YONGNUO – YN622C II and YN622N II Announced



After nearly 3 years since originaly released, YongNuo have announced the second generation YN622C II and YN622N II for Canon and Nikon.

The updates to the very popular YN-622C and YN-622N TTL triggers will now provide quick release lever locking hotshoes, and most importantly add USB ports for firmware updates.


The Canon version YN622C II will again provide an 560-RX communication mode (as we have already seen in the recent V1.2 YN-622C available since January 2015). This mode allows the remote manual YN560-TX to act as a transmitter unit to the YN622C II as receivers, while providing remote manual power, and remote zoom control.

In comparison the Nikon version YN622N II will now provide a more limited additional 603-RX communication mode. This mode allows RF-603 compatible transmitter units like the RF-603, RF-603 II, RF605, and YN560-TX, to simply fire the YN622N II receivers. Unlike the Canon version, no remote power or zoom control are possible in 603-RX mode (the possibility of group functionality is not yet clear).


YongNuo YN-622C II


Other functions appear to be the same as the original YN-622C and YN-622N. Though updates to the case design may hopefully eliminate issues like the ease of accidentally bumping the transmitter off channel.

The addition of a USB port for firmware updates also now opens the possibility for new features and functions to be periodically added in the future.

Though this added flexibility may also cast further doubt on the ability of some other third party flash manufacturers to retain compatibility with the popular YongNuo system.





Price and availability are not yet stated, though updates to existing YongNuo models are usually available within a few weeks of the announcement.


YongNuo Website – YN622C II

YongNuo Website – YN622N II



  1. nevel 6 years ago

    crap I just bought a shanny SN600N. if I decide to upgrade the 6 triggers to the MKII, I hope the shanny will fire them in manual mode off camera (remote power control doesnt bother me the least) and I hope it will work on camera and pass through inf to the camera. fingers crossed.

    • nevel 6 years ago

      I hope they fixed the wobbly fit of flashes that sit in the shoe, specifically nikon flashes. dont care for the quick release lock. the current is fine but I guess if they want to improve, I dont mind. as long as its durable. I prefer the locking wheel to the quick release because you can always tighten it just a bit more. some like the QR, I like the locking wheel.

      curios what they look like.

      hope this isnt one of those ANNOUNCED posts only to find out theyll be RELEASED next year.

      • Author
        Flash Havoc 6 years ago

        Hi Nevel,

        Yes, unfortunately I’d be surprised if the lever lock is not a step backwards for anyone hoping to use a flash mounted on top of the pass through hotshoe on camera.

        The problem with the current YN-622 though is they were never designed with much finger access to the locking ring, so they can be a bit of a pain to take on and off the camera. In that sense they lever lock should be a good improvement.

        I doubt the availability will be far off with a product like this, as YongNuo will be very aware sales of the current version will stall to so some degree now that these have been announced.

      • Andy 6 years ago

        Since i just move to RT system, I hope they upgrade or fix YN600EX-RT wobbling foot on top of the camera hot shoe.

  2. Earle 6 years ago

    Nice! But will Yongnuo offer an Apple-based program for firmware updates finally?

  3. Scott 6 years ago

    Does anyone know if this will work with the 568 ex ii for nikon in a master/commander mode when it is released?

    • Author
      Flash Havoc 6 years ago

      Hi Scott,

      Do you mean when the YN-568EX II for Nikon is released?, because I don’t know of those being available as yet.

      I’m still hoping by this stage YongNuo may possibly be working on a flash with YN622N transceiver built in, instead of a non radio flash like the current YN-568EX II for Canon.

  4. Earl 6 years ago

    Just hope that the program the use to update this flash will work with a 64 bit OS

  5. Rick 6 years ago

    What is the difference between YN-568EX and the II?
    Any idea if they’ll come out with a YN-600EX-RT for Nikon?

    • Author
      Flash Havoc 6 years ago

      Hi Rick,

      The YN-568EX only has an optic wireless slave mode, where the YN-568EX II for Canon has a master mode as well.

      That master mode is needed a lot more for Nikon though, because the YN-622N on camera do not have their own interface, and the camera does not have a flash control menu like Canon does. So a master flash mounted on top can be the used as the master interface (where it can’t be with the Canon YN-622C).

      So YongNuo really need a YN-568EX II flash for Nikon badly. Though a far better solution would be a flash with YN-622N transceiver and master interface built inside. As that avoids the often unreliable pass through hotshoe (which is likely to only get less reliable with a lever lock foot on the new YN622N II).

      No doubt YongNuo will be working on a flash like that eventually (as Shanny are already leaving them behind there), though they may still produce a regular YN-568EX II for Nikon first.

  6. Apostolos 6 years ago

    Well, I’ve only had my 622c for a week, they don’t seem to be able to trigger the Godox 360 in HSS without the help of a PC cable, so they’re going back. Maybe the fixed that in this version.

    • Mariosch 6 years ago

      No, it won’t.
      That behaviour is correct and in compliance with Canons TTL protocol.
      Canon synchronizes the trigger of the firing pin mechanically to the two curtains of the shutter, so it always gets triggered once the first curtain has fully opened and is release when the rear curtain starts to close.
      Changing that would mean breaking compatibility with every existing Canon-compatible TTL flash.
      For HSS, there’s a TTL start command, which the AD360 can’t understand as it’s not TTL. Same goes for Rear Curtain Sync, with Canon, that’s also a function fully implemented in the speedlight itself.

      All non-TTL flashes can use the PC sync terminal, though, where YN creates a matching trigger signal depending on sync mode. That’s why you need to use a sync cable.
      Another option would be to swap the 622C on camera for a 622C-TX. With a display and user interface of it’s own, the 622C-TX offers advanced options not supported by the camera’s flash menu, and one of them is SuperSync mode, in which all the 622C hotshoe also becomes supersynced. Of course, that probably still breakes compatibility with Canon TTL, but since you can decide whether to activate that feature – and, more important, on which slave groups – that’s not a problem.

      But beside that: you really want to mount an AD360 onto a 622C in hotshoe? Never had a one of those in my hand, but I have the impression that they are kinda bulky, and some people have told me, they don’t feel comfortable with theAD360 attached to a coldshoe, they swapped the foot for the more sturdy 1/4″ screw mount.
      Putting a flash that large onto a 622C doesn’t strike me as very stable in my imagination, but I might be wrong, of course…

    • alberto 6 years ago

      I am curious on why don’t you just use the Cell II trigger. Its purpose is to trigger HSS with canon and works with the FT-16 receivers. The 622C is not needed at all for HSS with canon. If you using the AD360s with a combination of other strobes that need the 622C to trigger. Then mount the FT-16 trigger on top the 622C. That should take care of the problem.

  7. iMiKE 6 years ago

    It’s very good to read news about YN622C II announcing.
    New latching mechanism and USB ports for firmware upgrading are main new features, not so much though.
    I think YoungNuo should add Canon RT protocol in new 622C MkII – only after this YongNuo can add MkII label no 622C.

    • Mariosch 6 years ago

      @iMike: I don’t see that happen.
      The 622C are unidirectional triggers, as far as I’m aware of, meaning, the master just transmits all commands into the room, hoping someone will receive them. There’s no return channel from the receiving 622C to the master 622C / 622C-TX in any way.

      With RT system, there is. The RT master is aware of any slave flash and of it’s current status and even if there is a second master within the system. That’s also why there can only be up to 15 flashes involved.
      Not sure if one could add a return channel to the 622C without a complete redesign, probably resulting in a lot of compatibility issues with the first generation.

      Also, the YN-E3-RX – YN’s original TTL receiver for RT system – does only work with EX II generation flashes, older flashes like the Canon 430 EX, 550 EX or 580 EX are reported not to even work in TTL mode. I guess that’s due to the fact that the RT master expects certain status informations from the slave flash and the older E-TTL I protocol isn’t capable of delivering it.
      So adding RT support to the 622C would probably mean dropping support for older flashes.

      Also, why adding RT? What’s the benefit?
      Besides the fact that you can control up to 5 groups and see on your controller the recharge status of each group, it doesn’t do anything you can’t do with the 622C / 622C-TX.
      With the YN-E3-RX there is already a receiver for using modern non-RT-flashes with the RT system. Simply use that one instead of the 622C if you need RT.

      Adding 560-support to the 622C, on the other hand, had real value. For example, it allowed me to start migrating to the 560-system painlessly, as I was always needing more then 3 groups and used my off-camera flash in manual only, anyways. Also, I can imaging a lot of people switching between both systems regularly – 622C when using off-camera TTL and 560-TX when using off-camera manual.
      But I can’t imaging someone would be switching between 622C and RT system – for what reason?

  8. Marlon Martins 6 years ago

    603 rx mode? so it can only be a receiver to a “tx 603”??

    damn, i was hoping to use it as a TX and have a bunch of 603 ii as RX… (cause 603ii does not have a TTL pass-trough)…

  9. fortune 6 years ago

    Why are nikon versions of these products always delayed? Is because of the complex nature of the cls system?

  10. Author
    Flash Havoc 6 years ago

    Hi fortune,

    I’ve actually never really heard any comments from the engineers towards the Nikon system being more difficult of complex. They are quite different systems in a number of ways though.

    Canon gear is usually developed and released first simply because there is a larger market of Canon users.

    Nikon has really been neglected though. A YN-568EX II master flash for Nikon for example, should have been a far bigger priority than for Canon (with the way the YN-622N need a master flash as interface).

  11. Yuppa 6 years ago

    The buttons, right, the buttons.

    They should be recessed more–even flush–or include a lock switch–top upgrade for me!

    Adding a USB is big, but an improved case design will impact (improve) daily use far more.

    • nevel 6 years ago

      in every single wedding Ive shot, I never had an instance where I pressed any of the buttons accidentally. never.

      the thing they should improve is making flashes that sit in, a tighter fit. I thought there was something wrong with my nikon flashes when I first mounted it. I was ready to put them in repair and get the bottom foot replace on all 3.

      the locking wheel is fine. not so bad when on a camera. they could have given it a longer neck abover the wheel so theres more space to slip your fingers in. not a bit deal deal. the bigger obstacle is releasing it when it used with flash base/stand.

      as long as they fixed the bad issue im having now then im happy. two cameras carrying 622n on them and flashes in each transceiver and one is firing the other. what a pain in the tushi.

      • Yuppa 6 years ago

        Yes, flush (or harder to press).

        The primary complaint has always been that it’s far too easy to accidentally press the buttons.

        The fact that you haven’t had an issue–yet–doesn’t mean others don’t or that you never will. When assistants hand-hold them, on occasion, they do hit a button accidentally.

      • Author
        Flash Havoc 6 years ago

        I think one of the main issues with the buttons is that its very easy to bump the channel button if using the test fire button.

        If you’re mainly using TTL and never really touch the triggers its not as much of an issue.

        I think part of the problem regarding the loose fitting Nikon shoe, is that they would use the same shoe hardware for both Canon and Nikon, and Nikon have a slightly smaller foot, so they are quite loose.

        We will have to wait and see, though I’d be surprised if the new level lock provides any improvements in fit, particularly for a flash on the pass through hotshoe.

        • nevel 6 years ago

          yes ive changed channel when trying to use the test button, but when its on, It never happened that I accidently changed anything. but flush is like the pain in the ass flash I loved but hated as much in the film days. the nikon SB28.

          you had to use your fingernail to depress buttons. maybe they can make a raised body edge and have the button protrude a bit but will be flush with the raised body edge.

          alright elvis, tell yongnuo what they need to do and tell them to go to production. cancel the quick lever lock also. haha

  12. Sameer 6 years ago

    Looking forward for this. Any information on how many groups this will support? When will this be available?

    • Mariosch 6 years ago

      I wouldn’t expect more than 3 groups. 3 groups is, what both Canon and Nikon support with their optical wireless system, and the 622 build on that – for Canon they act as wireless master, utilizing the buillt-in control menus of the camera, and for Nikon, utilizing the interface of a commander flash on top of a 622N to set-up the remote groups.
      I don’t expect that to change with the Mk. II version.

  13. Mike Carrigan 6 years ago

    What happened to the photos? Is Yongnuo having a second thought?

    On a more serious question, what do you think about with reverse combatability with the version-1 sinse that is what I’m vested in right now?

  14. Steen Oervad 6 years ago

    Seems that Yongnuo made a new flash with built in 622C : http://www.hkyongnuo.com/e-detaily.php?ID=366

  15. noradoramon 6 years ago

    So is this new 622N II, capable to fire TTL Nikon flash (SB700 OR SB910) along with 560 III triggered by 560 TX?

    • Mariosch 6 years ago

      @noradoramon: yes, but only fire. You would have to put your TTL flash into M mode and set up power levels on the flash itself.

  16. kcvb 6 years ago

    Dear flashhavoc

    depend on you three explaining make me crazy now. cos complicated.

    1. depend this link http://flashhavoc.com/yongnuo-yn560-tx-to-yn-622c-compatibility-added/ you said remote from yn560tx -> yn622c-tx (Update firmware) -> yn622c.

    2. depend on this link http://flashhavoc.com/yongnuo-yn-622c-and-yn-622c-tx-updates/ you said remote from yn560tx -> yn622c.

    3. depend this http://flashhavoc.com/yongnuo-yn622c-ii-and-yn622n-ii-announced/ you said remote from yn560tx -> yn622c II.


    -why 1 and 2 are different during the yn622c still same? why first time is need yn622c tx pass through? and second time is no need it pass through?

    -why 2 and 3 are same feature? yn622c and yn622c II do same feature? i don’t see any update of them? cos same remote from yn560tx. i think yn622c II should update transmit yn560 III and IV.

    -one last question is yn622c has separately transmitter and transceiver? or both feature in one?

    • Author
      Flash Havoc 6 years ago

      Hi kcvb,

      – 1 and 2 are not the same YN-622C units. Version 1.2 of the YN-622C were released in January 2015.

      – I’m not sure if YongNuo want to allow the YN-622C to control the YN560 units. If they did this it may be a little messy as a transmitter to the YN560, though the reason may be more because they don’t want to lose sales of the higher value TTL gear.

      – The YN-622C has both transmitter and receiver feature in the one unit. The YN-622C-TX is a transmitter only.

      If your starting without owning any previous gear, its generally going to be much more convenient to go with all one system or the other, than to try and mix them.

  17. Mike Lubchenko 6 years ago

    Yongnuo added a photo to the Canon version page today. http://hkyongnuo.com/e-detaily.php?ID=364

    • Yuppa 6 years ago

      That’s great. The buttons are smaller and flush. Here’s to hoping the foot/shoe fit is tight…er.

      • Yuppa 6 years ago

        Dedicated 560-RX switch position instead of pushing this while sliding that.

      • Author
        Flash Havoc 6 years ago

        Thanks, yes the flush Channel / Group buttons should help, though I think they should likely have left the Test button raised still, so that is easy to feel without bumping the Channels as before.

    • Author
      Flash Havoc 6 years ago

      Great thanks Mike.

  18. don 6 years ago

    is it possible to put a buff cybercommander or smaller cybersync on top of the yn622c II to allow it to also control buff einsteins as well as using the yn622 to fire a pair of 580ex II’s?

  19. John 6 years ago

    I have a tip and a question. The tip is upgrade your 622 TX firmware. A lady couldn’t get it to fire a speedlite on a 622N II but the test button on the TX would fire the flash, just not the shutter button. After talking with her I had her check the firmware and it was 1.05. Upgrading to 1.06 did the trick. It is possible a setting in the TX was off too (looked good to me though). I know is you should upgrade your firmware anyway.

    The specs of the YN-622N II Transceiver says “Works with Strobe Studio flash in HSS function”.

    I assume they have tweaked it to work better with a strobe. Is that correct and is there a benefit over the older model with a strobe? If so, I may just have to get a couple for my strobes. I also know some strobes are HSS and I don’t think the older ones are but are capable of going over your non-hss speeds (200 or 250) with the right trigger.

    I can get over 1/1000 sync with a TX, 622 transceiver (version one I guess it is now) and D7100 but the TX cannot be in HSS mode. No matter what timing I tried 500 or 640 was the limit. When I put the TX in manual mode, not HSS, it immediately worked and went to 1/2000 but it is dependent on the power level. If I remember correctly it would do 1/1000 at any power level and I’ll do more testing tomorrow.

    I don’t want to have to remember power levels so my goal is to find the sync limit at any power level. If the new 622 II can go to 1/2000, 1/4000 or 1/8000 then it may be worth an upgrade but I don’t know what the strobe is capable of. I’ve had a hard time finding anyone posting about what limits they have found.

    It was tested with an Ultrazap 800 and tomorrow I have an Ultrazap 1600 coming with a Vagabond Mini. I plan to go try it out and experiment a lot. An Ultrazap has the same specs as Paul Buff X series as far as flash duration, timing etc. The only difference is the Ultrazaps do not have an overheat alarm, a fan or the 1/4 power button. Because of the fan the X series is rated at 400 full power shots per hour and the Ultrazaps are rated at 180 (full power).

    It took a lot of leg work to find this information in bits and pieces but then I found a magazine ad on Google books where PCB advertised the Ultrazap as being exactly the same except for what I named above and recommended the X series for higher duty use over the Ultrazap. Unless you’re shooting something where you can’t miss a shot, like runway models or something, the Ultrazap is a very good option but cost more used and are harder to find. From what I’ve seen nobody who had an Ultrazap upgraded to the X series but they are upgrading to the Einstein (and others) and that is making Ultrazaps become available.

    I’m just a hobbyist and my equipment probably isn’t going to pay for itself so I try to save where I can and the Ultrazaps are a real bargain. If I were making money at it I’d go for the Einstein and a nice powerful X series.

    I totally ruled out the plain Ultras because they are not repairable if a capacitor goes out. According to PCB you can’t get the capacitors and once they’re dead, they’re dead. Of course I wouldn’t pass one up at a low enough price. Also, the plain Ultra two flash tube set cost $20 more ($55) than the Ultrazap tube at $35, the same tube as the Alien Bees B800. It’s a better, faster tube too.

    Sorry about all of that, this may be old news to the old pros but I wanted to share it for other new guys like me. My question is basically does the new 622 II offer any real gain when used with an older strobe and does anyone know what the max sync speed (for certain) of an Ultrazap, X series or B800 is with a 622? I’ve seen people claim 1/250 and that just isn’t true.

  20. Jesse 6 years ago

    So, would I be able to use this as a a ttl passthrough hotshoe and fire my YN-560IVs?
    If so, I am sold!

    • John 6 years ago


      I’m not sure what you’re asking but yes, you can put this on your camera and a flash on top but it will not make your flash TTL. You need a TTL flash to get the TTL function. It will not convert a Non-TTL flash to TTL.

      • Jesse 6 years ago

        Right. I would be using a TTL flash on top and the YN-622 II would trigger my YN-560IV units off camera.

  21. Veer 6 years ago

    Is the YN22N flash controller compatible with YN622C. Transreceviever ?? Pls help

  22. sup 4 years ago

    I have the Canon 430 ex III RT and a canon 5d mark III,

    Now whenever I used the Yongnuo 622c with my flash, one the triggers were not reliable, two the IR beam from the transmitter never fired or misfired.

    So before I spend anymore money, will the Yongnuo 622c II work with the Canon 430 Ex III RT. I need that AF beam, because I shoot in lowlight.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Anti-Spam Quiz:


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?