Canon advisory warns of counterfeit EF 50mm F1.8 II lenses

Probably because the people who would buy a f1.2 would be looking it over very closely

Dec 20, 2016permalink

trungtran

Where can I get one?

Mite be a collectors item as they seem to be quite rare.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

Imitation is the ultimate flattery. Where would Rolex and Louis Vuitton be without counterfeit items? Lots of people and families depend on their livelihood for this niche of our affluent economy.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

Lots of people and families depend for their livelihood on theft, burglary, arson, murder, blackmail, bribery, kidnapping, extortion, piracy, slave trade, etc. Where would people be without these "niches" of our affluent economy?

Dec 19, 2016permalink

Kris Sky

Yeah, and where would Donald Trump be without all the counterfeits of him?

Dec 19, 2016permalink

MarcelloDl

Put all those counterfeiters in jail. Lots of people and families depend on their livelihood on police, justice and jail management.

Dec 19, 2016permalink

The Silver Nemesis

Yuck!

Dec 18, 2016permalink

duchamp

It could be a "rebranded" Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 that looks VERY similar to the Canon lens in question.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

CQui

If my copy of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II has a space between the CANON and INC., it is quite different, the marking is not in a depressed area, it seems rather printed than moulded and it doesn't show to naked eye, only when I take a photo.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

mlewan

Dang it. I must have one of those ones. On my 50mm, there is clearly no space between the "N" and "IKON".

Dec 18, 2016permalink

mevbo

That's funny stuff. ...

Dec 18, 2016permalink

madecov

The incorrect font and logo mis spelling is by design. It avoids any trademark infringment. I own a retail store where we sold a lot of Authentic items and sometimes "clones" . Every one of the clones had the same parameters a change in fonts or mis spelling of the trademark.
Before everyone gets up in arms, this is a standard industry situation and the items where sold as clones not authentic. These were electronic cigarette atomizers. We sold the clone at about $20.00 while the authentics were over $100.00
Cloning has pretty much gone away in the industry. But I firmly believe the markings are altered intentionally to bypass trademark legal issues.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

Matthew Miller

This does not, in fact, ACTUALLY avoid trademark infringement.

You're probably right that's the intention, but that's not how the law works. It's a clear attempt to confuse consumers into thinking they are getting the legitimate brand either way, and that's what counts.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

madecov

I agree, I truly believe that these small mistakes in trademarks on numerous items are done intentionally in order to provide a POSSIBLE out in the case of litigation. It's still an attempt to confuse and cause the consumer to think they are getting something they are not in fact getting. I would expect these to show up on E bay and from third party Amazon sellers for not much less than the authentic.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

Random Photographer

It's probably so that the factory itself doesn't mix up the clone and the original. I'm sure the owners would like to own the real lenses themselves ;).

Quick history - some forgers used to have a hidden signature in their notes so that they wouldn't accidentally end up with their money again.

Dec 19, 2016permalink

Probably lenses that failed final inspection. Change a few parts, that upon inspection, make the lens appear counterfeit, and sell the lens/body and lens thru grey market channels. It's not going to warranted anyway and gives the grey market a black eye.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

Skyscape

And how would somebody gain a supply of faulty factory lenses? Wait, are you suggesting that it's actually Canon that's behind this? LOL!

Additionally, any lens that failed inspection would have its molding all the same, such as the Canon lettering. I really doubt that lack of space is an intent to make the lens appear counterfeit. That's ridiculous.

Dec 19, 2016*permalink

Scrapping the substandard lens would be a loss. A slight bit of deception and the bad lenses are gone and a scapegoat is provided.

Dec 20, 2016permalink

quiquae

So you're suggesting Canon set up an entire line to scrape off the existing moulded lettering and ADD ANOTHER SET OF MOULDED LETTERS? Do you realize how hard that is?

Dec 21, 2016permalink

I said scrapping, not scraping. Just a few parts replaced and the job is done. BTW, I know Canon wouldn't do that. But some less reputable companies might try it

Dec 21, 2016*permalink

nekrosoft13

its funny that they go through all this trouble to make a counterfeit lens but they miss a simple detail like putting a space in there.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

CQui

Well, in some country if you register a company called "Canoninc" you can produce products under that name...

Dec 18, 2016permalink

nand

So now it's just another aftermarket lens.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

sh10453

No surprise at all.
They have been selling, among a plethora of other things, counterfeit Rolex watches for decades.
Rolex President (a $12000 watch): $150 asking price, $100 after negotiating for the counterfeit. It looks identical to the original for a person without a good level of experience.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

12k? maybe for a used one. a new daydate hasn't cost 12 grand for a while - try 25-30k.

those are easy though, because they only come in precious metal so the plated counterfeits weigh about 1/8th what they should. the stainless steel models are much better fakes.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

now, if they made plated tungsten bracelets for those watches, they'd be much better off in the weight department. but they don't so.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

sh10453

I don't claim to be an expert on Rolex watches, but the price seems to be around the $11 to $13k.
http://www.swisswatchexpo.com/watches/rolex/ladies-rolex/president/president-datejust-18k-yellow-gold-diamond-69158-12303?gclid=CjwKEAiA4dPCBRCM4dqhlv2R1R8SJABom9pHdMc5vQ9eWnJMdgxo9XVgBfK-9wZluhLZdn43-4JE4BoCt9bw_wcB

Dec 18, 2016permalink

angus rocks

what? i got my Rolex after lunch at wo hop on mott street in manhattan. i paid $15.00, i could have gotten 2 for $25.00.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

okay , allow me to explain

President technically refers to the bracelet style rather than the watch and for men's watches it's only available on the daydate which is 25-30k in gold or 40 in platinum. The datejust you linked is a ladies one, some ladies datejusts are available with a president bracelet, but the price isn't comparable with men's models because the cases and bracelets are tiny so there's a fraction as much precious metal used.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

sh10453

The same site has a list of men's here:
http://www.swisswatchexpo.com/advance-search-watches/Rolex--Men----28?method=async

As far as I'm concerned, there are better things to do with that kind of money than spending it on a watch, including charity.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

AlanG

And the counterfeit Rolex is probably more accurate too. I bought a fake Rolex in NYC for $25. The tip of the winding stem fell off after a year. I took it to a different watch street dealer and he gave me a new watch for free. These guys really stand behind their product. Maybe the fake Canon lens guys can do something like that. How good is this lens anyway?

Dec 18, 2016permalink

The cheaper ones up top are used. That model number is old and has been discontinued for some time - current is six digit (118238 vs 18238)

Scroll down for some new ones and check the MSRP.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

Hinder

Mine does not have either embossed in it, it's blank.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Prolin

Mine too.

Dec 20, 2016permalink

Counterfeiters are rat bastards.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

It's just another niche in the global economy.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

Yes, it's the rat bastards niche.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

Why the moral approach? Do you have any idea of the number of people living on that oart of the economy, and how many better-off people benefit from that?

Dec 18, 2016permalink

Because it's a moral issue. I won't debate that with you.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

Yellow Yake?

Dec 18, 2016permalink

User1256321474

Bottom feeders.

Dec 19, 2016permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Of all the explanations why you should avoid fake lenses, the funniest has to be because they fail to meet safety standards. Nikon pulls this too. We're not talking about flash units. The danger in using these lenses is to your wallet and your images, not your safety.

BTW, the fakers have gotten more bold. I recently bought some Canon electronic cable releases that were too cheap to be genuine. They said Made in Japan, and I thought the counterfeiters would avoid flat-out lying about the point of origin. But in a world where news is fake, anything goes.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Timbukto

If Canon found them in enough numbers because they made enough trips to the service center, than I doubt they are well made. I seriously doubt they issue a service advisory because they found one sample. They aren't Samsung note dangerous if that is what you mean. But safe for the body? Why are they making rounds at the service center?

Dec 17, 2016permalink

@Abrasive - it's an interesting market. There are fake Fender/Gibson/Gretsch guitars out there and it's very easy to spot the fakes. The first clue is the price. The second is the language in the ads. "We make guitar very much for your specificity" and so on. But there are a lot of little details that a person can spot easily. But they're getting better and better at it every day.

Guitars I get - it's a craft item that someone can make in their shop. But camera lenses are a whole other kind of thing.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

chaeric2

Actually someone I know has a genuine older Leica, and when flipping through the manual out of curiosity, I noticed grammatical errors, and the manual was much too verbose.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

@chaeric1 - language in manuals doesn't seem to be an indicator of genuineness.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

chaeric2

er...that was my point. You had mentioned language as an indicator for authentic gear. You said: "The second is the language in the ads..."

I just pointed out that even in high end cameras they still make typos.

Dec 20, 2016permalink

@chaeric: I said ads, not manuals.

Dec 20, 2016permalink

Tord S Eriksson

Germans were not famous for their perfect English, in the old days, before spell-checkers!

Dec 20, 2016permalink

sportyaccordy

Yonguo trying to push its luck I see....

Moral of the story: just get the STM version. $25 won't kill you.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

neilt3

Yonguo label their lenses Yonguo .
The counterfeiter's might have nicked a batch of Yonguo lenses to alter , but that doesn't mean that it's Yonguo committing the crime .

Dec 17, 2016permalink

They are likely either buying bulk of yonguo lenses or buying the parts from the same place that makes them for yongnuo. Lots of this with fake watches also - buy a bunch of submariner lookalike parts and start your own eBay watch brand (a la parnis) or print the dials and engrave the cases Rolex and off to the races you go with counterfeits.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

chaeric2

What makes you think it's Yongnuo? Yongnuo designs its own modified lenses and is made in China. From the picture, the company that makes the original lens is based in Malaysia.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

sportyaccordy

It was a joke guys.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

Richard Murdey

I assume chaeric2 is pulling your leg. It's rather doubtful the manufacturer of fake Canon lenses would feel compelled to label the correct location of of their factory, no?

Dec 19, 2016permalink

Jun2

The lens is discontinued by Canon anyway

Dec 17, 2016*permalink

Cassowary

An article like this is a mixed bag. Because the counterfeiter will be on the alert to fix the discrepancy. On the other hand, it's good to know that lenses are being counterfeited. It would be nice if the article indicated where these fakes are being sold.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

It will be made available to anyone who wants one!

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Err blinks

While Canon is busy with the cheap fake lens they will just repair the perfect fakes of the expensive lenses.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Jun2

so they can fake the whole lens, can't get these letters right.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

I'm curious if anyone has reviewed one of these lenses. I'd be curious to know if it performs as well as the real thing!

Seriously, no one is more serious about counterfeit notices than Canon and it helps the entire industry be aware. But I don't get this one. Why? Aren't Gucci bags and Frye shoes more profitable and safer to counterfeit?

And why are they always so ham-fisted in their attempts to the extent that it's so easy to spot? It seems that they want you to know it's a fake.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Yes I think you are right.
I think these kafes are actually rejects.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

@LordLucan-That's it! It's the Canon conspiracy.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

@steve23 In reality,my question is, is there anyone among DPR community capable of counterfeiting such a thing? Have we got that ability---finance.expertise resources? No. Who has all those elements? It is not something we can make on a kitchen worktop!

Dec 17, 2016permalink

@Luncan - it's a state sponsored thing I believe. Some plant somewhere is making these and they're doing a decent job in general. It's hard to fathom that anyone goes to the trouble to tool up an assembly plant to create such things. Must be profitable.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Damo83

I'm curious to know where these counterfeits are sold. Perhaps Canon can advise so that consumers may steer clear.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

I think its not very easy to sell those products in Europe or USA. I suppose they are intended for their own market. This may workout in OEM's favour.
That all new products must be bought from authorised channels to avoid buying counterfits.
Satire: We have fakes in nearly everything.
Fake politicians,fake doctors,fake food items fake smart phones etc.
The most worrying and dangerous is -- fake medicine--.
Why are people so worried about this lens-fake? Let Canon worry about it and make sure authenticity when buying next photo items,wether lens or body.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Ademeion

"The most worrying and dangerous is -- fake medicine--."

Another worrying thing is that even if your medicine was manufactured by the company that's name is on the label, the research data that was used to get the medicine approved is more and more often faked or distorted. There are many legal ways to make the research data say what you want–any data will surrender when tortured enough–, and if that doesn't give satisfying results, you don't easily get caught of outright falsifying the data – especially if you outsource the dirty work (and medical research is commonly outsourced nowadays). The result of this are medicines which don't work as advertised and/or which hurt you more than it says on the label.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

What's in the fake medicine? Placebo is perhaps not so bad. But toxic substances sounds terrible.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Wu Jiaqiu

i wonder if the copes are optically as good as the originals, did anyone notice who had purchased one? or did they work to the owner's expectations......

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Well,if you took a good picture with 50mm 1.8,assume that it was that fake lens did it and keep quite about it.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Olymguy

Looks more likely both reputation damage and economic gain. What I wonder is why fraudsters left such noticeable traces on their fake production? They could have imitated those trademark logos look as genuine! And needles to say that Canon can take some fake lens samples and send it to forensic labs. Trace element analysis of the lens body could reveal likelihood origin of the lens. They may also need to get other similar high end counterfeit product and do analysis on them as well. ;)

Dec 17, 2016*permalink

J A C S

Say they find out that the fake lenses were made in China. Then what?

Dec 17, 2016permalink

@J A C S

We have got Trump to declare the most sophisticated war against them!

Dec 17, 2016permalink

J A C S

Or rather to fight the war they have started a long time ago.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Marty4650

Why would Trump care if Chinese company was ripping off a Japanese company?

He never promised to "Make Japan great again."

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Its because if Japan goes to war , it is likely that all their productions would come to a halt,no more sonys.fujis,canons etc. Can Canon hire Trump?

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Olymguy

@J A C S
LOL, it is not about the country, forensic analysis narrows down the origin to the possible fake producer.

Dec 17, 2016*permalink

EricWN

Japan going to war again? With what, the oldest population on the planet? The last thing they have on their minds is war for sure. But surely funny to read the Americans post here and display their knowledge of the world.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

achim k

fake President

Dec 17, 2016permalink

cosinaphile

im pretty sure canon like apple uses alot of chinese factories to increase profit margins ... and surely they know about imitations .... i say you reap what you sow

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Cultured Vulture

Trump= counterfeit human being.

Dec 28, 2016permalink

cosinaphile

yes trump is americas shame ,,,,, its what a century of dumbing down educational agenda that is top down govt policy has wrought
30 millions american adults cannot read , 10 times that cannot think

do the math... the answer is trump

Dec 28, 2016permalink

Tan68

I wonder if 'Canon Inc' was misprinted so the people could argue it wasn't a complete copy in some effort to later divert a copyright infringement suit..? Not that I think that would be a successful argument.

I am just trying to rationalize how they could miss such an obvious part of the lens markings. Surely, it is possible to put a space between the 'Canon' and the 'Inc'

Perhaps someone in the crime syndicate had second thoughts and deleted the space as a warning to the unwitting public..

If so, I hope that hero was not teabagged with cement shoes into the Giants football stadium.

Blue birds help us if the counterfeiters add that space on their next effort !

Dec 17, 2016permalink

falconeyes

That's expected.
In this flood of phishing spam emails I received, not a SINGLE one was actually correct wrt spelling or grammar (in German language). Not a SINGLE one, I swear!! Germans have become so trained to recognize phishing mails because they are badly crafted that the day the first 100% correct one emerges, big damage may be caused.

You are right, one would think fakers could do their job better. But I tell you this: if fakers could really do, they won't be criminals but serious professionals.

Dec 17, 2016*permalink

Karroly

These counterfeiters are dishonest but not stupid. If they want to buy a genuine Canon lens they will be able to recognized - and discard - the fake one !

Dec 17, 2016permalink

EOS Paul

I am sure that there are many ways to tell the two lenses apart but this was the easiest to spot.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

r700

Maybe it so they can argue the it is not a "Canon" copy, but made by "Canoninc" a totally different company.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

naththo

Counterfeit lens like these above can damage your camera! What a fool of them to try sell counterfeit just to destroy someone's camera system!?

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Roland Karlsson

Eh? Do you really think there is a deliberate plan to destroy peoples cameras? And that is why those are made? That was one of the worst conspiracy theories I have heard.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

neilt3

Sounds like it could be a Nikon conspiracy to destroy Canon then !

Dec 17, 2016permalink

naththo

Pah...I don't think so Neil. If they were trying to, I know Canon will sue them hard given the size of Canon company vs Nikon.

Roland, nope, counterfeit with electronic board is a high risk of damage the camera as electronic maybe dodgy in the counterfeit lens.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

Roland Karlsson

I think there is some misunderstanding here. But - never mind.

Have you any idea how a lens could damage a camera?

Dec 18, 2016permalink

cosinaphile

the goal is money

Dec 28, 2016permalink

Jonathan Mac

Maybe these fake lenses have fixed the problem in the genuine ones whereby the lens falls apart for no reason whatsoever. If I had to choose between that and dodgy electronics.....

I'm glad I bought the newer STM version.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

fatdeeman

I've had one for over 10 years and it hasn't shown any signs of falling apart.

Some people are too heavy handed I think.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Photoman

How much profit must there be to counterfeit a cheap lens? Is it a Yongnuo factory doing this???

Dec 17, 2016permalink

leonche64

Why would Yongnuo be involved in this when they make their own cheaper version? The question should be how much is Canon overcharging for a cheap lens that can be counterfeited at a profit.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Melchiorum

@leonche64, I never thought I would ever see the word "overcharge" anywhere near EF 50mm 1.8, having in mind it's an optically impressive lens that is absolutely dirt cheap.

Pretty much anything can be counterfeited at a profit when you don't have to give a toss about any safety certifications or meet all the trade regulations of EU and US.

Seriously though, you people need to educate yourselves about the basics of production and trade, because it seems many of you think all it takes to trade worldwide is slapping a product together and putting it on the store shelves.

Dec 17, 2016*permalink

leonche64

@Melchiorum, "Dirt cheap" is a relative term, as I guess "overcharge" would be when comparing production cost to selling price, would you agree?
My point was that the O.P. implicated a legitimate company with no proof at all and provided no reason for said company to do so.

So yeah, if a legit company can sell a very similar lens for 50% less and make a profit, then yes, there is legit reason to question the price, no matter what it is. But even more so when it is "dirt cheap."

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Jonathan Brady

@leonche64 - you have a very uninformed idea of what it takes to run a business. And if you're using the counterfeit lens as an example of a product produced by a legitimate company, I think you have a very skewed notion of what a legitimate company is. All in all, you should probably seek out a business education from a legitimate school. And to avoid confusion - any place offering "classes" is NOT legitimate (ie, Trump University).

Dec 17, 2016permalink

leonche64

@Jonathan Brady, I appreciate you wanting to take part in the discussion, but you have to read all of the post. The legitimate company mentioned is Yongnuo. They make third party lenses and the the original poster asked if they were also making these counterfeit lenses. Now with this new information in hand, go back and read the thread.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Dr_Jon

Canon spend money on marketing and having a World-wide network of service centres. Others don't (or spend much less in the case of marketing).

Also fakers pretty much always don't get it completely correct.

Dec 17, 2016*permalink

Revenant

Production cost is only one of the expenses that needs to be covered by the selling price. There's also R&D, marketing, distribution, administration, customer service, warranty repairs and much more. And of course, any company that is interested in long-term survival must make a profit; that includes the manufacturer as well as everyone involved in the distribution chain.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Photoman

The reason I asked is that I heard from a Sony Manager in Oz that they use a Chinese factory during the day to make their TV's with their high quality components...but at night (this is the kicker!), the factory is run by a different company that uses the Sony panels, but cheaper and inferior components to make the TVs. Back to day time, the factory is using Sony's components again. Weird but true.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

Sean65

They must have some idea where these are coming from. There can't be that many factories tooled up to produce lenses?

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Infared

LOL! Are the counterfeits better than the Canon lenses, because those Canon lenses suck. :-)

Dec 17, 2016permalink

dansclic

DPR does not say if the counterfeiters also copy the packaging....

Dec 17, 2016permalink

scottcraig

Just had to chek mine to make sure it wasn't a fake. Thankfully it's genuine. That being said its always best to buy new and even used gear from a reputable source. If you're ever unsure where to shop B&H is your safe bet.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Sacher Khoudari

Aren't there any other reliable shops over there in the US other than B&H? Here in Europe we have a lot more than only one. Sorry, but sounds like some kind of advertising for me.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Jonathan Brady

@Sacher - there are plenty, but B&H is the biggest and most well known. They also have a great reputation and liberal return policy. Thus, MANY people shop there. But in reality, you can get equally great customer service and the exact same pricing (thanks to manufacturer enforced minimum pricing) from many other retailers. I regularly purchase from B&H as well as Adorama, Amazon, Profeel, BuyDig, Cameta, and even from a store in Canada (Camera Canada) as the Canon products sold in North America are all covered under the same warranty. I have no doubts there are numerous other fantastic retailers as well.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Sacher Khoudari

@Jonathan, that's what I had expected :) Thanks!

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Steve_

That said, B&H and Adorama definitely form the top tier of US camera retailers. Nobody else has their consistently leading pricing, speed, service, selection, significant non-camera inventory and buys and sells used gear. There's a vast difference between being reliable and competing with B&H.

Dec 18, 2016permalink

Michael Ma

Chinese companies will be getting better every year copying these lenses. Eventually, they'll make Canon L ripoffs. We already have the ZY 85mm 1.2. It just needs autofocus. For people who want to buy authentic copies, I hope Canon implements a lens authenticator in their camera menus that works if you enable wifi.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Jun2

If it turned out to be fake with the authenticator, will Canon take your fake lens away ?

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Rod McD

It's a pity people with the intellectual, manufacturing and marketing skills to do this can't turn their efforts to actually making decent lenses that either compete with the real thing or offer a few FLs the OEMs don't make.

Dec 17, 2016*permalink

Well I thought there was something missing in life. We have fakes in almost every consumer products so they were asking for it. We dont know there may be many fakes around.This is the only one we have come to know. My Noctilux might be fake,I better get it ckecked,but ...No I wouldnt,just incase it is a fake for which I paid a lot of money!

Dec 17, 2016permalink

naturetech

Rod, you overestimate the intellect of most of these counterfeiters.

I have zero respect for such defrauding ethics-depraved imitators that make shoddy ripoffs. They bring nothing to the table and their creativity is nil, as is their degree of honesty. They are just sleazy cheats and cheap crooks who take advantage of anyone they can. These types would cheat their own grandmothers. There is nothing to admire here.

Zero innovation, zero insight, zero wisdom, zero courage and zero shame.

Dec 17, 2016*permalink

Dr_Jon

Making a fake Canon lens gets you a big marketing budget for no cost...

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Rod McD

@ Naturetech.... My comment in no way condoned or admired their counterfeiting activity - not for a nano-second. I share your sentiments about their ethics. My reaction was that if they have the skills to develop a working lens, why not do exactly that, put their own name on it and sell it as a legitimate independent alternative.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

@Rod McD Yes,exactly. Canon's patent is probably out of date. Why not make in their own name?

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Karroly

I would be very surprised if these counterfeiters were able to build their own manufacturing plant from scratch, considering the required skills and money to do that. I rather suspect that these fake lenses come from the same manufacturing plants than the original ones. Maybe they are samples that did not pass quality tests and, rather than being thrown into the trash bin, were "rebadged" by unscrupulous employees to be sold at the black market.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

I want to see if they can make something "identical" to new Hasselblad.
Anyway nothing established that it is(canon 50mm) made in china.
May be made in India or Bangladesh or Timbaktu.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Richard Kwon

This is really sad... What kind of world are we living in... We can't even trust a budget Canon lens anymore... I guess if you can make fake eggs, you can make fake Canon lenses... Good job China :(

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Dont worry too much about it. This things happens.
This fake might be better than original apart from logo and lettering.
Fakes were made in past also. There are Leica fakes and they often fetch more than real. And thsoe fakes were made in europe.

Dec 17, 2016permalink

Betico

China is taking over the world photography industry one lens at a time.

Dec 17, 2016permalink