Is the Yongnuo Canon ST-E2 compatible with the Canon 6D?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by mark_stephan|2, Mar 12, 2017.

  1. I used my 5D (original 12.8mp body) and Yongnuo ST-E2 and 420 and 430EX's off camera for a lot of my work involving flash. I recently replaced the 5D with a 6D. I tried using the 6D and Yongnuo ST-E2 for some off camera flash work and every picture at every setting is terribly underexposed. I even dialed in +3.0 flash exposure and +5.0 compensation and slow shutter speeds trying to get an image that wasn't underexposed. To make sure my ST-E2 was in good working order I grabbed my 15 year old 1Ds and a couple of Speedlites and everything worked perfectly. Any idea what the problem might be? To make sure the Speedlite's weren't the problem I tried them on the 6D and didn't have any issues.Could the problem be that the Yougnuo ST-E2 is not communicating with my 6D?
  2. I'll have a chance to try a Canon ST-E2 in a few days once it arrives in the mail. Real curious to see if Canon did something to make the Yongnuo incompatible with the 6D.
  3. Are you sure it is not the flashes rather than the transmitter? After all the 6d flash was the 430 Ex II.
  4. It doesn't work with the Yongnuo ST-E2 but it does work the Canon ST-E2 that I borrowed. I also borrowed a 580EX and it too underexposes badly when using the Yongnuo ST-E2. After doing a lot of internet searches I've found posts by other users of the Yonguno ST-E2 that stated it didn't work with their newer cameras. It worked perfectly with the 40D and 5D that I used to own. I still have a Canon 1Ds and the Yongnuo ST-E2 and my Speedlite 270, 430 and 420EX's work perfectly with the older camera. I'm now watching eBay looking for a good deal on the Canon transmitter.
  5. I don't know how a company like Yongnuo manages to stay in business, they steal everything they produce from Canon and then put their name on it...
  6. LOL... they stay in business by putting out nearly identical (and, for the most part, fully compatible ones) products for a fraction of the price. While their flashes certainly are not as physically durable as Canon's they ARE just as reliable. Obviously they also manage to do so while making a profit... which begs the question... why does a top of the line Canon Flash cost nearly $500 ea? (and keep in mind this has been pretty consistent for last 10+ yrs) It's a rhetorical question, as I already know the answer (product differentiation - NOT cost, R&D, or even marketing...).
    Last edited: May 5, 2017
  7. Marcus their mode of business is pretty close to outright Piracy. They don't even make an effort to change the styling. It just does not seem right. Although they offer Canon products at a fraction of the price, Canon is not lowering their prices any time soon. Canon knows that these copy-cats are probably stuffing their products with cheap components which equates to lower prices. For those who are strapped for cash, or just starting out I guess this might not be a bad thing though...
  8. I guess you haven't looked at them then. I have Yongnuo flashes and Canon flashes. They are COMPLETELY different. Different appearance, different controls, different interface/menus... You seem to have confused 'steal' with 'reverse engineered'... Further, IME, they are more reliable than Canon flashes. Period. Anecdotally at least. I've had and used both brands extensively, and I've, on several occasions, had 550s, 580s and 580 IIs just up and quit - in the middle of a wedding. That's what I (of course) carried backups for, but I never once had a Yongnuo fail in the middle of a shoot. It may be anecdotal, but my experience says that the one available for 1/4 the price is actually better... When I was shooting weddings every weekend, at a certain point, as a professional, it simply wasn't cost effective to spend a couple grand on flashes every year... as you know, I'm sure, that's a new body, or top of the line lens - and was shooting my equipment budget to hell. IDK, I'm not a fanboy, so I tend to judge equipment on merits, not brand. Some people still hate Sigma for Canon's FW jinking to sabotage Sigma's RE of their aperture control, but of course that's the risk right? You can get better-than-or-equivalent-to Canon performance, at a fraction of the price, but then you run the risk of Canon doing something to sabotage the RE... meh. it's all part of the game, and, believe it or not, the competition helps keep Canon honest... so it's all to the good if you are a photographic consumer...
  9. Marcus If I remember correctly Yongnuo flashes did not have ETTL and everything was manual, how could you compare them with Canon flashes. Of course I have not kept up with the company ever since I saw the similarities of their products to the real thing.

    Yongnuo Enters Lens Market With Clone Of Canon 50mm F/1.4
  10. LOL, yes, some of them are completely manual. Just as a dozen other "brands" that make el-cheapo flashes.... However, those are not the ones I was referring too. I'm not sure what the complaint is. If they only made manual flashes then this wouldn't even be a discussion. Canon set themselves up for this by continuing to overprice technology that is decades old... I mean I get it, but unless you have a corporate budget for your gear, it's a decision that you, yourself, have to make... and frankly, it's not a functional sacrifice you are making even if you choose to save $$$s or $$$$s (as is often the case....) ... it was, at most, a 'piece of mind' decision (which is completely respectable, given how much of a photographer relies on their mind set to make beautiful imagery)

    ...As far as the 50/1.4 goes... LMFAO! That's the first I've seen of that particular knockoff, (the 50/1.8 and 35/2 predate that by a number of years...) ... and while those are the best examples of near identical products I've seen, the 50/1.4 doesn't appear to be available in NA... which is a shame... because it's AF system literally can NOT be less reliable than the genuine Canon EF 50/1.4 USM (IME!)... However, we were talking about flashes... ;)
    Last edited: May 8, 2017

Share This Page