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

[AvTvM]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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."

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

 

[Ozarker]

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.)

2. date code on every product

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

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.

4. fully sealed packaging

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

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

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 print out serial # range affected.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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."

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]

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.

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."

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.....

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

 

[unfocused]

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]

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]

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]

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)