The difference is quite noticeable even without pixel peeping, and that is to be expected from a budget prime lens. The contrast improves drastically, and the overall sharpness gets better too. However, stopping down the aperture to F2.8 made a whole world of difference. It resolves good amount of details, somewhat decent contrast, and there really is nothing to shout about.

The lens is sharp enough, perhaps as good as any kit lenses from Olympus or Panasonic, but not better. I guess that's where PWs score - when you're looking for that last drop of performance.Shooting at wide open F1.7, the Yongnuo 25mm lens is not exactly a stellar performer. I'm not a big fan of that technique myself (except perhaps with a powerful location studio head with long flash duration) but with the YN 622 the sync timing off-set is fixed whereas it can be optimally adjusted with PWs. YN's Supersync feature is PW's Tail HyperSync. Not sure if you've used PW Mini/Flex much, but for your kind of use I would find PW's enhanced features very useful. More a point of interest rather than of much practical significance though One thing I have noticed is that while PW's Mini/Flex doesn't have the longest range (even with an 'optimum' gun) the lower frequency seems to have better penetration at closer range when it comes to shooting around obstacles and through walls etc. If their choice of frequency is also limiting technical potential in other areas too, then it was surely not a smart move It's caused them no end of headaches with Canon's RF interference issues and they are still not properly resolved, perhaps never will be. I don't know about how PW's frequency affects transmission speed, not heard that before, but I certainly think it was a marketing error not to go with the flow and 2.4GHz (not an option in the early pioneering days of PW of course). Both devices have their role, and PWs have been a godsend for photographers. I should not have made it a A versus B argument. Apologies to Phil and others who felt I was putting PWs down. So I tend to think in terms of those situations.

I am personally influenced by doing no studio work whatsoever - all on-location event photography. They do a specific job very well, and that precludes other aspects. The 622s are designed to implement Canon flash control menus via radio, so by design have no interface for implementing other settings. The 622s have Supersync, which is a whole-burn technique with no control on initiation. So, does PW adopt an adequate frequency and abandon all previous gear, or try to improve speeds by trimming programming? This is becoming a problem with ever-faster camera processors and timing-intensive flash syncs. Their chosen radio frequency has a very low reolution capability = slow data transmission. However, the 622 has no facility for updating the firmware.Д¬lick to expand.You are right. And 1D X, although there is instability with ratios. Then there is the 5DIII compatibility for months.

Are any of these not handled by PWs? Some are handled better than the 622s, I understand. I selected items from the Contents of TOYUG that showed the significant capabilities of the 622s. But, the YN-622 requires a different way of thinking. PWs are well behind in capabilities by today's standards.Д«y, the way, Phil, I recognised that your perceptions were influenced by the capabilities of PWs. Nevertheless, I have confirmed that the 622s handle Canon meticulously. PS I have used Canon cameras and Speedlites for a decade, and was using E-TTL and FEC long before flash control menus appeared. A good grasp of Canon flash technologies is a pre-requisite for using the YN-622C, as it is designed to handle Canon protocols by radio, with all Canon's limitations.

The camera menu (see p.11-13 of TOYUG) can enable Wireless mode and set a firing group of A:B and ratio, and this is applied to the mounted 622.Д«ut, this is all Canon stuff, not YongNuo. It is one of the three ways FEC can be set - on-camera. (The camera determines which flavour, not the flash or 622.) Put the flash into E-TTL mode, and then adjust FEC using the camera's FEC button. The 'no compatible flash' does not appear as there is a compatible 'flash' mounted - the 622.Д«ut that is irrelevant for the present question.Д®ven a non-menu-controllable Speedlite can be used for E-TTL. The 622 programming looks after whatever is out there. The camera menus interact with the 622, and nothing else. If there is an on-top flash, it is the flash head component of the Master. The YN-622C when on-camera is a fully-compatible Master flash controller unit.

Supersync youngno review