Naked lens

[darkroom]

Hello Pixel-shooters :)

I've been largely absent lately. Haven't taken my camera for a walk since October. But I'm itching to get out soon. Then I read a current thread which mentions "lens coats" for shooting in cold climates. I'm in Canada, -and it certainly is cold here. My lens, a Canon 100-400mm, is as naked as the day I got it. Deprived thing has never seen a stich of clothing! :wideeyed: No camo-attire, no 'lens coat', nothing.

Q: Is a naked zoom in cold weather a cause for concern?

[Ron Lacey]

Hello Pixel-shooters :)

I've been largely absent lately. Haven't taken my camera for a walk since October. But I'm itching to get out soon. Then I read a current thread which mentions "lens coats" for shooting in cold climates. I'm in Canada, -and it certainly is cold here. My lens, a Canon 100-400mm, is as naked as the day I got it. Deprived thing has never seen a stich of clothing! :wideeyed: No camo-attire, no 'lens coat', nothing.

Q: Is a naked zoom in cold weather a cause for concern?

I've used my cameras in temperatures well below -20°C with no lens related troubles, zooms or primes. The only issue I've had is with lithion batteries running down quickly in cold weather so I carry spares inside my coat. When they do appear to be exhausted warming them up brings them back the charge though. I think that lens coat is more a fashion statement than a necessity :).

Below Jeff (on the right) is sporting his 100-400 zoom, -22°C not to mention the wind chill :).

http://www.borealphotography.com/img/v3/p893210298.jpg

Ron

[Rudi]

I think the lens coat is for protecting the lens against bumps (meh, the L's are tough enough anyway), but more importantly, your fingers and hands when handling it in those temperatures. Since most people will be wearing gloves in weather like that, the lens coat is really more of a fashion accessory, IMO...

[darkroom]

Got it. Thanks guys.
:)

[Harv]

Contrary to what my good friends Ron and Rudi Patootie have to say, the lens coat is not a fashion accessory for most owners. To start with, they cost the better part of $100 so had better provide more than a fashion statement.

I have lens coats on my 300/2.8, 400/5.6 and 500/4. These are large very white lenses that stand out quite clearly against the background of trees, grass or clothing. The lens covers are for camouflage. Many of us photograph birds in flight and often park ourselves in tree lines and fence rows in an effort to catch a shot of birds of prey as an example. The lens coat goes a long way towards breaking up that non-natural white, shiny beacon of a lens.

It is also made of well padded neoprene which will protect the white painted surface of the lens against dings and scratches which will adversely affect the resale value of these very expensive lenses.

Sorry Ron and Rudi, but the above points are valid.

[Ron Lacey]

Contrary to what my good friends Ron and Rudi Patootie have to say, the lens coat is not a fashion accessory for most owners. To start with, they cost the better part of $100 so had better provide more than a fashion statement.

Sorry Ron and Rudi, but the above points are valid.

I won't dispute your points Harv except to suggest that $100 to make a fashion statement is cheap these days and certainly a small price to pay for some people :).

Ron

[Harv]

I won't dispute your points Harv except to suggest that $100 to make a fashion statement is cheap these days and certainly a small price to pay for some people :).

Ron

You make a good point. $100 fashion statement for my wife would be peanuts. :biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

[Bobby]

David, come over to Gagnons, I'll hook you up with some great camo cover. It is non adhesive but instead adheres to itself without glue. It is also not $100.00.

[JaredB]

The OP's question was not about making the lens less obscure though - it was about if the lens coat was needed to protect the lens from the cold - and I would agree that in most cases it is not needed.

[Rudi]

What Jared said! :) I agree about the value of camouflage, but the lens cover does nothing to protect the lens from the cold...

[darkroom]

Thanks again Ron and Rudi. I appreciate the reassureance. I no longer feel that my lens will be threatened by the cold.

Thanks Harv. I hear ya. Good points and they're well received.

Bobby, - thank you. Hopefully Santa will drop me a little stash of play money and I can swing by shortly after. :)

Thanks Jared. I'm cool with all responses. The more imput I can get, the faster I'll get up to speed with the rest of you all. :)

[Wulff]

The neoprene lens coats are alot of money for little practical use. Id likely get them for a 300 f2.8 and a 500 f4 as those babies are considerbly more expensive and worth protecting against dings and scratches but for the lessor lights, there are more practical alternatives.

1) A hunter green or camo patterned sock cut to fit
2) A hunter green or camo patterened sleeve of an old shirt cut to fit
3) As Bobby said, goto a hunting store like Gagnons and buy a camo patterned "rifle sock". Cost about $10 and when cut to fit you should get two that will fit a 100-400 or 400 f5.6. I picked one up well over a year ago and still have the 2nd half in my camera bag, wating for the day the first half expires.

[darkroom]

Wow. Good tips! That's a lot more affordable than I expected.
I guess I don't really have to wait for Santa afterall. :)