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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

Yes, it's the rat bastards niche.

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?

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

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

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.

It was a joke guys.

"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.

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

He never promised to "Make Japan great again."

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.

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 !

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

@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.

@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."

@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.

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.

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.

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 Canon's patent is probably out of date.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