Yongnuo lenses.

>>3131682
>yongnuo
>http://www.yongnuo.eu/

"Best Lenses money can Bay"

Chinkshit btfo

>>3131682
I nave the 50mm 1.8 and it's great for the money.

Sony lenses when.

Buying the 35mm rite nao.

Picking up the 85mm, let's see if it'll be good...

>>3131682
>the same way they dominate the speedlight market
by illegally cloning patented/copyrighted designs from japanese companies and making them cheaper and lower quality at chink sweatshops with no quality-control, then making a larger profit because they did no R&D whatsoever so they can undercut the actual lens-creators?

Yongnuo are complete trash.

>>3133051
Somebody is mad

>>3133051
Yongnuo isn't a completely noname chinkshit company, so they can be sued for copyright infringement. I'm pretty sure they are using old designs on which the patents have expired.
What is 40/2.8 ripping off, by the way? The 40mm STM is too new to be patent-free and looks markedly different.

>making them cheaper and lower quality at chink sweatshops
Ironically, their 50mm is of higher quality than the original.

>>3131682
Disgusting garbage. Why the fuck would they copy the outer design from canons ugliest lenses?

Why would you ever buy yongnuo when there are originals available?
Youngnuo focus motors are always loud and shit.
Lenses have problems like chromabs and are overall softer than originals.
I dunno why would Nikon need a 40 2.8 when on crop there is a cheap and good 35 1.8 available. Maybe for FF.

I would care more if they made something better than the big companies. For example a old style double gauss Canon 50 1.4 with a better motor and internal focusing. But that's already Sigmas territory (even though they are based on different scheme) and a whole another price segment.

>>3133075
>Why would you ever buy yongnuo when there are originals available?

Seriously?

Canon 50/1.8: $125
Yongnuo 50/1.8: $50

Canon 35/2 IS: $550
Yongnuo 35/2: $93

Canon 100/2.8: $600
Yongnuo 100/2: $160

I mean, I can understand arguing that the first-party lenses are higher quality, or that they're more reliable, but asking why anyone would ever buy the cheap knockoffs when the answer is self-evidently "Because they're way the fuck cheaper" makes you look like an idiot.

>>3133085
> Canon 50/1.8: mote like 100
> Yongnuo 50/1.8: $50
Don't forget that an STM 50 is better than yongnuo in every way. If you can't pay 50 bucks extra for a far superior lens - you are an idiot.

> Canon 35/2 IS: $550
> Yongnuo 35/2: $93
Canon had an old film 35. 2, thats the actual competitor of younguo. Maybe for some people that's an option to get a ~50 equivalent for crop, but chromabs are so bad on that lens - it's barely usable for me. Why bother when you have a 24 2.8 and 40 2.8 for a 100 bucks?
And 550 bucks? You know that that's the level of a used 35 1.4l?

> Canon 100/2.8: $600
> Yongnuo 100/2: $160
And you are stating prices for new stuff which is wrong because in Canons lenses you get the warranty + support if you buy new, which is often worth it. In case your chink shit lens breaks you have to fix it by yourself or give it to someone (cheaper to buy a new one)

So, fuck off with your price argument. The difference is not as high as you try to make it look like.

>>3133085
Found the poorfag

File: 7wz3jLk.png (52KB, 663x180px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 663x180px

>>3133098
>film 35
that's not comparable to an AF 35 though. and why are you comparing used vs new lenses you dumbass?

>>3131682
Will that 40 f/2.8 come in Nikon mount?

If so that would be interesting since Nikon doesn't make lenses that small.

>>3133059
>chinkshit company
>can be sued for copyright infringement
haha nope

>>3133128
Learn to read, you retard

>>3133134
>Canon had an old film 35. 2, thats the actual competitor of younguo.
>And 550 bucks? You know that that's the level of a used 35 1.4l?
Read your own text before you post it next time you blithering idiot.

>>3133131
They have official presence outside China. Pretty sure Canikon could at least halt their sales through big retailers like B&H and Amazon if they had grounds for a lawsuit.

>>3133098
>In case your chink shit lens breaks you have to fix it by yourself

You do get warranty if you buy them from legit retailers instead of aliexpress.

>>3133098
First, I was comparing new prices to new prices. Since Canon doesn't seem to be selling the 50/1.8 II in favor of the STM, and since Canon doesn't seem to be selling the 35/2 in favor of the 35/2 IS, I used those.

Second, the Canon 35mm f/2.0 used (via keh) is still $349 minimum. The 50/1.8 II is $80. These are still significantly more expensive than the Yongnuo equivalents. For you and me, spending an extra fifty bucks isn't a big deal. This isn't the case for every budding photographer. Sure, "The difference isn't as high" if you compared used to new (although once you can find used copies of the Yongnuos, I'm guessing those will be even cheaper), but EVEN THEN we're talking a 2x-3x price difference.

Third, and again, my argument isn't "People should buy the Yongnuo instead of the Canon because it's cheaper". My argument is "If you really don't understand why someone would buy a lens that's 1/3-1/5th the cost of the first party lens, you're an idiot".

Your reply is basically "If you ignore the cost advantage, there's no reason to buy the Yongnuo lenses". And, okay, yes, that's right. If you ignore that one little incident during the second act that didn't even happen to her, Mary Todd Lincoln probably had a lovely night out at the theater. To some people, cost matters.