Notice: Caution Regarding Counterfeit Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Lenses
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
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..."
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..."
Upvote
0
Joe M said:
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.
Upvote
0
Mt Spokane Photography 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.
Upvote
0
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.....Old Sarge said:
Upvote
0
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 :-(
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:slclick said:
I think that's kinder than the other quote (mis)attributed to Mr. Phineas Taylor B.
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Exactly. And folks like that are likely born even more frequently than one every minute.
"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."
Upvote
0
Canon Rumors said:
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
ExodistPhotography
Photographer, Artist & Youtuber
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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:
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.
No... Stupid AvTvM.
Upvote
0
I'd say it more politely:CanonFanBoy said:AvTvM said:...
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.
No... Stupid AvTvM.
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?
Upvote
0
Maximilian 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.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
I did and I did and I did.
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?
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Maybe if you add condition 3.:AvTvM said:
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?
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
I don't know (on business point of view) how this could be an excellent sales opportunity.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!"
...
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.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
