I already picked up both 23mm and 33mm ( both f1.4) used, boxed, mint a while back. Spotted the 50mm earlier today again boxed mint so bought that too despite owning the RF50.
Just curious if anyone here has the new RF Yongnuo 50mm lens?? By all accounts it’s well received.
These are the APS-C lenses, right? I only have experience with the 35, 50 and 85mm lenses for full frame, which I think are good.
Please let us know how you find them to use. I am curious as to how they perform. They are the only real alternative to Sigma for RF-S primes right now.
garyvot wrote:
These are the APS-C lenses, right? I only have experience with the 35, 50 and 85mm lenses for full frame, which I think are good.
Please let us know how you find them to use. I am curious as to how they perform. They are the only real alternative to Sigma for RF-S primes right now.
The 23 & 33 are as you say for aps-c
The 50 is full frame
I only played with the 23 and 33 and tbh I couldn’t fault them at all. I got them both for stupid low prices. (£50 each) I shot both wide open at 1.4 and to me I thought they were great… sharp, contrasty, very very quiet AF… hence I’ve kept a sly eye open for any other RF Yongnuo bargains. Hoping to find the missing 85 next, hopefully again at a silly low price.
I used to be a proper brand snob, but with the garbage RF-s line put out by canon I took a chance on Yongnuo… and for me it seems to have paid off.
As I said, I paid very little, so should they die I won’t be too upset. But I’m actually quite smitten. I expected them to be terrible, yet they are very very nice.
If this is the 50mm f/1.8 "Lite" lens, then I do own that one and I have been quite impressed with its output on full frame. It has superior bokeh over the Canon "nifty fifty" and is reasonably sharp wide open. Focusing is positive and silent, an upgrade over Canon's STM primes. I don't have an APS-C body to test it with, though.
garyvot wrote:
If this is the 50mm f/1.8 "Lite" lens, then I do own that one and I have been quite impressed with its output on full frame. It has superior bokeh over the Canon "nifty fifty" and is reasonably sharp wide open. Focusing is positive and silent, an upgrade over Canon's STM primes. I don't have an APS-C body to test it with, though.
FYI, Yongnuo does make a 56mm f/1.4 APS-C lens which is a match for the other two lenses you own. I have not used any of those, however.
All three of my Yongnuo lenses are from their latest DSM range with STM AF. They all feature ultra modern optics with rear rubber gaskets.
Here in the UK the RF versions are hard to find. From what I understand Yongnuo bypassed the canon license argument by building these lenses on the older EF interface, they then built in the EF-RF mount adapter. Ithink canon has threatened them with infringement lawsuits hence why they are so hard to find in RF mount. I did read that Yongnuo halted RF production … whether that’s true or that they have resumed production I couldn’t say.
Really they just used the EF electronics on an RF mount, which is the same as an adapter would do from the camera's perspective.
They did get in trouble for this (can't imagine Canon not predicting that someone would try it), and sales were stopped. There's another approach that puts the lens release on the lens itself to try to claim that the mount is 'RF compatible' rather than infringing on Canon's RF patents, that's yet to be tested legally as far as I've seen.
johnctharp wrote:
Really they just used the EF electronics on an RF mount, which is the same as an adapter would do from the camera's perspective.
They did get in trouble for this (can't imagine Canon not predicting that someone would try it), and sales were stopped. There's another approach that puts the lens release on the lens itself to try to claim that the mount is 'RF compatible' rather than infringing on Canon's RF patents, that's yet to be tested legally as far as I've seen.
Yes, this has been my assumption as well. Even assuming they are using EF protocols in the lenses, I have not seen any downside in terms of autofocus performance.
I think the mount modification is a rather clever approach to skirting Canon's patents (if that is in fact the objective). I would not be unhappy to see other lensmakers do the same, if it meant greater availability of third-party lenses.
I don't necessarily want to see Canon harmed financially, but I do find the pivot away from openness that we enjoyed during the EF era to be tedious and troubling.
Apr 03, 2026 at 11:06 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
garyvot wrote:
Yes, this has been my assumption as well. Even assuming they are using EF protocols in the lenses, I have not seen any downside in terms of autofocus performance.
I think the mount modification is a rather clever approach to skirting Canon's patents (if that is in fact the objective). I would not be unhappy to see other lensmakers do the same, if it meant greater availability of third-party lenses.
I don't necessarily want to see Canon harmed financially, but I do find the pivot away from openness that we enjoyed during the EF era to be tedious and troubling.
Gary, how many electrical contacts do these lenses have? The typical for EF lenses or for RF lenses? If they are using the higher number of contacts, which I presume they are, I have some doubts about whether they will actually be able to claim they are not using an RF mount. I am not a patent lawyer or know anything about patent law, however. I just have my doubts that what they did here will really skirt Canon's patent. They apparently have tried, but we will see how well it works in the end. I suppose that will get played out in court or perhaps through negotiations.
In the end, I would hope that Canon would offer licensing of the mount and offer it at a rate that is beneficial to both Canon and the 3rd party lens maker. I am hopeful that is emerging for Sigma and that would be great. I think it would also be great if some other lens makers came to an agreement too. I am less thrilled by companies trying to get around a patent as even if they do for a time, Canon could very well strike back by figuring out a firmware upgrade that would render the lenses unuseable. Canon would be motivated to do that if people skirt their patents, but if there is a real and ideally jointly beneficial licensing agreement there would be no such motivation.
My concern is that canon may somehow release firmware that blocks these yongnuo lenses. I suppose so long as I don’t update the camera and lenses will continue to work.
The irony is that I could buy any canon body/lens. But the brand is so petty these days I’ll stay as I am. I only take snaps so, so long as my pictures are sharp I couldn’t give a hoot no more.
It’s canons loss not mine. Pity they don’t realise I’m not alone in my thinking …and boycotting.
What with their infamous cripple hammer and poor rf-s lens selection…..why would anyone go balls deep ??
They created this mess themselves.
I’m too deep into the canon system to jump ship, so I’ll just tootle along and make best of what I have… but won’t be buying nuthin more until they give the aps-c line their own decent lenses. By that I mean faster apertures and quality metal mounts.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Gary, how many electrical contacts do these lenses have? The typical for EF lenses or for RF lenses? If they are using the higher number of contacts, which I presume they are, I have some doubts about whether they will actually be able to claim they are not using an RF mount.
I can't believe that I never checked this before, but the Yongnuo lenses are in fact fitted with EF mount contacts, just like the Canon EF-EOS R mount adapters.
So clearly they are using EF protocols. And, with a modified RF-compatible mount of their own design. This may explain why Canon has not tried to shut them down like they did Samyang.
It is also worth noting that Yongnuo does not use the term "RF mount" in their marketing literature or on their online store. Instead, these lenses are referred to as "R-mount" lenses. I assumed initially that this was just imprecise usage, but in fact it may be quite intentional.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
My concern is that canon may somehow release firmware that blocks these yongnuo lenses.
As easy as it is to feel jaded, I would not worry about this. Canon has never in its entire history done anything to block the use of third-party lenses already in-market, even if they have asked manufacturers to stop selling new ones.
This would be a direct attack on Canon's own consumers; it is almost unthinkable to me that they would even consider this.
Yes, I know printer brands like HP have blocked third-party ink cartridges, but I just can't see Canon doing anything like that. They have more integrity, IMO, and I think they know their continued success is contingent on customer goodwill.
