Cheap Nikon Clones

[Gary A.]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with owning the best, unless you have to sacrifice something important like baby diapers or medicine in order to attain that object. Giving up a year of Starbucks may make that purchase even more special. It shows a passion to give up something for your photography.

Conversely, there is absolutely nothing wrong with purchasing a less expensive, third party lens. It shows a wisdom of spending well and/or of knowing how photography fits in your life.

OK, my kids do not need diapers, and prescription medicine is cheap as chips in UK, so I think I can splash on lenses and go broke.

On a serious note Santa brought me FUJINON 56 mm f/1.2, 10-24 f/4 and 55-200 f/3,5 - 4,7 this year. All three are wonderful lenses, top notch and better than anything Nikon I owned. And I doubt Yonguno will start manufacturing cheap clones of FUJI FX, it is a very small niche. Same with Leica.

Santa was especially good to you ... you must have been a very very good boy.

I have a Rokinon 8mm fish in a Fujinon mount.

 

[PropilotBW]

I would not buy one. I'd rather put $50 into a better lens.

 

[sashbar]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with owning the best, unless you have to sacrifice something important like baby diapers or medicine in order to attain that object. Giving up a year of Starbucks may make that purchase even more special. It shows a passion to give up something for your photography.

Conversely, there is absolutely nothing wrong with purchasing a less expensive, third party lens. It shows a wisdom of spending well and/or of knowing how photography fits in your life.

OK, my kids do not need diapers, and prescription medicine is cheap as chips in UK, so I think I can splash on lenses and go broke.

On a serious note Santa brought me FUJINON 56 mm f/1.2, 10-24 f/4 and 55-200 f/3,5 - 4,7 this year. All three are wonderful lenses, top notch and better than anything Nikon I owned. And I doubt Yonguno will start manufacturing cheap clones of FUJI FX, it is a very small niche. Same with Leica.

I have a Rokinon 8mm fish in a Fujinon mount.

How is it? I saw 3 or 4 Rokinon Fuji mount primes on the net but never in a shop.
And yes, I behaved last year. But probably the main reason was a good cashback for multiple lenses purchases offered by FUJI.

 

[Gary A.]

Rokinon 8mm (fish)

 

[cgw]

I'd like to see the price of an 85mm f1.4.

Just search the Rokinon/Samyang 85/1.4 for Nikon.

 

[Mike_E]

I'd like to see the price of an 85mm f1.4.

Just search the Rokinon/Samyang 85/1.4 for Nikon.

They are manual focus though.

 

[greybeard]

If they are of the same quality as their flashes, I would consider them.

 

[Microbois]

I'll have a different take on this...

I'm strongly against purchasing knock-offs for the simple reason that those companies are just going for the easy stuff by copying known designs, and are in fact destroying entire industry segments. I've seen it before in other fields. Let me explain further. While many believe that the reason why some products are utterly expensive is only because of corporate greed and an insatiable appetite for pure profit, the reality is somewhat quite different. Market leaders often spend a lot of money into R&D, invest in state of the art manufacturing facilities, and they take all the risks to come up with innovative products. The only way for those market leaders to keep improving is to have a good range of products that generates enough profits to sustain their R&D efforts and investments.

Once knock-offs start hitting the market, market leaders will have much less revenues to sustain their efforts, thus resulting into cuts into their R&D department. This is where they often have to start making cheaper products in order to remain profitable. I know I'll get flamed for taking the defense of big corporations, but I've been part of this world myself (not the photography business), and all I can say is that there are lots of misconceptions from the public in general. I quite honestly don't give much of a damn to pay my lenses 200$ or 300$ more than their knock-off equivalents, but by doing so, if I happen to support those market leaders, they are those driving innovation further, not the companies behind the knock-offs...

In the grand scheme of things, if that Yongnuo company becomes very successful at selling those knock-off lenses, regardless of the quality or price, it will just precipitate the downfall of Nikon and Canon... I think Nikon and Canon have enough challenges at the moment to make sure they will still be making cameras in 5 years from now, that I don't see the arrival of knock-offs as a good thing on the long term. Sure, bottom feeders will be very happy to get good lenses at ridiculous prices, but who will be happy to see Nikon going bankrupt?

Just my 0.02$

P.S.: If anyone here wants to disagree with me, please buy yourself a copy of "Cheap : The High Cost of Discount Culture", and you'll be in for a big surprise...

 

[greybeard]

I'll have a different take on this...

I'm strongly against purchasing knock-offs for the simple reason that those companies are just going for the easy stuff by copying known designs, and are in fact destroying entire industry segments. I've seen it before in other fields. Let me explain further. While many believe that the reason why some products are utterly expensive is only because of corporate greed and an insatiable appetite for pure profit, the reality is somewhat quite different. Market leaders often spend a lot of money into R&D, invest in state of the art manufacturing facilities, and they take all the risks to come up with innovative products. The only way for those market leaders to keep improving is to have a good range of products that generates enough profits to sustain their R&D efforts and investments.

Once knock-offs start hitting the market, market leaders will have much less revenues to sustain their efforts, thus resulting into cuts into their R&D department. This is where they often have to start making cheaper products in order to remain profitable. I know I'll get flamed for taking the defense of big corporations, but I've been part of this world myself (not the photography business), and all I can say is that there are lots of misconceptions from the public in general. I quite honestly don't give much of a damn to pay my lenses 200$ or 300$ more than their knock-off equivalents, but by doing so, if I happen to support those market leaders, they are those driving innovation further, not the companies behind the knock-offs...

In the grand scheme of things, if that Yongnuo company becomes very successful at selling those knock-off lenses, regardless of the quality or price, it will just precipitate the downfall of Nikon and Canon... I think Nikon and Canon have enough challenges at the moment to make sure they will still be making cameras in 5 years from now, that I don't see the arrival of knock-offs as a good thing on the long term. Sure, bottom feeders will be very happy to get good lenses at ridiculous prices, but who will be happy to see Nikon going bankrupt?

Just my 0.02$

P.S.: If anyone here wants to disagree with me, please buy yourself a copy of "Cheap : The High Cost of Discount Culture", and you'll be in for a big surprise...

I just look at the Yongnuo lens as another 3rd party offering just like their flashes. I know it isn't a Nikon because it says Yongnuo instead. Just like I know my Tokina is not a Nikon because it says Tokina on it. Seems to me a few years ago Kiev was making Hasselblad knockoffs. Pretty descent stuff at 1/4 the cost. I don't think Hasselblad got hurt too much by Keiv.

 

[Microbois]

I just look at the Yongnuo lens as another 3rd party offering just like their flashes. I know it isn't a Nikon because it says Yongnuo instead. Just like I know my Tokina is not a Nikon because it says Tokina on it.

Sorry, but this is where you get it all wrong. Tokina, Sigma, or Tamron are not knock-offs. They have their own R&D department, and they come up themselves with innovative lenses, just look at that Sigma 50mm f/1.4 which is probably the best 50mm lens on the market right now. This is what I call fair competition and Nikon/Canon need to have that kind of competition, otherwise, they would just sit on their laurels, stop innovating, keep their prices high, and grab our money.

Yongnuo is a totally different animal. They don't have any R&D department, and most likely just a couple engineers supervising the manufacturing process. Worst, they might even have been manufacturing for Canon/Nikon, and just stole their designs. Sure, their prices may be very attractive, and hard to resist if you're on a tight budget, but there's always a trade-off somewhere. If it's not in the product itself, on the long term, it will be on the entire industry like I explained above. Nikon or Canon don't need that kind of competition when they don't even know if they will still be producing cameras in 5 years from now.

If there's one thing I've learned the hard way in my life is that I'm not rich enough to buy cheap stuff.

 

[greybeard]

I just look at the Yongnuo lens as another 3rd party offering just like their flashes. I know it isn't a Nikon because it says Yongnuo instead. Just like I know my Tokina is not a Nikon because it says Tokina on it.

Sorry, but this is where you get it all wrong. Tokina, Sigma, or Tamron are not knock-offs. They have their own R&D department, and they come up themselves with innovative lenses, just look at that Sigma 50mm f/1.4 which is probably the best 50mm lens on the market right now. This is what I call fair competition and Nikon/Canon need to have that kind of competition, otherwise, they would just sit on their laurels, stop innovating, keep their prices high, and grab our money.

Yongnuo is a totally different animal. They don't have any R&D department, and most likely just a couple engineers supervising the manufacturing process. Worst, they might even have been manufacturing for Canon/Nikon, and just stole their designs. Sure, their prices may be very attractive, and hard to resist if you're on a tight budget, but there's always a trade-off somewhere. If it's not in the product itself, on the long term, it will be on the entire industry like I explained above. Nikon or Canon don't need that kind of competition when they don't even know if they will still be producing cameras in 5 years from now.

If there's one thing I've learned the hard way in my life is that I'm not rich enough to buy cheap stuff.

If what you say is true then it is not Nikon or Canon who will get hurt by these lenses, it will be the other 3rd party makers.

 

[bigal1000]

I'll have a different take on this...

I'm strongly against purchasing knock-offs for the simple reason that those companies are just going for the easy stuff by copying known designs, and are in fact destroying entire industry segments. I've seen it before in other fields. Let me explain further. While many believe that the reason why some products are utterly expensive is only because of corporate greed and an insatiable appetite for pure profit, the reality is somewhat quite different. Market leaders often spend a lot of money into R&D, invest in state of the art manufacturing facilities, and they take all the risks to come up with innovative products. The only way for those market leaders to keep improving is to have a good range of products that generates enough profits to sustain their R&D efforts and investments.

Once knock-offs start hitting the market, market leaders will have much less revenues to sustain their efforts, thus resulting into cuts into their R&D department. This is where they often have to start making cheaper products in order to remain profitable. I know I'll get flamed for taking the defense of big corporations, but I've been part of this world myself (not the photography business), and all I can say is that there are lots of misconceptions from the public in general. I quite honestly don't give much of a damn to pay my lenses 200$ or 300$ more than their knock-off equivalents, but by doing so, if I happen to support those market leaders, they are those driving innovation further, not the companies behind the knock-offs...

In the grand scheme of things, if that Yongnuo company becomes very successful at selling those knock-off lenses, regardless of the quality or price, it will just precipitate the downfall of Nikon and Canon... I think Nikon and Canon have enough challenges at the moment to make sure they will still be making cameras in 5 years from now, that I don't see the arrival of knock-offs as a good thing on the long term. Sure, bottom feeders will be very happy to get good lenses at ridiculous prices, but who will be happy to see Nikon going bankrupt?

Just my 0.02$

P.S.: If anyone here wants to disagree with me, please buy yourself a copy of "Cheap : The High Cost of Discount Culture", and you'll be in for a big surprise...

Well said sir well said !!!!