I noticed that Nikon are trying to push that their fluorine coatings and Fluorite elements are "better" than what Canon has.Drizzt321 said:
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.traingineer said:I noticed that Nikon are trying to push that their fluorine coatings and Fluorite elements are "better" than what Canon has.Drizzt321 said:
Yeah, I am surprised at that. I thought the Nikon marketing people would claim that the Nikon product is worse than the Canon product. ;Dtraingineer said:I noticed that Nikon are trying to push that their fluorine coatings and Fluorite elements are "better" than what Canon has.
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,neuroanatomist said: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 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.traingineer said:
Well that is interesting.neuroanatomist said: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.traingineer said:
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.
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?dgatwood said:I'm fairly certain that every Canon EF lens released on or after late 2010 has the fluorine coating.
I thought they did, but upon checking further, apparently not. Guess it's just the L lenses.neuroanatomist said:
Or does it???traingineer said:
Thanks mackguyver! But Neuro was a little faster in correcting my mistake.mackguyver said:Or does it???traingineer said:
(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: