Was looking at picking up a 2.0x TC for use with the 300/2.8 I just picked up and I stumbled upon a Yongnuo variant of the latest Canon 2.0x TC. It looks fairly similar in design (probably an exact copy). Has anyone found any reviews regarding it? Anyone here have any experience with them?
I am probably going to end up picking up the canon 2.0x TC II since I don't intend on using one frequently and don't feel like spending $400 on one. The Yongnuo just happens to cost about the same as the mk II TCs.
Sure does look the same. Just rebadged, reversed engineered, who knows? I just picked up a refurb canon 2x tciii. The lack of user reviews on this is a little concerning I guess so I just went with the piece of mind.
Amazon is fulfilling orders for one of the sellers so it would be pretty easy to buy and return if necessary. I just might give one a try. My primary concern is how well AF holds up. The older versions of this product apparently had a lot of inconsistencies with AF. It seems like it should be trivial to pass the AF calculations through the adapter to the lens but i am no engineer.
Imagemaster wrote:
What does it matter what the Yongnou looks like You buy a TC based on performance, not appearance.
You own one of the best lenses that Canon makes, and want to degrade it by putting a cheap knockoff TC onto it?
Not the best idea.
As stated above, I am not intending on using the lens with a TC on it all that often and do not need the best of the best. Recently, it seems like Yongnuo has been releasing accessories and lenses that rival or beat their Canon correlates. It is worth investigating whether or not their latest TCs fall into that same category.
I also wouldn't call them cheap - they appear to be just as well made as the Canon mk III TCs. They are, however, inexpensive.
kezeka wrote:
As stated above, I am not intending on using the lens with a TC on it all that often and do not need the best of the best. Recently, it seems like Yongnuo has been releasing accessories and lenses that rival or beat their Canon correlates. It is worth investigating whether or not their latest TCs fall into that same category.
I also wouldn't call them cheap - they appear to be just as well made as the Canon mk III TCs. They are, however, inexpensive.
i can't imagine why you wouldn't be using an extender on that 300mm 2.8.. i seldom take the 1.4xIII off mine.. when i do it's usually to put the 2xIII on
kmunroe wrote:
i can't imagine why you wouldn't be using an extender on that 300mm 2.8.. i seldom take the 1.4xIII off mine.. when i do it's usually to put the 2xIII on
I cover events and don't need more than 300/2.8. I don't intend to ever use it for wildlife unless I go on a safari sometime in the distant future.
kezeka wrote:
Was looking at picking up a 2.0x TC for use with the 300/2.8 I just picked up and I stumbled upon a Yongnuo variant of the latest Canon 2.0x TC. It looks fairly similar in design (probably an exact copy). Has anyone found any reviews regarding it? Anyone here have any experience with them?
I am probably going to end up picking up the canon 2.0x TC II since I don't intend on using one frequently and don't feel like spending $400 on one. The Yongnuo just happens to cost about the same as the mk II TCs.
At least they added a couple of extra aperture blades. Wonder if they've also tweaked anything along the way. But the optical formula looks identical enough to constitute some pretty gross patent infringement. I'd rather see them crossbreed the (recycled) AF unit with some old but interesting optical formula - which would result in an unique lens - but maybe we'll be seeing that down the road.
Fred Miranda wrote:
They just cloned another Canon lens. The Canon 35mm f/2
So far they have the 50mm f/1.4, 2x extender and now the 35mm.
See here: http://www.hkyongnuo.com/e-detaily.php?ID=359
Fred Miranda wrote:
They just cloned another Canon lens. The Canon 35mm f/2
So far they have the 50mm f/1.4, 2x extender and now the 35mm.
See here: http://www.hkyongnuo.com/e-detaily.php?ID=359
This is not a trend I'm too excited about, and I think there will be a point where the lure of inexpensive lenses will be offset by quality issues and damage to OEM's especially if there is actual intellectual property being taken from their designs.
The cynic in me sees companies with truly innovative designs and then those ideas are ostensibly copied at lower costs by companies that didn't invent them. Start with the simple lens designs, and when you figure out how to build them, move on to the more complicated... The examples of this are already numerous in the hardware and software world. Look at Samsung v. Apple.
kezeka wrote:
If Canon and Nikon can make it, why can't someone else?
It is not that they cannot make it, they can. The issues I have had with third party glass, are af consistency, quality control and the often inability to work with future OEM bodies.
Being as good is not enough for me, especially when Canon 2xIII are trading for under $300 would not sway me to purchase a piece of third party glass. The third party extender would need to be better for me to purchase it. Of course, it is just my opinion.
Strokes for folks. The best.
Snopchenko wrote:
At least they added a couple of extra aperture blades. Wonder if they've also tweaked anything along the way. But the optical formula looks identical enough to constitute some pretty gross patent infringement. I'd rather see them crossbreed the (recycled) AF unit with some old but interesting optical formula - which would result in an unique lens - but maybe we'll be seeing that down the road.
The optical configuration looks to very similar indeed.
I suppose there may be no patents on the 25-year old Canon lens.
Tom Dix wrote:
It is not that they cannot make it, they can. The issues I have had with third party glass, are af consistency, quality control and the often inability to work with future OEM bodies.
Being as good is not enough for me, especially when Canon 2xIII are trading for under $300 would not sway me to purchase a piece of third party glass. The third party extender would need to be better for me to purchase it. Of course, it is just my opinion.
Strokes for folks. The best.
I would call into question the AF accuracy complaint when it comes to extenders since there are no motors within the extender. Clearly, I am no lens designer and do not know how extenders impact the AF calculations but it would seem to me that they would not modify the AF motor in the lens' ability to focus nor the cameras ability to convey that information. There is a possibility that the electronic connection between lens and body could be bad but I believe that extenders literally just connect the leads from the body to the leads on the lens.
I'll probably buy one of these in the next month or so and let everyone know how it works out. I have used the mk III 2.0x tc on my 70-200 II before and wasn't pleased with its performance anyway so I might as well try out a different one before picking up a mk III used.
The 35/2 is both 25 years old and discontinued by Canon, all right, but the 50/1.4 they also copied is neither. Or the extender in question.
I almost smell the burning... EB-1 wrote:
The optical configuration looks to very similar indeed.
I suppose there may be no patents on the 25-year old Canon lens.
You buy a TC based on performance, not appearance.
Wonder if they've also tweaked anything along the way. But the optical formula looks identical enough to constitute some pretty gross patent infringement.