obviously to someone it was worth it, and these lenses would stay under the radar, at least until now. I'm just of the mentality that if you're going to do something, go big. I mean, would you rather shoot 100 weddings at $1000 each or 2 at $50k each? 

And I hear you about the memory cards. After currency, I'd wager them to be one of the most faked items out there.


----------



## slclick (Dec 16, 2016)

Old Sarge said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > There should be an option for those who submit their lens to have it replaced at a special cost. Say $50 USD
> ...


Because they intended to buy Canon, because they were duped and at that pricepoint it's a win win. I'm not saying Canon owes these folks anything, that's ridiculous but they could go above and beyond here.....I'm sick of people questioning good deeds.Sorry but I just got out of a homeless shelter NIMBY debate.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2016)

slclick said:


> Because they intended to buy Canon, because they were duped...









I think that's kinder than the other quote (mis)attributed to Mr. Phineas Taylor B.




Mt Spokane Photography said:


> ...the counterfeiters feed on greed.



Exactly. And folks like that are likely born even more frequently than one every minute.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 16, 2016)

slclick said:


> Old Sarge said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Good deeds are a great thing, trouble is quick witted tricksters are normally faster on their feed than the truthfully needy.

In your scenario I can envision the unscrupulous counterfeit manufacturer dumping his stock on Canon and getting genuine lenses in 'trade'. That's the way those people work :-(


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > Because they intended to buy Canon, because they were duped...
> ...



"I intended to buy a real Rolex from the street vendor for $100. Sent it to Rolex for service and it turns out my watch was a fake. Rolex should recognize my intent and that I am a good person... and lose all possible profit to make me whole, because I'm a good guy. Rolex should do the same for the thousands of other well intentioned good (read greedy and stupid) people out there too. Rolex can pass on the costs (losses) to the people who pay full price for the real thing. Why? Because those people obviously can afford it and got their money by stepping on the backs of the little guy."


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 16, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> "There is no space between “CANON” and “INC.”



Kudos to Canon for releasing pictures to identify the fakes. Not all companies do this because they fear more that counterfeiters will take note and make "better" copies, than they are interested in protecting potential buyers from scams.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 16, 2016)

I blame not only criminal counterfeiters and greedy, stupid buyers but to some extent also CANON INC. for incidents like these.

Canon could and should do more to ensure (honest!) customers get the real thing. 

1. Serial Number on lens barrel 
not sure whether Canon puts one on EF 50/1.8 II. If yes, it makes counterfeiting more difficult: either the bad guys produce cheaply a run of lenses with all copies carrying the same serial # - much easier to be identify. Or they need to add that extra manufacturing step and mold or engrave unique serial # to each copy, lowering profit of their venture and making it easier to pint out serial # range affected. 

2. Canon Date Code 
as second factor of authenticity and valuable information to first buyer and to second-hand byuers, should be included on any genuine Canon EF, EF-S, AF-M lens. 

3. Serial # and Lens Date Code in embedded lens chip firmware
should be incldued in lens chip. Camera body should show "error 99" or even preferrably "lens not recognized" upon attaching lens to body. That way, buyers could test immediately upon receipt of lens. If error shows up ... the problem 

4. Proper sealing on every genuine Canon camera and lens outer packaging
Why are original Canon boxes not sealed? Nothing at all, including expensive cameras, expensive L lenses, expensive speedlites. Nothing, nada. That would not provide additional protection against counterfeiting but also help to ensure legit buyers receive factory-new products if they have purchased and paid for "new product". Canon should really ramp up its efforts in this respect. They should be doing what e.g. Apple and other "valuable brand/valuable item" companies are doing. 

Yes, here we are talking about the lowest price EF lens here. But it applies to the entire line of Canon (stills) imaging products and there is much at stake: customer TRUST and Band Value. 

Furthermore, while no 100% protection against counterfeit products, these 4 measures combined would make it much easier for Canon to identify where counterfeit warez come from ... especially if and which sub-suppliers may have been involved in a scam and where/how a possible leak has occurred. 

And if the 4 measures above would mean Canon adding an extra USD/€ 5 to MSRPs for any lens and camera, it would still be worth it. It would not cost them any legit sales ... even when the "lowly" EF 50/1.8 I would retail for 124 instead of 119 or so. And on 1000+ items, those 5 bucks should be swallowed by Canon out of their gross margin.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 16, 2016)

As far as handling of detected counterfeit copies of a lens brought in for service goes, I have no inside knowledge. However, in all EU countries there is a mandatory legal obligation to confiscate (and destroy) counterfeit warez wherever and whenever detected. Without any compensation for owner - no matter whether buyer was "duped" or "just plain stupid and greedy".

If I were responsible at Canon (or any other affected company) I would put something like the following policy in effect:

IF counterfeit product was 
1. hard to detect for normal buyers in terms of 
1.a. product itself [as is the case for these EF 50/1.8 II copies only identifyable by a missing space between CANON _ INC] 
AND 
1.b in terms of sales channel/point of purchase ... Canon authorized Re-Seller? amazon? ebay? flea market ? ... 

AND IF 
2. price paid was "reasonably close" to regular "street price" [e.g. within say 10%] 
... as has been the case many times with counterfeit "Canon LiIon batteries" that were sold at or near original product MSRP (got one of those myself once via amazon marketplace seller - could return it for full refund after some emailing back and forth) 

THEN [and ONLY THEN ]

*Canon should offer some form of "goodwill", e.g. an offer of 25% instant rebate if duped customers turns in the counterfeit product and decides to purchase original item from a Canon Authorized Reseller. 
*

Limited to 1 copy of any affected product per customer.  

But ... stupid Canon.


----------



## ExodistPhotography (Dec 16, 2016)

Well legally Canoninc or CANONINC. Does not equal Canon Inc. Its a completely different name. However trying to make a product look exactly like another product and have similar logo's is a nasty grey area and it boils down to who ever has enough lawyers and money will determine who is right or wrong. 

That said, Canon has no right to destroy another persons property. They however do have the right to refuse service to the person who purchased the generic item. Then let the person take it up with the company they bought it from.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> As far as handling of detected counterfeit copies of a lens brought in for service goes, I have no inside knowledge. However, in all EU countries there is a mandatory legal obligation to confiscate (and destroy) counterfeit warez wherever and whenever detected. Without any compensation for owner - no matter whether buyer was "duped" or "just plain stupid and greedy".
> 
> If I were responsible at Canon (or any other affected company) I would put something like the following policy in effect:
> 
> ...



No... Stupid AvTvM.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 16, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


I'd say it more politely:

If a customer is not willing to buy at a approved and reliable retailer why should the manufacturer be charged for that by offering a rebate?


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 16, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...


*

Would you care to please read my posting first before answering? Slowly and carefully, so you understand it?

Take note of the CONDITIONS I have specified under which *I* would make a voluntary offer to "truly duped" customers, if I were in charge for it at Canon.*


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...


*
I did and I did and I did.




Take note of the CONDITIONS I have specified under which *I* would make a voluntary offer to "truly duped" customers, if I were in charge for it at Canon.

Click to expand...

Even under these conditions I don't see a reason to do so.
Even If your condition 1b. was true then the retailer would be the one in charge but not the manufacturer.
Okay?

Edit:
And even if it would happen, that e.g. amazon did sell you a counterfeit product, don't you think that they would replace it or give you the money back?*


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 16, 2016)

Retailer should also be involved. 

But again, Canon is in first line. Especially, since they are not taking all 4 easy measures I listed to make counterfeiting their products more difficult and/or easier to detect for potential buyers. 

Making a voluntary offer under specific conditions - as outlined by me - would be a very good way to turn a very unpleasant situation for [honest!] buyers into a more positive experience.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Retailer should also be involved.
> 
> But again, Canon is in first line. Especially, since they are not taking all 4 easy measures I listed to make counterfeiting their products more difficult and/or easier to detect for potential buyers.
> 
> Making a voluntary offer under specific conditions - as outlined by me - would be a very good way to turn a very unpleasant situation for [honest!] buyers into a more positive experience.


Maybe if you add condition 3.:
_3. And in addition the (once) reliable retailer became insolvent at the time he was charged_
I probably could agree, because it would be nice for us customers, but... 

Still there is the question why a *approved and reliable* retailer should get used to supplier channels that offer him false/counterfeit products?


And now I am willing to face reality:
Can you offer me at least one comparable example where this already had happened?
So where a international manufacturer was willing to compensate customers for things he wasn't responsible for?


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 16, 2016)

Again, there are many credible reports of people having received what turned out to be counterfeit "Canon" LiIon batteries even from reputable dealers. Of course, dealer should take them back and refund. 

If I were Canon I would still make a voluntary offer when the conditions I outlined apply, assuming that most of the buyers are sincerely interested to acquire a specific Canon product. It is just an excellent sales opportunity: *To make you forget your disappointment, we make you a very special offer to get a GENUINE Canon brand product. Guaranteed!"  8)

Even if they sell with 25% discount. Could be a lower or higher percentage too, details can of course vary, depending on product and circumstances.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> ...
> It is just an excellent sales opportunity: *To make you forget your disappointment, we make you a very special offer to get a GENUINE Canon brand product. Guaranteed!"  8)
> ...


I don't know (on business point of view) how this could be _an excellent sales opportunity_. 
The customers were betrayed by the retailers and/or their middlemen. Not by Canon itself. 
And if Canon is trying to protect their goods people are also complaining, see the conversation on Sigma AF or on batteries communicating with the Camera.
Why and how should Canon Inc. (or their local sales deps.) compensate that by not losing their own profit?

The responsible people are not on the payroll of Canon. 

And the customers (your?) point of view _"Give me the best of all - best for free!"_ will not pay the incomes of any person on any company's payroll.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> I blame not only criminal counterfeiters and greedy, stupid buyers but to some extent also CANON INC. for incidents like these.
> 
> Canon could and should do more to ensure (honest!) customers get the real thing.
> 
> ...



Hardly comes any easier than the photo Canon released? I know what I would look for, and its not a number somewhere.



AvTvM said:


> 2. Canon Date Code
> as second factor of authenticity and valuable information to first buyer and to second-hand byuers, should be included on any genuine Canon EF, EF-S, AF-M lens.



If - a big if - people have a clue about this the counterfeiters will know even better how to replicate this.



AvTvM said:


> 3. Serial # and Lens Date Code in embedded lens chip firmware
> should be incldued in lens chip. Camera body should show "error 99" or even preferrably "lens not recognized" upon attaching lens to body. That way, buyers could test immediately upon receipt of lens. If error shows up ... the problem



Yeah - lets kill all the Sigma / Tamron / Zeiss alternatives. :



AvTvM said:


> 4. Proper sealing on every genuine Canon camera and lens outer packaging
> Why are original Canon boxes not sealed?


Hardly a measure against fakes?

Overall, your suggestions do not make much sense to me with regard to the problem we are facing with the fake 50mm f/1.8 lenses out there.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 16, 2016)

A. Canon is also very much responsible! Because they are not even implementing all of the 4 easy measured I have listed previously to protect their products against counterfeiting and their brand value and customer trust.

1. serial number on every product. prominently. non-removable.
2. date code on every product
3. chip + protective firmware in every product, 
4. fully sealed packaging

Sales opportunity: all honest, duped customers have a 100% confirmed and immediate interest to buy a specific Canon product. But they have been disappointed by the experience of getting a counterfeit product and maybe no full refund or no refund at all. This is one of the very best sales situations you can get as a seller. All that's needed is a message "we sympathize with you", "we do everything to earn your trust" and "we have the pleasure to make you a *very special offer* to now get the REAL DEAL, a GENUINE Canon product. GUARANTEED. Available NOW, at any of our authorized Re-Sellers."


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 16, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> Overall, your suggestions do not make much sense to me with regard to the problem we are facing with the fake 50mm f/1.8 lenses out there.



They do. 

How much easier is it to counterfeit a product without consecutive serial number on it, without second code etched/stamped/engraved, without chip/firmware protection, without sealed package ... compared to a product that has all of these measures in place? 

How much easier is it to detect countrerfeit products with these measures in place?

How much easier is it, to give specific notice to customers and/or to handle notice/product recalls etc. with these measures implemented, rather than not present?

If you fail to see this, I cannot help you. Sorry.


----------



## hbr (Dec 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Overall, your suggestions do not make much sense to me with regard to the problem we are facing with the fake 50mm f/1.8 lenses out there.
> ...



It seems to me that Canon offering a rebate to these customers would only encourage the counterfeiters, distributors and sellers. So let's buy up 1000 of these, turn them into Canon and get a genuine product in exchange at a reduced price. One could make a lot of money doing this and reselling the genuine product on ebay.

The one idea I do like is that Canon place a chip inside each product that would identify it if it were stolen and then taken to a pawn shop. I believe that most pawn shops have some type of rf scanners.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Dec 16, 2016)

Have to agree what on earth is the point of counterfeiting the cheapest possible lens which is already totally affordable to those who buy DSLRs anyway. Having owned a couple many moons ago - both broke within months so even the genuine ones are not exactly great !

Wedding Photographer North East & Yorkshire Northumberland & Wedding Photographer Cumbria


----------



## hbr (Dec 16, 2016)

If you go to any Asian country you will find millions of counterfeit items, from fake Rolex watches, Louis Vuitton purses and fake CD's/DVDs. A week after Disney releases a movie there are millions of low quality copies being sold in the shops and by street vendors. The giveaway is the low prices, ($1000 Rolex selling for $150.00, for example). Usually you get what you pay for.
So even if the counterfeiter only makes a couple of dollars off of each item, that could amount to millions in profit for him.
The proper steps to take would be for the customer to take the item up with the seller to get his money back and report the seller to the proper authorities.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 16, 2016)

hbr said:


> It seems to me that Canon offering a rebate to these customers would only encourage the counterfeiters, distributors and sellers. So let's buy up 1000 of these, turn them into Canon and get a genuine product in exchange at a reduced price. One could make a lot of money doing this and reselling the genuine product on ebay.



In case you did not notice: that's why I would limit such an offer to 1 copy of a given lens per customer. 

But more important would be Canon stepping up its effort to protect their products against counterfeitng in the first place.


----------



## hbr (Dec 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that Canon offering a rebate to these customers would only encourage the counterfeiters, distributors and sellers. So let's buy up 1000 of these, turn them into Canon and get a genuine product in exchange at a reduced price. One could make a lot of money doing this and reselling the genuine product on ebay.
> ...



I fully understand your point. A nice gesture is a nice gesture, but

1) the sheer number of these knock-offs could be magnitudes higher than the legitimate items thus negating any profits Canon makes on the legitimate lenses.

2) Canon's customers that purchased their legitimate items from an authorized seller and paid the full price would feel ripped off and might leave Canon.

3) Does Canon offer the same rebates on all the knock-off batteries and battery chargers?

4) What happens when the items are no longer cheap lenses but expensive cameras and lenses?

Your idea would set a precedent that is unheard of. When an individual purchases an item from a non-authorized dealer so as not to have to pay the price that the authorized dealers are asking, he know the risk he is taking. It is that simple.

Again, you get what you pay for.


----------



## rrcphoto (Dec 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > It seems to me that Canon offering a rebate to these customers would only encourage the counterfeiters, distributors and sellers. So let's buy up 1000 of these, turn them into Canon and get a genuine product in exchange at a reduced price. One could make a lot of money doing this and reselling the genuine product on ebay.
> ...



Except the 50mm 1.8 II is no longer made.

So is a time machine in the AvTvM Universe™ as well?

Also serial numbers. I had to laugh at that. How is a consumer going to know if they duplicated a random serial number? buy 3 and check?

but yes.. stupid canon for creating the most successful mount in the history of photography that gets other companies attempting to illegally profit with counterfeit equipment.

I'm curious.. does the US federal reserve do this with counterfeit money? if so .. please hang on .. I'm busy I need to get printing.


----------



## hbr (Dec 16, 2016)

So to save some money you purchase your ticket to a football game from a street vendor instead of an authorized ticket seller and when you arrive at the gate you find out that the ticket is fake. Is the team owner of the team that you are rooting for feel sorry for you and offer you a rebate on a legitimate ticket?

AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 16, 2016)

In answer to the questions about what Canon should do if someone unwittingly sends one in for repair - the answer is simple. Canon have no alternative but to keep and destroy the lens as it's illegal to knowingly send counterfeit items through the post.

On the plus side here's a fun trick for everyone:

If you see one of these fake lenses being sold on ebay, buy it. Then once you receive it report it to ebay as a counterfeit (with evidence, of course). Ebay's policies are quite strict on this. You will get your money refunded and you do NOT have to return the item (in fact, as mentioned above, it's illegal for you to even try). 

So you'll get a fake 50mm lens for free.

Have a handful of counterfeit Transcend memory cards in the past that I ended up keeping because of this (although they were actually far too slow to be useful!)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 1. serial number on every product. prominently. non-removable.
> 2. date code on every product
> 3. chip + protective firmware in every product,
> 4. fully sealed packaging



LOL. 

Yeah, counterfeiters can't print numbers on lenses. My 3 year old can put glue and stickers on cardboard boxes, so I suspect counterfeiters could figure that one out, too. As for 'protective chip + firmware', did you just suggest that Canon lock out all third-party lenses to prevent them from functioning on Canon bodies?  Regardless, YN reverse-engineered Canon's RT protocols and could almost certainly do the same for lens firmware. The guts of the lens in question are likely YN-made, but in any case _unless_ Canon locks out all 3rd party lenses it and other counterfeits would work, and how many would notice something else in the EXIF, especially if it showed up as a Cańon lens?).


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 16, 2016)

rrcphoto said:


> Except the 50mm 1.8 II is no longer made.
> 
> So is a time machine in the AvTvM Universe™ as well?
> 
> Also serial numbers. I had to laugh at that. How is a consumer going to know if they duplicated a random serial number? buy 3 and check?



In case you have not noticed, Mr. Smartass: this warning and thread is about EF 50/1.8 II ... in Canon Universe, not mine. http://www.canonrumors.com/service-notice-caution-regarding-counterfeit-canon-ef-50mm-f1-8-ii-lenses/


With a unique serial number on every lens, counterfeiters have 2 choices:
a) make a batch run of their warez, all having the same serial number
b) invest more time and money to put unique serial numbers on each copy (=a deterring factor)

When the first counterfeit products appear, Canon can provide a more specific warning notice "affected serial # range from x to y ... or "no serial number on lens" ... etc. ... that (potential) buyers can use to check authenticity of the product they bought or are about to buy. 

Way more helpful than solely relying on counterfeiters mistake of missing space between CANON _ INC. What happens, if the bad guys now correct that one last mistake on their production run? 

All of the 4 measures I listed used in combination would make it extremely more difficult to counterfeit Canon products without much of an increase in production cost [which could be passed on to customers fully or pratly]. Would be well worth it.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, counterfeiters can't print numbers on lenses. My 3 year old can put glue and stickers on cardboard boxes, so I suspect counterfeiters could figure that one out, too. As for 'protective chip + firmware', did you just suggest that Canon lock out all third-party lenses to prevent them from functioning on Canon bodies?  Regardless, YN reverse-engineered Canon's RT protocols and could almost certainly do the same for lens firmware. The guts of the lens in question are likely YN-made, but in any case _unless_ Canon locks out all 3rd party lenses it and other counterfeits would work, and how many would notice something else in the EXIF, especially if it showed up as a Cańon lens?).



Of course good counterfeiters can counterfeit also those 4 items I mention. BUT combo of all 4 makes it a hell of a lot more difficult. 

And Canon could determine much more easily if the scam involves one (or more) of their own suppliers / partners along the entire supply chain and the entire sales/logistics chain. 

e.g. it makes a difference, whether there are NO s/Ns on the counterfeit products or an invalid range or an already used range of S/Ns or if all copis found bear the same S/N. That's why banknotes DO carry serial numbers. Unless the notes are from your monopoly game set ..


----------



## hbr (Dec 16, 2016)

The best way is still to purchase your items from an authorized Canon dealer. You know that they are purchasing directly from Canon. Also people trying to save a few dollars can easily get themselves in trouble. I wouldn't pay several thousand dollars for a top of the line camera and try to save twenty or thirty dollars on cheap batteries and chargers. Yet, I see it happening all the time.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Dec 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> 1. serial number on every product. prominently. non-removable.


Every Canon lens I've owned has a serial number on the body or mount, engraved/laser etched, not printed. (I agree it would be helpful if they were easier to read.)



AvTvM said:


> 2. date code on every product


What would that achieve? Just copy a date from one genuine lens.



AvTvM said:


> 3. chip + protective firmware in every product,


Actually you previously said: "3. Serial # and Lens Date Code in embedded lens chip firmware".
The serial number *is* embedded in the firmware. I haven't checked if this is true for every model, but I've seen it many times in EXIF data.
The date code would be pointless.



AvTvM said:


> 4. fully sealed packaging


Good idea, they probably don't have Sellotape in China.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Regardless, YN reverse-engineered Canon's RT protocols and could almost certainly do the same for lens firmware.



My suspicion is more that YN bought the latest version of the Camera/Lens data communications protocol manual from Canon. It is in Canon's best interest that their bodies work as well as possible with third party lenses, so it makes sense that they would make the manual(s) available.


----------



## slclick (Dec 16, 2016)

Ok, I get it, not a good idea for Canon to offer/give/trade anything.

But I still think they need a Golden Ticket contest and if you win make sure you don't give your 50L IS to Slugworth.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 16, 2016)

Steve Balcombe said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > 1. serial number on every product. prominently. non-removable.
> ...



2 unique identifiers per copy = similar to 2 factor authorization = makes it harder to counterfeit. Plus the date code on lenses [should also go on cameras please!] is/was REALLY useful for informed customers, both new and even more so for 2nd hand lens transactions (buy & sell).

Counterfeiters then have the choice to 
1) put nothing on lens, no S/N, no Date Code = easiest and cheapest to produce, but easily identified as fake
2) put the same 2 numbers on every lens = easy and cheap to produce, but warning notice will be very specific 
3) put 2 unique numbers/codes on every copy they make = more effort, time, money. Also: WHAT numbers and codes to chose? Makes it easier to provide specific warning to potential buyers. 

Just think if you were trying to counterfeit Canon lenses, which approach would you chose? What are pros and cons ... if you imagine you are Canon, do the same, just think about exact opposite. 

S/N in firmware: yes for newer lenses. Don't know if all or not. No idea for 50/1.8 II ... don't have one in possession. But there are reports about S/N in EXIF being "wiped" = only zeroes ... 


PS: if it were useless, why do most serious currencies have unique serial numbers on every banknote? Even the pretty weakly counterfeit protected US dollar notes ... https://www.moneyfactory.gov/resources/serialnumbers.html  

PPS: no, neither Neuro nor his daughter/s could easily counterfeit all 4 items combined i listed. Well Neuro just might, he is a resourceful type ... ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, counterfeiters can't print numbers on lenses. My 3 year old can put glue and stickers on cardboard boxes, so I suspect counterfeiters could figure that one out, too. As for 'protective chip + firmware', did you just suggest that Canon lock out all third-party lenses to prevent them from functioning on Canon bodies?  Regardless, YN reverse-engineered Canon's RT protocols and could almost certainly do the same for lens firmware. The guts of the lens in question are likely YN-made, but in any case _unless_ Canon locks out all 3rd party lenses it and other counterfeits would work, and how many would notice something else in the EXIF, especially if it showed up as a Cańon lens?).
> ...





AvTvM said:


> 2 unique identifiers per copy = similar to 2 factor authorization = makes it harder to counterfeit. Plus the date code on lenses [should also go on cameras please!] is/was REALLY useful for informed customers, both new and even more so for 2nd hand lens transactions (buy & sell).
> 
> Counterfeiters then have the choice to
> 1) put nothing on lens, no S/N, no Date Code = easiest and cheapest to produce, but easily identified as fake
> ...



We do understand that logic isn't your forte, but please try to put in a little thought before you post, mmmmkay?

If one is easy, all four are only _marginally_ more difficult, if that. 

So I'm a counterfeiter, I buy one legit lens then use that serial number and increment up from there. Then, the counterfeit lenses would have an appropriate, unique serial number and there would be just one counterfeit copy and just one Canon OEM copy of each serial number. Not going to set off red flags that way, nor would Canon releasing a list of affected S/N's help.

How exactly would a date code help? Canon doesn't use them anymore, anyway. A date code is a unique identifier? Do you even understand the term, 'unique identifier'? It bears repeating: please try to put in a little thought before you post, mmmmkay?

BTW, you never did answer my question... As for 'protective chip + firmware', did you just suggest that Canon lock out all third-party lenses to prevent them from functioning on Canon bodies?


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 16, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> BTW, you never did answer my question... As for 'protective chip + firmware', did you just suggest that Canon lock out all third-party lenses to prevent them from functioning on Canon bodies?



If I were Canon CEO: YES! I would play HARDBALL. Either 3rd party buggers pay hefty royalties ... or .. OUT. 
As a customer I don't mind. Have tried 3rd party, not convinced. Don't want Otus, don't want fART ... all I want is a compact, good and inexpensive EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 16, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, you never did answer my question... As for 'protective chip + firmware', did you just suggest that Canon lock out all third-party lenses to prevent them from functioning on Canon bodies?
> ...



Once again, this demonstrates that Canon is smarter than internet experts. 

The blowback and negative reputation that any camera manufacturer would get from locking out third party lenses would cost them far more than a few lens sales.

Consider this:

Canon chooses to lock out lenses. Nikon does not. Which one then gains the competitive advantage? (Hint: It wouldn't be Canon)

Most people buy what they can afford at the time. Many customers buy third party lenses based solely on cost. As they get more serious, they drop the third party lenses for OEM equipment. Third party lenses are a gateway drug. Sure, some will quit, but many won't stop until they have only red ringed lenses. 

Third party manufacturers provide Canon and Nikon with cheap market research. They build and offer lens variations that may not be available in OEM equipment. Canon and Nikon can gauge demand and react accordingly.

Recent experience with higher end "Art" style lenses show that Canon and Nikon lenses often aren't that much more expensive. This adds value to the Canon and Nikon brand names.

So, once again, it's not Canon that is "stupid."


----------



## slclick (Dec 16, 2016)

unfocused said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



And...they keep their bodies instead of jumping ship. Oh jumping ship...so 2014.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 17, 2016)

AvTvM said:


> Steve Balcombe said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...





AvTvM said:


> I blame not only criminal counterfeiters and greedy, stupid buyers but to some extent also CANON INC. for incidents like these.
> 
> Canon could and should do more to ensure (honest!) customers get the real thing.
> 
> ...



1. Every single Canon lens I have ever bought, no matter how inexpensive, has a serial number on the lens already. The serial number doesn't mean a got dang thing until the lens is sent in for service. The very fact that you don't know this makes me wonder whether you've got a camera at all.

2. How does sealing the box protect against counterfeiting again?

And none of these counter measures helps the buyer who has no idea the lens he's bought is counterfeit until sent in for service. By then, Mao has left the building or operates under another name.


----------



## JBSF (Dec 17, 2016)

And none of these counter measures helps the buyer who has no idea the lens he's bought is counterfeit until sent in for service. By then, Mao has left the building or operates under another name.
[/quote]

Exactly. It seems people are overthinking this just a tad. A Canon lens has innumerable unique identifying marks called original components. John Doe buys a fake Canon lens and is happy with it until it fails. Canon couldn't care less, until John sends it to Canon for service, who either destroy it or return it to John Doe at his expense. End of story.


----------



## Ryananthony (Dec 17, 2016)

Why are these 50mm even going to service in the first place? Also, am I wrong to think that the 50mm 1.8ii was replaced by the stm?


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 17, 2016)

Ryananthony said:


> Why are these 50mm even going to service in the first place? Also, am I wrong to think that the 50mm 1.8ii was replaced by the stm?



yes. Canon is not making 50/1.8 II any longer ... but others do. ;-)
i think those lenses were sent "for warranty repair" to Canon ... because they came DOA or failed shortly after purchase ... cost of regular service plus mailing expense is likely more than price of 50/1.8 ;-)


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 17, 2016)

unfocused said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


And don't forget that every store clerk would be telling customers not to buy Canon because they don't work on other lenses..... and sales would plumet!

And don't forget all the astrophotographers who like to use a telescope on their camera, (more like use a camera on their telescope  ), and now it won't work, and sales would drop by an imperceptible amount 

The point is, having your camera able to work on other manufacturer's optical devices is a PLUS! Cutting it off would be like Sony designing their TVs to only play Sony produced shows and movies.....


----------



## slclick (Dec 17, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Yes, yes, yes...all of that is quite logical and makes perfect sense but it's not what HE wants.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 17, 2016)

One thing I do wonder about...although this warning is about counterfeit products, it's pretty obvious that these are Yongnuo lenses that have been modified with Canon markings. So, the warnings about the "safety" and functionality of the lenses should apply to Yongnuo as well.

I wonder if there really are any issues with the Yongnuo lenses, other than they are cheap and break easily.


----------



## AvTvM (Dec 17, 2016)

unfocused said:


> One thing I do wonder about...although this warning is about counterfeit products, it's pretty obvious that these are Yongnuo lenses that have been modified with Canon markings. So, the warnings about the "safety" and functionality of the lenses should apply to Yongnuo as well.
> 
> I wonder if there really are any issues with the Yongnuo lenses, other than they are cheap and break easily.



Could be Yongnuo lenses. Could also be lenses built from parts "left over" at some Canon supplier or in a warehouse or whatever. Too bad, Canon does not provide more detail.


----------



## slclick (Dec 17, 2016)

unfocused said:


> One thing I do wonder about...although this warning is about counterfeit products, it's pretty obvious that these are Yongnuo lenses that have been modified with Canon markings. So, the warnings about the "safety" and functionality of the lenses should apply to Yongnuo as well.
> 
> I wonder if there really are any issues with the Yongnuo lenses, other than they are cheap and break easily.



I picked one up on a whim and found it needed far more than +20 correction so back it went.


----------



## meywd (Dec 20, 2016)

hmm, am I the only one with a 50mm F/1.8 II with only the serial written at the lens mount? I don't see any Canon Inc or CanonInc on my lens, except the one on the focus ring (front of the lens)


----------

