Dust Donut - Add Weather Sealing to Any Lens

[dmills]

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/77243737/dust-donuttm-add-a-weather-seal-to-the-mount-of-an/

I just backed this project. Apologies if everyone else knew about it, but adding weather sealing to all my lenses is a big "yes"!

 

[RMC33]

Nice idea, but what about the switches, front element and barrel?

Exactly.

That does very little to protect the lens/body on a lens/body that have little to no weather sealing to begin with. Dust in the Mirror/sensor area is bound to happen and that is engineered into the product design. After reading the kickstarter some more a large majority of the lenses listed by this project are not weather sealed around the buttons/front element to begin with. I would be wary of this product as well from a legal standpoint as it seems they may have copied the ring from "sealed" lenses which could be patent infringement if Canon has this single idea or the idea as a whole built into all their patents.

Better off buying some cheap use and toss rain sleeves and having someone with a 3d printer print ring that fits into the lens hood ring with a slot in it, Glue the bag into the slot on the you printed ring and boom camera/lens protected much better. I may as well fire up my Objet now and build one

 

[dmills]

Sure, I agree that a $20 ring isn't going to do everything that an actual weather-sealed lens would, and especially for those cheaper lenses, I'm not sure where the largest problem point is on the lens in the first place. For me, I'm more interested in adding an additional layer (albeit unkown) of protection between my 85L and 5d3. I don't have any illusions that I can take it swimming with me, but it should be better than without.

As far as the patent infringement is concerned, that's more of the creators problem than mine

 

[Loswr]

Nice idea, but what about the switches, front element and barrel?

Exactly, +1, this product is basically useless for most lenses, and by claiming their product makes those lenses 'weather sealed' they're doing purchasers a disservice as well as flat out lying.

Except...this would be great for the handful of lenses that are sealed at the switches and focus/zoom rings, but lack a mount gasket. The lenses are the pre-1999 white EF lenses (some of which are still current and relatively popular): the 200/1.8L, 300/2.8L, 300/4L, 300/4L IS, 400/2.8L, 400/5.6L, 500/4.5L, 600/4L, 35-350/3.5-5.6L, 70-200/2.8L,and 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS.

 

[dmills]

So it's not perfect, and it's misleading... but just because it doesn't take it ALL the way, I don't know if it's fair to toss it out entirely. To my way of thinking, it adds SOME protection to lenses that don't offer it. As to the amount of protection, that part is a bit unclear, but something is better than nothing, right?

 

[Loswr]

To my way of thinking, it adds SOME protection to lenses that don't offer it. As to the amount of protection, that part is a bit unclear, but something is better than nothing, right?

I'm not convinced that it's any protection, sort of like driving through a car wash with one window up and three windows down – the inside of your car is still going to get wet. In fact, some may be worse than none.

Dust Donut installed on the Canon 60D with EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens
...Installing a Dust Donut to your unsealed lens offers a convenient, seamless solution some of the most harmful and expensive problems that threaten DSLR users.

Let's see...a camera body with limited weather sealing on its many switches and openings, an extending zoom lens that costs more than the camera with no sealing on its switches, zoom barrel, and actual vent holes at the front element, and they're telling me their product is a 'solution'? To the extent that someone actually believes that little rubber ring provides protection from water and goes out shooting in inclement weather, that's two pieces of gear potentially destroyed for the price of a cheat piece of rubber. What a deal!

Don't get me wrong – I think it's a great idea for certain lenses. It just doesn't have the broad applicability to all lenses as they seem to be promoting. Personally I would certainly consider getting one of these for my 100-400L, because that would complete the sealing on that already mostly-sealed lens. But there are only three current lenses for which that situation applies.

 

[unfocused]

I think people are being a bit harsh. This doesn't seem any worse than those overpriced lens sleeves that are so popular.

On the other hand, I'd want to make sure it doesn't do more harm than good. I'd have two concerns:

Is this going to mess up the tolerances between the lens and the body? Probably not, but I'd want to read some reviews before buying; and,

What kind of plastic is being used? I ask because I had an Otter Box that was a real dust magnet. Something about it's surface just seemed to draw dust and hold onto it like glue. It worked fine for protecting the phone, because the dust stayed on the outside, but it would be a disaster for something like this.

 

[funkboy]

Maybe if you send your lens off to Liquipel or something after you glue the donut on there. Or not...

But I agree with Neuro, this could be useful for lenses like the original 70-200 f/4 and 135L that are pretty tough but lack a mount gasket.

 

[picturesbyme]

haha.. maybe he realized that some pool light, or other rubber gasket fits a lens and now renamed it to DD and sell it for 25(?) )
I think the problem is in the sensational tone of the ad.

"Now Photographers everywhere can take full advantage of Canon's non Weather Resistant lenses and even the more affordable third party lenses while still benefiting from the increased durability of a Dust and Moisture resistant Camera/Lens combination!"

"just use your lens as usual but with the added peace of mind that both of your investments are protected against Dust and Moisture."

It won't make a non weather sealed lens invincible and people will risk damaging their cams and lenses.
I wonder what kind of warranty it comes with. Claiming that it provides the same protection as sealed L lens and making a non weather sealed lens a sealed one comes with responsibility...

 

[ChilledXpress]

Pretty pointless item... poorly thought out. Gimmicky. Surprised they duped so many into donating money to this. As if that little piece of rubber is what makes an "L" lens weather sealed. It preys on people with little tech knowledge.

 

[RMC33]

haha.. maybe he realized that some pool light, or other rubber gasket fits a lens and now renamed it to DD and sell it for 25(?) )
I think the problem is in the sensational tone of the ad.

"Now Photographers everywhere can take full advantage of Canon's non Weather Resistant lenses and even the more affordable third party lenses while still benefiting from the increased durability of a Dust and Moisture resistant Camera/Lens combination!"

"just use your lens as usual but with the added peace of mind that both of your investments are protected against Dust and Moisture."

It won't make a non weather sealed lens invincible and people will risk damaging their cams and lenses.
I wonder what kind of warranty it comes with. Claiming that it provides the same protection as sealed L lens and making a non weather sealed lens a sealed one comes with responsibility...

The gasket design, dimensions and some of the manufacturing process were available on all current canon L series patents with the gasket (in the search I did I found a few similar gaskets for various fluid transfer systems that are similar in size). Since all the mounts are the same and machined in the same fashion this is quite an easy product to produce. I could see this selling for a while before the Canon Legal team gets involved as it seems to be a direct copy of Canon's current weather sealing gasket they include on L series lenses.

I do patent searches/writing and prototyping for a living.

 

[Loswr]

I think the problem is in the sensational tone of the ad.

"Now Photographers everywhere can take full advantage of Canon's non Weather Resistant lenses and even the more affordable third party lenses while still benefiting from the increased durability of a Dust and Moisture resistant Camera/Lens combination!"

"just use your lens as usual but with the added peace of mind that both of your investments are protected against Dust and Moisture."

This is exactly my point - claims like this are misleading, at best. It's like going outside in subzero temperatures wearing a super-warm, cold-proof glove. Your hand will be perfectly protected, but you'll still freeze your ass off... :

 

[Brand B]

. The lenses are the pre-1999 white EF lenses (some of which are still current and relatively popular): the 200/1.8L, 300/2.8L, 300/4L, 300/4L IS, 400/2.8L, 400/5.6L, 500/4.5L, 600/4L, 35-350/3.5-5.6L, 70-200/2.8L,and 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS.

Thanks Neuro. You constantly provide some of the most useful information on these forums. I have two of the lenses on this list, but had been planning to forego this product because I thought it was useless in my case.

 

[lol]

Having had a look at it, I don't think it is intentionally misleading. It does state they're only adding a seal between the lens and mount, and talks in that context.

The bigger question on if it provides a tangible benefit is another matter. I generally use my kit totally unprotected in the rain. Significant water getting in at the mount is not an issue. It's tight enough that you generally don't get significant water ingress, at most retaining a little from capillary action. But that does raise an interesting thought to me. My most commonly used lens is the 100-400L and it does fog up internally if I use it for hours in the rain. I've presumed it was getting in due to the extending zoom, but I don't have a way to prove that. Could it be due to the mount?... I know significant water doesn't get in that way, as in, I don't see drops inside the body. But I can see on the mount itself... is that more significant than I might have previously thought?

Also dust ingress while mounted isn't significant. You're at much higher risk each time you take the lens on and off. Just how much gap do you have for dust to move when mounted?

 

[FatDaddyJones]

In fact, some may be worse than none.

+1

If it lures people into a false sense of protection, then some is worse than none. If you know you have no weather sealing, you won't subject your gear to the same hazards.

 

[Loswr]

Having had a look at it, I don't think it is intentionally misleading. It does state they're only adding a seal between the lens and mount, and talks in that context.

Much of the time, yes. But many statements make much broader claims - and many people will notice those more so than the accurate claims. Just look at what the OP chose to title this topic: "Dust Donut - Add Weather Sealing to Any Lens" - not, Dust Donut - Add Weather Sealing to Any Lens MOUNT.

 

[Skulker]

The blurb says : "Now Photographers everywhere can take full advantage of Canon's non Weather Resistant lenses and even the more affordable third party lenses while still benefiting from the increased durability of a Dust and Moisture resistant Camera/Lens combination!"

To me that is very misleading. Fitting this may increase sealing between the body and the lens while the lens is mounted. It wont make a jot of difference to the lens sealing or camera sealing. It is mentioning the weather sealed lenses and there is an implication that this is comparable.

It might sell you never know what some people will buy, : but if it was really this easy to make lenses weather proof they would all be like it.

and as for the rubbish about aerospace tolerances, well its just rubbish but thats marketing for you.

 

[RMC33]

and as for the rubbish about aerospace tolerances, well its just rubbish but thats marketing for you.

Goes double since the item is an injection molded piece.

 

[WillThompson]

What it is in my opinion is a SCAM TO SELL a 30 cent "O" ring for $25!

Pure and simple!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Having worked in aerospace and managed groups with many inventors, they get carried away with their expectations for their invention, and are paranoid that anyonne who criticises it just doesen't understand. They often conduct misleading tests that prove mothing.
A product needs to have some independent testing and evaluation for not only functionality, but maintainability and producability. I'd be very concerned about puttinng that thing on my lens and having the plastic turn to goo in hot and humid weather, just because the inventor got sold on a plastic to use by a salesman from a big company. We got caught once with a new engineering thermoplastic from a major company that was supposed to replace expensive thermoset plastics. We ran standard tests on it, but when it came time to assemble the parts made from it, they would not fit. The cleaning fluids used in our manufacturing process caused the material to stress relieve , which means warp and change shape and size. It was a expensive mess, just because we did not know they used that particular chemical in their cleaning process.
The material was guaranteed to last 50 years, so I ran some pieces thru my dishwasher at home, and after a dozen times they cracked. Even experienced and careful people get fooled, a small time inventor has even less of a chance.