Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 12 May 2014 (Monday) 12:59
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

16-35mm f/4L IS is here!

 
CollegeKid
Senior Member
475 posts
Joined Mar 2014
     
May 17, 2014 13:32 |  #646
bannedPermanent ban

melcat wrote in post #16910316 (external link)
It's widely known that leaving a camera lens inside a car on a hot day is enough to melt lubricants inside and have them move where they shouldn't be. This used to be a common cause of "sticky aperture". Temperatures in a parked car on a hot day can reach 50-60 °C, so we can take that as a temperature at which damage is likely for this reason. Canon therefore have no real reason to make the rest of the lens handle any more than that.

Here's an experiment someone conducted to show the difference between a white lens and a black lens in the heat:

http://www.dpreview.co​m/forums/post/12671815 (external link)

The test clearly shows the obvious. A white lens will stay cooler than a black one. It contains not even the claim that this has any impact on optical performance. No evidence here, either.

You're joking, right? I should put up with a less rigid element fixture that will eventually perish and require replacement, because some people want the lens to be black?

Again, there is NO EVIDENCE that making a lens white has ANY IMPACT at all on its optical performance. Nobody is suggesting anything be modified.

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #16910334 (external link)
Larger sized L-lenses, such as the 70–200 mm and 100–400 mm zooms and longer focal length primes (300 mm+), usually have an off-white barrel (sometimes referred to as the color "putty") to reduce heat absorption under the sun that may otherwise affect the performance of the lens,[1] as well as to identify Canon's lenses (for example at sporting events)

White DOES reduce heat absorption. No evidence of impact on optical performance here, either.

It's write on wikipedia here > http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Canon_L_lens (external link)

"It must be true! I read it on the internet." You have got to be kidding!

Lenses contain glass elements. These expand with heat. This is not usually a problem with compact lenses − the amount of expansion is small. But large lenses contain large elements and here expansion can bring a lens close to the limits of its design tolerances. A white surface reflects sunlight, helping to keep the lens cooler.

Again, no evidence that the heat absorb has ANY IMPACT AT ALL on optical performance.


And this one is write on Canon Website here > http://cpn.canon-europe.com …/black_or_white​_lenses.do (external link)

Nothing like asking the fox about hen-house security! Canon has a vested interest here. NO VALID, UNBIASED evidence (or any other kind) here, either.

So the white color on large lenses it's to help against the heat !! ( Sony and Pentax do large lenses white also )

Nobody is even trying to make the point that white isn't a better color for dissipating/radiating heat. Similarly, NOBODY has provided any EVIDENCE that the heat difference affects optical performance.

Ed Rader sums it up nicely above. Its white because its white. Well said, and verifyably true. Refreshing.

If nobody has any scientifically verifyable, repeatable EVIDENCE that Canon's white lenses perform better in sunny/warm situations than Nikon black lenses, I suggest we let this topic go.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
raptor3x
Senior Member
Avatar
728 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 78
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Rutland, VT
     
May 17, 2014 14:04 |  #647

CollegeKid wrote in post #16911121 (external link)
Ed Rader sums it up nicely above. Its white because its white. Well said, and verifyably true. Refreshing.

If nobody has any scientifically verifyable, repeatable EVIDENCE that Canon's white lenses perform better in sunny/warm situations than Nikon black lenses, I suggest we let this topic go.

Given a worst case scenario I'm calculating that you'd see about a 0.003" difference in thermal expansion for a 150mm calcium flouride element. This is assuming that the glass temperature is equal to the paint surface temperature (which is unlikely) and that there is a 30 K difference between the white and black paint surface temperature.

Surface temperature estimate from here

http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/cartemp​/ (external link)

I don't really have enough information to estimate what kind of stress that would be putting on the lens elements but that's enough to make me think that there could be a valid reason for the white paint, even if it's only valid for the super large tele lenses. Again, as I've stated before, I think the very high thermal expansion coefficient of calcium flouride is the driving factor in all of this.


Bodies: X-T1, E-M1ii, G9 Lenses: µ.Z 7-14 2.8, µ.Z 12-40 2.8, µ.Z 25 1.2, X 18-55 2.8-4, µ.Z 40-150 2.8, µ.Z 45 1.2, µ.Z 60 2.8, µ.Z 75 1.8, PL 200 2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WhyFi
Goldmember
Avatar
2,766 posts
Gallery: 237 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 804
Joined Apr 2008
Location: I got a castle in Brooklyn, that's where I dwell.
     
May 17, 2014 14:44 |  #648

Meanwhile, the 16-35 f/4L IS is black. :)


Bill is my name - I'm the most wanted man on my island, except I'm not on my island, of course. More's the pity.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,118 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6183
Joined Sep 2007
     
May 17, 2014 14:57 |  #649

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16910798 (external link)
But is the whole point...............ge​ar is not central......the photograph is!

If only someone can beat this in my head


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,118 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6183
Joined Sep 2007
     
May 17, 2014 15:01 |  #650

CollegeKid wrote in post #16911121 (external link)
Ed Rader sums it up nicely above. Its white because its white. Well said, and verifyably true. Refreshing.

If nobody has any scientifically verifyable, repeatable EVIDENCE that Canon's white lenses perform better in sunny/warm situations than Nikon black lenses, I suggest we let this topic go.

it's simply unpleasant to have a hot lens when you're working hours on end. That's good enough of a reason to go white. I'm not a working professional, and dont shoot in the daytime like that, but if I did, I'de appreciate white. Black absorbs at a ridiculous pace.... I have a car with black leather.... by far hotter than my car with tan fabric. Also takes a lot longer to cool down.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,174 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Likes: 269
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
May 17, 2014 15:23 |  #651

MattD wrote in post #16910856 (external link)
My favorite though is "Bose" - Buy Other Sound Equipment :)

"No highs... no lows... must be Bose". :lol:


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
basketballfreak6
Goldmember
1,454 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 2740
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Brisbane, Australia
     
May 17, 2014 15:34 |  #652

MattD wrote in post #16910856 (external link)
My favorite though is "Bose" - Buy Other Sound Equipment :)

w0m wrote in post #16910894 (external link)
Friends don't let friends buy Bose.

Scott M wrote in post #16911293 (external link)
"No highs... no lows... must be Bose". :lol:

just reading the name Bose hurts my ears


https://www.instagram.​com/tony.liu.photograp​hy/ (external link)
flickr (external link)
https://500px.com/tony​_liu_photography (external link)
5DIV, 5DIII, modified 760D, 16-35L f/4 IS, 24-70L II f/2.8, 70-200L IS II f/2.8, S150-600 f/5-6.3 SPORT, S14 f/1.8 ART, S50 f/1.4 ART, S135 f/1.8 ART, 100L IS Macro f/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CollegeKid
Senior Member
475 posts
Joined Mar 2014
     
May 17, 2014 15:54 |  #653
bannedPermanent ban

Charlie wrote in post #16911260 (external link)
it's simply unpleasant to have a hot lens when you're working hours on end. That's good enough of a reason to go white. I'm not a working professional, and dont shoot in the daytime like that, but if I did, I'de appreciate white. Black absorbs at a ridiculous pace.... I have a car with black leather.... by far hotter than my car with tan fabric. Also takes a lot longer to cool down.

True.

raptor3x wrote in post #16911182 (external link)
Given a worst case scenario I'm calculating that you'd see about a 0.003" difference in thermal expansion for a 150mm calcium flouride element. This is assuming that the glass temperature is equal to the paint surface temperature (which is unlikely) and that there is a 30 K difference between the white and black paint surface temperature.

Surface temperature estimate from here

http://www.tom-morrow-land.com/tests/cartemp​/ (external link)

I don't really have enough information to estimate what kind of stress that would be putting on the lens elements but that's enough to make me think that there could be a valid reason for the white paint, even if it's only valid for the super large tele lenses. Again, as I've stated before, I think the very high thermal expansion coefficient of calcium flouride is the driving factor in all of this.

Last paragraph from the article:
"All this can explain why the paint doesn't affect the interior temperature as much, but then why does the interior temperature rise in the sun anyway? I believe that direct absorption of the sun is the main reason that the cabins get hot. The sun gets absorbed partially by the UV filter in the windows, and largely by the surfaces of the car interior. The sun that hits the dashboard or seats turns into heat, and because it's happening directly in the interior of the car, it's directly affecting the interior temperature. This explains why putting a silver sun deflector in the front windshield helps so much to keep the car cool; it keeps the sun from being absorbed in the interior of the car."

This article seems to prove the point that the sun will have little effect on a lens, whether it is white or black. It makes the point that the interior temperature change was largely independent of the color of the car (lens). The interior temps were about 6 degrees apart, while the exterior temps were 56 degrees apart. The difference is attributed (in the article, not from me!) to the fact that the interior temperature is largely unaffected by the exterior temperature or the exterior color. The rise in interior temperature is from the sun shining through the windows and warming up the interior of the car by being absorbed BY THE INTERIOR MATERIALS. Lesson? Don't point you lens at the sun! It will get warm inside. And again, nothing here to even suggest that there is even the slightest detrimental effect on the optical performance. If anything, this article suggests the opposite.

I really believe that people think Canon's big whites are white for some temperature related reason. This belongs on the list of "Things People Know That Are NOT True", like using tomato juice to kill skunk smell. The only people who believe that are people who have never tried it. It does not work, even a little bit.

My conclusion is that Canon's big whites are white in order to sell more Canon big white lenses. Now I must go gather as much money as I can in order to buy one.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,043 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6768
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 17, 2014 16:12 |  #654

FEChariot wrote in post #16909784 (external link)
Ok I have to tell you that my level of respect for you dropped a boatload when I read the word "Bose". It's kind of like saying "Ken's" name on a photography forum.

My level of respect for you has soared!


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,043 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6768
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 17, 2014 16:17 |  #655

Scott M wrote in post #16910607 (external link)
FYI, one of the joke slogans for Bose in the audio world is "Bose... better sound through marketing". :lol:

Yep, and I didn't realize how late to this topic I was when I replied above.. sorry for the rewind!

"PsychoAcoustics" because it's so lacking in actual sound.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
50,043 posts
Gallery: 161 photos
Likes: 6768
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
May 17, 2014 16:21 |  #656

Scott M wrote in post #16911293 (external link)
"No highs... no lows... must be Bose". :lol:

That's my favorite. :)


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 211
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
May 17, 2014 16:44 |  #657

Scott M wrote in post #16911293 (external link)
"No highs... no lows... must be Bose". :lol:

As an ex car audio competitor(yup, my life aligned perfect with that 7 year trend of iasca stuff being cool) I am loving the Bose shredding happening.


At this point in my life however, despite being able to clearly discern the difference, I would never spend for it. Audio perfection is like chasing a mirage that costs a fortune in the process.


Everything is relative.
Gear: 6D, Unholy Trinity:twisted: (24Lii, sigma 50A, 135L), and for the other ends of the spectrum, sigmaEX 14mm2.8 and sigmaEX 100-300F4.
Fuji X-e2, Rokinon 8 2.8 Fisheye II, Fuji 14 2.8, Fuji 18-55, Fuji 23 1.4
FlikR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
basketballfreak6
Goldmember
1,454 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 2740
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Brisbane, Australia
     
May 17, 2014 17:16 |  #658

Nick3434 wrote in post #16911409 (external link)
Audio perfection is like chasing a mirage that costs a fortune in the process.

which is why I'm happy staying in the world of mid-fi xD


https://www.instagram.​com/tony.liu.photograp​hy/ (external link)
flickr (external link)
https://500px.com/tony​_liu_photography (external link)
5DIV, 5DIII, modified 760D, 16-35L f/4 IS, 24-70L II f/2.8, 70-200L IS II f/2.8, S150-600 f/5-6.3 SPORT, S14 f/1.8 ART, S50 f/1.4 ART, S135 f/1.8 ART, 100L IS Macro f/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sol95
Senior Member
661 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
May 17, 2014 19:35 |  #659

so much informative discussion about the 16-35/4L...especially the last few pages! :P


Bodies: 5D mk III
Lenses: 50 f/1.2L | 85 f/1.2L II | 100 f/2.8L IS Macro | 17-40 f/4.0L | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
Accessories: 430EX II | TC-80N3 M43: Olympus E-PM1 | Olympus m.Zuiko 14-42 II R | Panasonic 14 f/2.5 | Panasonic 20 f/1.8 | Olympus m.Zuiko 45 f/1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Otohp
Senior Member
331 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Oregon, USA
     
May 17, 2014 19:56 |  #660

sol95 wrote in post #16911661 (external link)
so much informative discussion about the 16-35/4L...especially the last few pages! :P

ha!

well- I plan to or imagine maybe I should consider this lens er... yep- I want it! :cool:

Otohp.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

258,165 views & 2 likes for this thread
16-35mm f/4L IS is here!
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Bob Wille
1244 guests, 312 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.