Fake Canon lenses?

hashcake

hashcake

Gone to pot!
Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,943
Name
Darran, Daz or ****
Edit My Images
Yes
I've noticed that on certain auction site a Canon 100-400K mk1 rear element looks wrong. There is no date code on it and the circular plastic has grooves in it rather than smooth.
I've never seen this before as they've always been smooth with a date code on them so wondering if it's fake?
 
I would ask Canon. If it is a fake, they will be very pleased to know and we will all benefit from fakers going out of business.
 
Yongnuo et all are copying a few, namely older cheap primes and releasing them under their own names. All of them are on slow screw drive motors and presumably worse optics. There is nothing stopping the same factory dumping more conspicuous copies, likely with the same limitations, unless they can buy decent glass and USM + IS units from a reputable supplier like Sony or Tamron. It wouldn't be cheap to do so.
The mk1 of 100-400 was so poor that it barely matters if its genuine or not. If you can't afford to spend more on mk2 just pick up a 400mm f/5.6L prime which is excellent.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Yongnuo et all are copying a few, namely older cheap primes and releasing them under their own names. All of them are on slow screw drive motors and presumably worse optics. There is nothing stopping the same factory dumping more conspicuous copies, likely with the same limitations, unless they can buy decent glass and USM + IS units from a reputable supplier like Sony or Tamron. It wouldn't be cheap to do so.
The mk1 of 100-400 was so poor that it barely matters if its genuine or not. If you can't afford to spend more on mk2 just pick up a 400mm f/5.6L prime which is excellent.
Click to expand...

I've previously owned a mk1 100-400 and I thought it was good lens producing very sharp photos.
I'm not after another one as I have a Tamron 100-400.
I was just flicking through looking at date codes when I came across this lens.
 
I highly doubt they are fake. Manufacturer couldve changed/improved design and materials over the years.
 
twist said:
I highly doubt they are fake. Manufacturer couldve changed/improved design and materials over the years.
Click to expand...
This^
I've seen suspicions of 'fake' lenses over the years, bit never an actual genuinely proven story - lenses are ridiculously expensive to engineer and manufacture.

OTOH I have seen Cannon cameras from places like Tenerife, that were just very basic plastic compacts, sold at 'bargain' prices for a decent Canon compact but actually overpriced for what they really are.
 
Phil V said:
This^
I've seen suspicions of 'fake' lenses over the years, bit never an actual genuinely proven story - lenses are ridiculously expensive to engineer and manufacture.

OTOH I have seen Cannon cameras from places like Tenerife, that were just very basic plastic compacts, sold at 'bargain' prices for a decent Canon compact but actually overpriced for what they really are.
Click to expand...
i'll second that Tenerife in particular seems a dodgy shop hotspot
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Yongnuo et all are copying a few, namely older cheap primes and releasing them under their own names. All of them are on slow screw drive motors and presumably worse optics. There is nothing stopping the same factory dumping more conspicuous copies, likely with the same limitations, unless they can buy decent glass and USM + IS units from a reputable supplier like Sony or Tamron. It wouldn't be cheap to do so.
The mk1 of 100-400 was so poor that it barely matters if its genuine or not. If you can't afford to spend more on mk2 just pick up a 400mm f/5.6L prime which is excellent.
Click to expand...

That’s quite a derogatory comment about that lens; keyboard warrior?

The lens is fantastic, excellent sharpness and a great following. I hope people don’t take your words literally!
 
hashcake said:
I've previously owned a mk1 100-400 and I thought it was good lens producing very sharp photos.
I'm not after another one as I have a Tamron 100-400.
I was just flicking through looking at date codes when I came across this lens.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong the mark 1 100-400; get a good copy and it will do you for years!
 
stickytape said:
Nothing wrong the mark 1
Click to expand...

So much so that Canon brought out significantly sharper mk2 and mk1 prices dropped to before unimaginable levels. I don't care personally what you use, but then this is a public resource and hopefully freedom of speech still applies or shall I expect a police callout for hate speech against mk1? :)
 
LongLensPhotography said:
So much so that Canon brought out significantly sharper mk2 and mk1 prices dropped to before unimaginable levels. I don't care personally what you use, but then this is a public resource and hopefully freedom of speech still applies or shall I expect a police callout for hate speech against mk1? :)
Click to expand...
Of course not But, I also have a MK1 100-400, I also had a 400 f5.6 prime, both calibrated by Canon to my 5D3 body, there was very little difference in image quality between the 2, the zoom won on practicality terms. So much so that I sold the prime and purchased a 300f4 because it had IS whereas the 400 did not, so your ascercion that the MK1 is/was rubbish is decidedly unfair, read any reviews of that lens from the time of its release and you won't find anyone saying it's rubbish. Perhaps if you had one and it was bad it was a rogue? Which wasn't unknown and of course pretty poor by Canon for an L series lens.
 
Last edited:
MatBin said:
Of course not But, I also have a MK1 100-400, I also had a 400 f5.6 prime, both calibrated by Canon to my 5D3 body, there was very little difference in image quality between the 2, the zoom won on practicality terms. So much so that I sold the prime and purchased a 300f4 because it had IS whereas the 400 did not, so your ascercion that the MK1 is/was rubbish is decidedly unfair, read any reviews of that lens from the time of its release and you won't find anyone saying it's rubbish. Perhaps if you had one and it was bad it was a rogue? Which wasn't unknown and of course pretty poor by Canon for an L series lens.
Click to expand...

Luckily other people had done scientific tests so I can just link to it https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Where it matters the most i.e. 400mm f/5.6 the difference is very pronounced so much so that images could be described as "soft". I shoot landscapes, not wildlife, so OK centre point - rubbish all else doesn't count as decent.

I really wish Canon paid me for advertising their latest gear, but bastards don't! Maybe I'll switch to Sony to teach them a lesson.:)
 
Last edited:
I bought a lens supposedly new recently but it had a fake lens cap.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Luckily other people had done scientific tests so I can just link to it https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=0

Where it matters the most i.e. 400mm f/5.6 the difference is very pronounced so much so that images could be described as "soft". I shoot landscapes, not wildlife, so OK centre point - rubbish all else doesn't count as decent.

I really wish Canon paid me for advertising their latest gear, but bastards don't! Maybe I'll switch to Sony to teach them a lesson.:)
Click to expand...

I have read a lot of these "tests" in the lab where results show a marked difference, although tbh I couldn't see that much difference, but actual real life pictures aren't made up of straight lines repeated many times and whilst I don't wish to tell you that you are wrong if that's what you have found with your lens I and many others haven't found the lab tests actually equate to real world results in our case(s).
End of the day we all have our own level of acceptable and we base that on many factors, so we'll just have to agree to disagree, be boring if everyone agreed on everything :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top