Yongnuo 35mm f/2 Canon Clone on the Way
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
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.
Upvote
0
slclick said:
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.
Upvote
0
miah 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?
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
kphoto99 said:
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.
Upvote
0
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?
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?
Upvote
0
300D said:
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."
Upvote
0
miah said:
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.
Upvote
0
bmwzimmer said:
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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!
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!
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
GammyKnee said:
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.
Upvote
0
DRR said:
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.
Upvote
0
DRR said:
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.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
