[Brightcolours]

Lousy AF implementation and not that sharp wide open. For the rest, not that bad.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpLtv8b3UJk

 

On one hand I find it pretty problematic that they are playing copycat. On the other hand, it kinda amuses me that they do not reach the quality of the originals (at least for their Canon copies, it might be different for the Nikkor copies).

[davidmanze]

 Could anybody live with that AF noise?  Good for attracting screech owls!

[Rover]

Lousy AF implementation and not that sharp wide open. For the rest, not that bad.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpLtv8b3UJk

 

On one hand I find it pretty problematic that they are playing copycat. On the other hand, it kinda amuses me that they do not reach the quality of the originals (at least for their Canon copies, it might be different for the Nikkor copies).

So it appears they were unable to make their own version of USM - it's really a micro motor in disguise. Likely the YN 100/2 is the same. So, one has to be a real diehard cheapskate to consider one of those - most people would probably... oh, God, that sounds ridiculous... save for the real Canon 85/1.8 or, better yet, the Tamron.  I was under the impression that anyone who has the money to buy a full-frame camera would not skimp on lenses so much (unless he/she is out for an "arty" soft/flawed look) as to buy this junk.

[toni-a]

Not even tempted by this lens, however if it were available when I was still a student with limited revenues I would have very likely seriously considered it.

What I am saying is for people with limited budget those Chinese cheap lenses would seem attractive, I think that's the target population for such products

[Rover]

Yeah, I've gone through that phase as well, and found out that cheap gear is nigh on impossible to get rid of - you have to sell it for peanuts or literally give it away, so any perceived saving turns into loss later on.