October 24, 2014, 02:35:08 PM

Author Topic: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?  (Read 12575 times)

Mt Spokane Photography

  • EF 50mm F 0.7 IS
  • *********
  • Posts: 8887
    • View Profile
Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2013, 10:17:17 PM »
Nikon does not use Fluorite in their lenses.  That is why they are longer and often have more CA's than Canon lenses, and often do not focus as closely.  Fluorite allows better correction of CA's which allows a shorter lens.
 
Maybe black paint is more expensive??  That Nikon 800mm sells for $18,000 ;)

Actually, Nikon's new 800/5.6 does use fluorite elements - two of them.  This, despite previous Nikon marketing blurbs that fluorite was used long ago, but they made ED glass so they could avoid using temperature-sensitive, fragile lens elements (e.g., this link).

I wonder how the fluorite will do in a black barrel?  If it has thermal issues, Nikon will be blasted. If not, it supports the idea that Canon's white paint is purely a marketing ploy (already supported by the white lenses with no fluorite, like the 300/4L IS).  Either way, I see egg on the face of one or maybe both...

Nikon uses Fluorite in their high end Microscopes, so they are familiar with it.  Polishing Fluorite Crystals is said to take 4X as long, and that adds to the cost.
 
I'd think that its possible to design a lens to allow for the expansion and contraction of the Fluorite.  I'm thinking that's its a differential expansion issue that causes the elements to crack.
 
Canon uses Fluorite is those expensive black telephoto cinema zooms, so I'd tend to agree that what was once a reason for white paint is now marketing and that construction techniques alleviate the thermal expansion / contraction issues.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2013, 10:17:17 PM »

Shane1.4

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 49
    • View Profile
    • Shane Long Photography
Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2013, 10:19:22 PM »
Yes. It does look kind of dated.
5D Mark III, 6D, 135L, 85 1.8, Sigma 50 1.4 Art, Sigma 35 1.4 Art, 17-40L
www.shanelongphotography.com

jdramirez

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2439
    • View Profile
Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2013, 10:39:52 PM »
No.  I don't mind the attention, I don't think that black is all that nice.  I really like the style and design of Canon L telephoto lenses.  I also enjoy seeing them at basketball games and football games.  It makes me think that my gear is good enough if pro's use it.
Upgrade  path.->means the former was sold for the latter.

XS->60D->5d Mkiii:18-55->24-105L:75-300->55-250->70-300->70-200 f4L USM->70-200 f/2.8L USM->70-200 f/2.8L IS Mkii:50 f/1.8->50 f/1.4->100L->85mm f/1.8 USM-> 8mm ->100L & 85L

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14747
    • View Profile
Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #33 on: May 22, 2013, 10:46:47 PM »
Nikon uses Fluorite in their high end Microscopes, so they are familiar with it.

As does Zeiss in many of the objectives on my scopes.  The crystals are a little smaller, though.  ;)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Stewbyyy

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 53
    • View Profile
    • Stuart Comerford Photography
Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2013, 11:02:04 PM »
The fact it's white has never bothered me at all. I work mainly in PR/sports photography and the white lenses are very common.

I think the Canon white has always been a very iconic sight and sometimes it's nice to have people think "oh, he's a professional, we better not get in his way".

I've never had to shoot in extreme candid situations so it's never gotten in my way. And the weather here in Ireland is never hot enough for the white to make a difference.

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4194
    • View Profile
Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #35 on: May 22, 2013, 11:07:08 PM »
blk or wht, I don't care. Fast AF + sharp @ f2.8 are my #1 reason I bought this lens.

Do you want 70-200 in blk? Try this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/687942-REG/LensCoat_LC702002BK_Canon_Lens_Cover_Black.html
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 11:09:53 PM by Dylan777 »
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

IWLP

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #36 on: May 22, 2013, 11:42:23 PM »

Actually, Nikon's new 800/5.6 does use fluorite elements - two of them.  This, despite previous Nikon marketing blurbs that fluorite was used long ago, but they made ED glass so they could avoid using temperature-sensitive, fragile lens elements (e.g., this link).

I wonder how the fluorite will do in a black barrel?  If it has thermal issues, Nikon will be blasted. If not, it supports the idea that Canon's white paint is purely a marketing ploy (already supported by the white lenses with no fluorite, like the 300/4L IS).  Either way, I see egg on the face of one or maybe both...

I was under the impression that the white telephotos were white to keep a lens' autofocus system from overheating, not the fluorite elements - going back to the early days of AF where Nikon was using focus motors in their bodies.

At any rate, I don't mind the white 70-200. In some situations where I shoot, it adds an air of legitimacy to the fact that I'm standing around with a camera taking photos. I walked around a large city in China and never hesitated to pull it out. Of course the fact that I'm white was probably a bigger deal most of the time.
I'm *this* close to switching to Nikon! I swear - I'll do it! Maybe next month, or in a week, or when they release the D ... oh, look a shiny thing!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #36 on: May 22, 2013, 11:42:23 PM »

MrFotoFool

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 251
  • 5D mk3
    • View Profile
    • HoodFineArt
Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #37 on: May 23, 2013, 12:13:25 AM »
You can spot a Canon shooter instantly?  Are not Sony telephotos also white?  I would prefer my 70-200 to be black.  I had the original 80-200 2.8L that was black and liked the color better.  But it does not take tele extenders and it was too much carrying that plus the 300 4L to cover the range (in addition to standard lens), so I sold them for the 70-200 2.8L plus 1.4X extender.  (Actually in between I used a Sigma 100-300 4 which was all black and sharp and great, but it stopped autofocusing and Sigma said repair parts were no longer available).

I kind of think the silver Pentax telephotos are cool.  Alternatively, I really like the white bodies like the Pentax shown above and wish Canon made one because it would look great with their white lenses.  If I was rich I would probably just have all my bodies and lenses done in a matching original paint scheme from Pimp Your Camera in Germany http://www.pimpyourcam.com/

birtembuk

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 116
    • View Profile
Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #38 on: May 23, 2013, 12:14:56 AM »
Black or white I also don't care. Meanwhile, some around are willing to pay an arm to get theirs painted in white ...
http://petapixel.com/2012/02/17/camera-lenses-with-custom-paint-jobs/

raptor3x

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 205
    • View Profile
Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #39 on: May 23, 2013, 12:36:48 AM »
You are ignoring the other ways heat dissipates.

Okay, sure, convective heat transfer could definitely overpower solar radiative heat transfer but you'd need a fairly strong wind to get to the point where a white and black object will have essentially the same equilibrium temperature.  And I doubt conduction has any significant effect in this situation.

Also, once sunlight has heated the object, the radiated heat is at much lower frequencies and the emissivity is more or less the same then (this is somewhere on Wikipedia).

Actually it's quite the opposite, as the object's temperature rises the frequency distribution of the blackbody radiation shifts toward higher frequencies.  This shift toward higher frequencies is what causes the increase of heat transfer out of the body via blackbody radiation.  If it were the opposite, and the frequency distribution moved to lower frequencies as the temperature increased you might have bodies near absolute zero giving off high energy radiation.  It's true that emmissivity will change as a function of temperature and for most materials the emmissivity will tend to increase with increasing temperature, but you're not going to see a white and black object achieve the same emmissivity just by exposing them to 0.1 kW/m^2.

It is a fact that brighter surfaces reach lower eq. temp., not just because the day is too short for them to reach it.

I'm a bit confused here, maybe I'm misreading your statements and if so, I apologize, but you seem to be contradicting yourself.
Bodies: 1Ds3,5D3,X-T1,A7 Lenses:  16-35L F4 IS, X 18-55 2.8-4, Σ 35 1.4 A, Σ 50 1.4 A, 24-70L II, 85 1.8, 100L IS, 135L,  70-200L F2.8 IS II

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #40 on: May 23, 2013, 12:59:03 AM »
Also, once sunlight has heated the object, the radiated heat is at much lower frequencies and the emissivity is more or less the same then (this is somewhere on Wikipedia).

Actually it's quite the opposite [..]

Wikipedia: Lighter colors and also whites and metallic substances absorb less illuminating light, and thus heat up less; but otherwise color makes small difference as regards heat transfer between an object at everyday temperatures and its surroundings, since the dominant emitted wavelengths are nowhere near the visible spectrum, but rather in the far infrared. Emissivities at those wavelengths have little to do with visual emissivities (visible colors); in the far infra-red, most objects have high emissivities. ... The main exception to this is shiny metal surfaces, which have low emissivities both in the visible wavelengths and in the far infrared.

It is a fact that black surfaces get hotter, I do not know why we are even discussing that.

M.ST

  • Guest
Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #41 on: May 23, 2013, 01:33:02 AM »
No. White is perfect for me.

Zv

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1266
    • View Profile
    • Zeeography (flickr)
Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #42 on: May 23, 2013, 01:54:21 AM »
Be glad they don't come in bright hot pink with flashing LED lights! Perfect for wildlife!  :P

I wonder which would be better on safari? Black or "putty"?
5D II | 17-40L | 24-105L | 70-200 f4L IS | 135L | SY 14 2.8 | Sigma 50 1.4

EOS M | 11-22 IS STM | 22 STM | FD 50 1.4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #42 on: May 23, 2013, 01:54:21 AM »

Grumbaki

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #43 on: May 23, 2013, 02:09:58 AM »
At any rate, I don't mind the white 70-200. In some situations where I shoot, it adds an air of legitimacy to the fact that I'm standing around with a camera taking photos. I walked around a large city in China and never hesitated to pull it out. Of course the fact that I'm white was probably a bigger deal most of the time.

Exactly that. People tend to forget that many things are noticed when you are shooting before they notice the color of your lense.
Acting extremely obvious is often less threatening/disturbing to passer by than trying to get sneaky. I recently had a case of that: while i had no problems having "marginals" to pose to a 5d3, my shooting from the hip compadre had several arguments...

Markus D

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #44 on: May 23, 2013, 02:18:00 AM »
In Aust, when cricket matches are on, the temperature can easily be 40celcius but there are still a plethora of Canon whites around the ground. Whilst I am nowhere near pro standards, I have owned the 100-400 L IS (and am eagerly awaiting the replacement), the 70-200 L IS 2.8, I now have the f4 and the 70 - 300 L IS. I take both to the bush in the middle of Australia and do not notice any issues with the performance of the lenses even on days when the temp is well over the 40 celcius level.

But to answer the original, I do feel somewhat prominent when using them around others and would prefer if they were black. I am sure that the quality of photos taken with black Nikon lenses in the majority of cases would not be that different to Canon white lenses to make a big issue.

I don't know about blue though! maybe a light aqua ;D
Cheers, Me MD
5D II, 24-70 L IS, 24 - 105 F4 L IS, 70-200 F4 L IS, 70-300 L IS, 100 F 2.8 L IS Macro, Canon Ftb with 50 1.4, Canon Photura, Minox 35 GT, Zeiss Ikon Iconta f4.3 105mm, Eastman Kodak Nr 1A pocket camera and others of the filmmm variety.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do you wish your 70-200L were black?
« Reply #44 on: May 23, 2013, 02:18:00 AM »