Mennon white balance lens cap - avoid

[gkuenning]

I recently decided to try a white balance lens cap from Ebay. They're so cheap that there was very little risk in buying one. I figured that even if it wasn't good for WB, I could always use it as a regular cap.

Wrong on all counts (other than that I can afford to waste the money). The brand being sold is "Mennon" (on most auctions you can clearly read the brand name in the pictures). When you order, you specify the size you want. What you get isn't a nice secure lens cap. Instead, there's a ring that screws into your filter threads (or, if you use a protective filter, stacks on your filter) and a slip-on cap for the ring. The cap is secure enough that it's not likely to pop off by accident, but it's loose and wobbly. It won't protect against dust if the wind picks up. There's also a cord that you can attach to your wrist or something else (assuming you like having lens caps dangling all over the place).

Since I'm paranoid about vignetting, I didn't want to stack the ring on my filter. Fortunately, the cap fits the outside of my 17-55 IS well enough for balancing, though I wouldn't trust it for protection. So I didn't get lens protection and white balance in one handy package.

Fine, so I can carry it in a pocket, pop it on as needed, and still get some value out of it. Not. The instructions say to put it on, zoom to telephoto, point it at the light source, defocus, and set the WB. I found that easy to do. However--and this is a disaster in a WB cap--the translucent plastic in the cap isn't a well balanced white. Instead, it seems to have a slightly warming cast. The result is that my pictures wind up sharply bluish--so blue that I consider them unusable.

Now I'm thinking about alternative sources of white diffusers. Maybe I'll cut out a circle of white paper and see how that works. Too bad Pringles switched to translucent.

[junji98]

i have the exact same cap, but i'm getting satisfactory white balance, IMO. must be a fringe benefit of an untrained eye ;)

[MagentaJoe]

Seriously, use a white coffee filter. 1) Works great 2) Very cheap 3) Folds up tiny 4) It's a coffee filter.

:-/

[junji98]

hi magenta joe,

how exactly do you use the coffee filter? so i assume it's one of the cone ones, right? do you open the filter and then put the lens inside the 'orifice' of the filter, then shoot towards the light source? do you need to fasten the coffee filter with a rubber band? or better yet, do you have a pic?

thanks.

ed

p.s. i know the mennons work ok for me, but i really dont like the look of the lens cap. it's a bit cheap :(

[MagentaJoe]

Not the cone type. The type that is flat and has pleats you put into the basket like a cup from a muffin. Not the brown recycled type. The kind that is mostly white. Just hold it over the end of your lens and take a shot of the area you intend to photograph. Use that shot for your custom white balance and you're good to go.

Here's an example with the before (AWB) then in the middle is a picture of the light looking through the coffee filter. The right side is the same scene with the custom white balance taken from the coffee filter shot.

http://ceretti.com/msn/wborange.jpg

I may not be exact based upon the requisite 18% gray card or the stupid expensive Expo Disk but it's pretty darn close. Also, it costs a few pennies and if you sneeze you can blow your nose on it and grab another from the kitchen.

BTW: I'm in Hamilton.

[gkuenning]

i have the exact same cap, but i'm getting satisfactory white balance, IMO. must be a fringe benefit of an untrained eye ;)

I suspect it has more to do with manufacturing variance. It's probably hard to get precise color accuracy at that price.

I'll have to try the coffee filter idea. There's nothing to lose, since the cap is already useless as a lens cap.

[-tom-]

Just hold it over the end of your lens and take a shot of the area you intend to photograph. Use that shot for your custom white balance and you're good to go.

Thanks for sharing MagentaJoe

[JohnJ80]

I suspect it has more to do with manufacturing variance. It's probably hard to get precise color accuracy at that price.

I'll have to try the coffee filter idea. There's nothing to lose, since the cap is already useless as a lens cap.

Well, if you had white balance issues with the cheapo lens cap, why would you expect the coffee filter to be better? Last time I checked, they don't white balance them and then test them to verify.

This is the reason that some of the more expensive white balance equipment costs more - they test to make sure it is, in fact, neutral. For example, both expodisk and whitbal products are color balanced, tested and verified to be correct. They are also made so that the color doesn't drift with time or other environmental factors like temp.

J.

[neilwood32]

Think im gonna try the coffee filter idea. At least if it doesnt work - i can have some coffee!!!!!!!

[idahofarmer]

Well, if you had white balance issues with the cheapo lens cap, why would you expect the coffee filter to be better? Last time I checked, they don't white balance them and then test them to verify.

This is the reason that some of the more expensive white balance equipment costs more - they test to make sure it is, in fact, neutral. For example, both expodisk and whitbal products are color balanced, tested and verified to be correct. They are also made so that the color doesn't drift with time or other environmental factors like temp.

J.

For me, close enough is close enough. I have never had someone look at one of my pics and say, "That would have been a lot better if they had used a color balanced and tested product."

[MagentaJoe]

I think, the only times you need careful and exacting colour balance are...

1) Product shots where from product to product you need consistent colour. This is important especially in a themed product layout where everything must be coherent.
2) Clothing or other products that require a well balanced and managed colour system so that the ad materials reflect, as close as possible, the real colour of the goods being sold.
3) You just like to have everything perfect like all your $20 bills (Also applies to euros, pounds, yen, zims etc etc) with the heads facing the same way and your towels in the towel rack equally spaced. All the cans in the cupboard in a neat row and organized by size/contents.

I'm sure there must be a few more reasons for careful and super accurate white balance but, for the normal guy on the street, coffee filters are just fine.

Anyway, the example in post #5 really does speak for itself. I'd love to hear some opinions from those who try this. Even better, if you have a Expo disk or retro Pringles lid, how does this compare?

[JohnJ80]

It is a matter of how particular you are.

For me, if I want it perfect, I use the Expodisk or whibal card. If not, then I'm not going to screw around with stuff like coffee filters etc... then the camera's white balance choices are good enough and are better than AWB.

I truly don't see the rationality of using a coffee filter (or equivalent) with its uncalibrated tint as being better than the camera's built in choices. Why go to the trouble of setting a custom white balance with something with an arbitrary and unknown tint when you have at least the option of known wb with the camera settings?

J

[MagentaJoe]

It is a matter of how particular you are.

For me, if I want it perfect, I use the Expodisk or whibal card. If not, then I'm not going to screw around with stuff like coffee filters etc... then the camera's white balance choices are good enough and are better than AWB.

I truly don't see the rationality of using a coffee filter (or equivalent) with its uncalibrated tint as being better than the camera's built in choices. Why go to the trouble of setting a custom white balance with something with an arbitrary and unknown tint when you have at least the option of known wb with the camera settings?

J

If you see in my example, the camera could never even get close to the white balance achieved with the coffee filter. I could have dialed in kelvin with trial and error. Photography is all about experimentation and doing things your own way. I don't see why I would have to pay so much for an Expo disk just to have fun taking things like night shots and removing the orange cast. The coffee filter did and still does a fine job removing things like that. Fast easy and cheap.

Have you compared the results of a plain white piece of paper to the results from the expo disk?

[JohnJ80]

If you see in my example, the camera could never even get close to the white balance achieved with the coffee filter. I could have dialed in kelvin with trial and error. Photography is all about experimentation and doing things your own way. I don't see why I would have to pay so much for an Expo disk just to have fun taking things like night shots and removing the orange cast. The coffee filter did and still does a fine job removing things like that. Fast easy and cheap.

Have you compared the results of a plain white piece of paper to the results from the expo disk?

Yes, I find I often get a slight tint. I've done that numerous times when without either my ED or whibal card. It is not a reliable method, IMO.

The coffee filter/pick-your-favorite-white-thing method is often just trading one tint for another. Been there, done that.

That all said, I'm pretty picky on WB (like very) which is why you would use a calibrated WB device in the first place.

J

[-tom-]

Yes, I find I often get a slight tint. I've done that numerous times when without either my ED or whibal card. It is not a reliable method, IMO.

The coffee filter/pick-your-favorite-white-thing method is often just trading one tint for another. Been there, done that.

That all said, I'm pretty picky on WB (like very) which is why you would use a calibrated WB device in the first place.

J

I had several result with the coffee filter. However, I can figured out how I can be better deal with that.

Well, put the coffee filter in front of your lens, headed the lens to the greatest source of light, then the rest I think you all know already.

If time permits :), my next test would be a double coffee filter use for measuring the WB.

[JohnJ80]

I had several result with the coffee filter. However, I can figured out how I can be better deal with that.

.

That's part of what you pay for. You don't have to calibrate it yourself. Additionally, many materials will color shift over time, so you will need to calibrate again.

Like I said, it depends on how picky you are and how much fooling around you want to do. Me? I'm very picky and I don't want to fool around with calibrating it myself. hence, I buy the Expodisk.

J.

[pip boogaloo]

i use the mennon cap
it really works superb for the price and now i leave it on the lens all the time in place of the cannon protective cap.
if you follow the correct procedure for setting the white balance - which takes about 10 seconds - you will get consistent white balance hugely more accurate than the cameras settings.

i did find a review comparing it to the expodisc and it was as near as dammit to the expodisc :cool:

[bohdank]

I don't bother. I shoot RAW and do the WB in ACR.

[Marlboro]

In a search looking for White Balance Lens Cap, i've seen this thread. I have to say that I'm having a Mennon cap, and it is BRILLIANT. It saves me a lot of time processing colors in PP. Perfect color re-producing in almost every kind of lights.

[Stealthy Ninja]

I don't bother. I shoot RAW and do the WB in ACR.

That's cool, but it also can waste you a lot of time. ;)

BTW I have the cap mention by the OP. I find it fine. But I like to do WB shift and I shoot RAW. So whatever.

I don't know why you'd consider it as a lens cap alternative though... you're not going to get a "one size fits all" lens cap that doesn't have some sort of adaptor (the ring thing) or else you'll be buying a different cap for each filter size. I agree with the OP that it does suck as a lens cap, but the WB from it is fine --> good.

Coffee filters are cheaper though. ;)

[OldNick]

I got one of those caps with a lens. It does give quite a blue hue for me.

Cap, bluer than AWB. AWB bluer than Sun, (which I was using as light) but not bad, white paper as sample very much the same as AWB.

In sun, Sun WB was by far the most close to what I was looking at.

I do feel that one trouble with using P/P to fix WB, whether in RAW or not can lead to the wrong result, because by that time you have no idea what reality was.

This exercise has really made me think more about WB. I have some really blue-hue shots.

[RayHff]

Like many here, the Mennon sets my camera to a blue hue.

I've also tried the bleached white coffee filters and they actually set it closer to reality.

Here's a pro's comments the subject:

http://www.ppmag.com/web-exclusives/2008/11/product-comparison-white-balan-1.html

[OldNick]

Very interesting. Melitta eh? Thanks for posting.

So OOI why are smoe shots in the fog scene more foggy than others? They certainly seem to differ. Is that a WB issue? The WB is actually getting fog, because the other colours are quelled? The fog is a bluish colour.

[mellofelow]

I use Mennon, several of them in fact, doubles as caps and the dome shaped front provide a bit of cushion on impact in the bag. They're perfectly fine. Better than AWB and within a hundred or so Ks from my final liking.