September 03, 2014, 03:28:11 AM

Author Topic: Flourine lens coat vs no coat  (Read 997 times)

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1668
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« on: May 19, 2014, 05:33:19 PM »
Nikon has a nifty video out showing the how awesome their flourine lens coat is. I'm going to guess that Canon, etc lens coat does something pretty much the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZsRx_OKTzo
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

canon rumors FORUM

Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« on: May 19, 2014, 05:33:19 PM »

traingineer

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
Re: Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2014, 10:12:15 PM »
Nikon has a nifty video out showing the how awesome their flourine lens coat is. I'm going to guess that Canon, etc lens coat does something pretty much the same.

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

I noticed that Nikon are trying to push that their fluorine coatings and Fluorite elements are "better" than what Canon has.
7D | 24-70mm F2.8 I | 50mm F1.8 II | Sigma 105mm F2.8 OS

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1668
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2014, 02:06:54 AM »
Nikon has a nifty video out showing the how awesome their flourine lens coat is. I'm going to guess that Canon, etc lens coat does something pretty much the same.

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

I noticed that Nikon are trying to push that their fluorine coatings and Fluorite elements are "better" than what Canon has.

Better, worse, whatever. In practical terms, I imagine there's little to no difference. Probably only something someone like Roger @LensRentals would be able to measure, and even he would say it has little or no visible difference in the real world.
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

AcutancePhotography

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • View Profile
Re: Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2014, 07:59:26 AM »
I noticed that Nikon are trying to push that their fluorine coatings and Fluorite elements are "better" than what Canon has.

Yeah, I am surprised at that.  I thought the Nikon marketing people would claim that the Nikon product is worse than the Canon product.  ;D
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14047
    • View Profile
Re: Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2014, 04:46:41 PM »
Nikon is late to the party with their fluorine coat – they've got it on one supertele, whereas Canon uses it on five supertele lenses (four primes and a zoom), and more importantly on several lenses that aren't uber-expensive niche lenses (24-70/2.8 II, 24-70/4, 8-15 fisheye, 70-300L, 16-35/4, and MkIII TCs, maybe I missed some?).

Nikon shows two other 'vendors', who else besides Canon uses a fluorine coating on exposed elements?   Do they even mean other lens vendors?  It's possible they purchased fluorine coating reagents from two vendors (fluorine coatings are used as anti-graffiti spray on public buildings), and compared those to their in-house process.  As for their testing, 500 g/cm2 is a pretty heavy-handed lens cleaning, a quick test on a lab balance suggests that I usually use 150-200 g/cm2 for a normal lens cleaning, and it is likely that the relationship between applied force and coating removal is nonlinear.

Cool video though, looks like the marketing folks had some fun with it!
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

traingineer

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
Re: Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2014, 05:55:47 PM »
Nikon is late to the party with their fluorine coat – they've got it on one supertele, whereas Canon uses it on five supertele lenses (four primes and a zoom), and more importantly on several lenses that aren't uber-expensive niche lenses, 24-70/2.8 II, 24-70/4, 8-15 fisheye, 70-300L, 16-35/4, and MkIII TCs, maybe I missed some?).

Nikon shows two other 'vendors', who else besides Canon uses a fluorine coating on exposed elements?   Do they even mean other lens vendors?  It's possible they purchased fluorine coating reagents from two vendors (fluorine coatings are used as anti-graffiti spray on public buildings), and compared those to their in-house process.  As for their testing, 500 g/cm2 is a pretty heavy-handed lens cleaning, a quick test on a lab balance suggests that I usually use 150-200 g/cm2 for a normal lens cleaning, and it is likely that the relationship between applied force and coating removal is nonlinear.

Cool video though, looks like the marketing folks had some fun with it!

The Canon 24-70mm Mark II apparently doesn't have fluorine coatings, as seen in image 1, and besides the 300-600mm Mark II super teles, the 8-15mm fisheye, 200-400mm, 16-35mm F4, 24-70 F4, 1.4/2x TC III and the 70-300 have the fluorine coatings applied to the front and rear elements,
« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 06:01:43 PM by traingineer »
7D | 24-70mm F2.8 I | 50mm F1.8 II | Sigma 105mm F2.8 OS

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14047
    • View Profile
Re: Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2014, 06:43:17 PM »
The Canon 24-70mm Mark II apparently doesn't have fluorine coatings, as seen in image 1

The 24-70/2.8 II apparently predates the illustration of the fluorine coating in Canon's block diagrams, but not the application of the coating to front/rear elements.

From the Canon USA product page for the 24-70/2.8 II: Built for the rigors of professional use as well as to meet the increased number of shots available with digital photography, it's constructed with improved dust sealing and water resistance while fluorine coatings on the front and rear lens surfaces help reduce soiling, smears and fingerprints.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2014, 06:43:17 PM »

traingineer

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
Re: Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2014, 07:34:53 PM »
The Canon 24-70mm Mark II apparently doesn't have fluorine coatings, as seen in image 1

The 24-70/2.8 II apparently predates the illustration of the fluorine coating in Canon's block diagrams, but not the application of the coating to front/rear elements.

From the Canon USA product page for the 24-70/2.8 II: Built for the rigors of professional use as well as to meet the increased number of shots available with digital photography, it's constructed with improved dust sealing and water resistance while fluorine coatings on the front and rear lens surfaces help reduce soiling, smears and fingerprints.

:o Well that is interesting.
7D | 24-70mm F2.8 I | 50mm F1.8 II | Sigma 105mm F2.8 OS

dgatwood

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 678
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • View Profile
Re: Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2014, 11:39:22 PM »

I'm fairly certain that every Canon EF lens released on or after late 2010 has the fluorine coating.  For some reason, they apparently did not do this on any of the EF-S or EF-M lenses, as far as I can tell, which seems pretty dumb to me unless it costs a lot more than I think it does, but....

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14047
    • View Profile
Re: Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« Reply #9 on: May 21, 2014, 12:31:46 AM »
I'm fairly certain that every Canon EF lens released on or after late 2010 has the fluorine coating. 

The EF 24mm f/2.8 IS, EF 28mm f/2.8 IS, and EF 35mm f/2 IS are all more recent than late 2010, do they have the fluorine coating?
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

surapon

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2230
  • 80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
    • View Profile
Re: Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« Reply #10 on: May 21, 2014, 01:01:29 PM »
Just infor:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=898652&gclid=CPnu7LK-vb4CFeJF7AodQw4AoA&Q=&is=USA&A=details


Product Highlights of  Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM Lens

    EF Mount L-Series Lens
    Aperture Range: f/4.0-22
    Two UD & Two Super UD Lens Elements
    Dual Aspherical Lens Elements
    Hybrid Image Stabilization (IS)

    Ring-Type Ultrasonic Autofocus Motor
    Macro Mode with 0.7x Magnification
    Weather Resistant to Dust & Moisture
    Fluorine Coatings Reduce Fingerprints
    Zoom Lock Lever

Another Infor :

http://www.canon.com/technology/s_labo/light/003/03.html

« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 01:03:45 PM by surapon »

dgatwood

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 678
  • 300D, 400D, 6D
    • View Profile
Re: Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2014, 02:38:25 AM »
I'm fairly certain that every Canon EF lens released on or after late 2010 has the fluorine coating. 

The EF 24mm f/2.8 IS, EF 28mm f/2.8 IS, and EF 35mm f/2 IS are all more recent than late 2010, do they have the fluorine coating?

I thought they did, but upon checking further, apparently not.  Guess it's just the L lenses.

Why, Canon?  Why?

mackguyver

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2774
  • Who Dares Wins
    • View Profile
    • My Personal Work
Re: Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2014, 04:54:38 PM »
The Canon 24-70mm Mark II apparently doesn't have fluorine coatings, as seen in image 1
Or does it???
(from the Canon USA EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM page)

Canon is annoyingly inconsistent and inaccurate about this kind of stuff (just look for the lenses with Super UD elements in them throughout their websites and brochures), but this page has 2 references - the text and the FASC logo which stands for Fluorine Anti-Smear Coating, I think. 

And the North America lens manual is pretty clear as well.  See both attached below:
EOS 1D X, 5DIII, M + EF 24 f/1.4II, 50 f/1.2, 85 f/1.2II, 300 f/2.8 IS II || 16-35 f/4 IS, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8II || TS-E 17 f/4, 24 f/3.5II || M 22 f/2, M 11-22 f/4-5.6 IS | 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS || 1.4x III, 2x III

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2014, 04:54:38 PM »

traingineer

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
Re: Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2014, 06:25:45 PM »
The Canon 24-70mm Mark II apparently doesn't have fluorine coatings, as seen in image 1
Or does it???
(from the Canon USA EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM page)

Canon is annoyingly inconsistent and inaccurate about this kind of stuff (just look for the lenses with Super UD elements in them throughout their websites and brochures), but this page has 2 references - the text and the FASC logo which stands for Fluorine Anti-Smear Coating, I think. 

And the North America lens manual is pretty clear as well.  See both attached below:

Thanks mackguyver! But Neuro was a little faster in correcting my mistake.  ;)
7D | 24-70mm F2.8 I | 50mm F1.8 II | Sigma 105mm F2.8 OS

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Flourine lens coat vs no coat
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2014, 06:25:45 PM »