Lenscoats, are they worth it, and which one?

Never bought one for the 100-400 but have had one on the 500 f/4 since day one. In that time I trekked through Fl. swamps, deep woods, hiked the mountains of Mt. and Ak. and had it fall 5 feet off my shoulder. The lens coat has protected it from scratches and dings and the lens still looks like new and it's "cool".

rpearce12 wrote in post #6011219
Sorry to bring up an extremely old thread, but would the lenscoat on a 100-400 cover the barrel that at 400mm that is not shown at 100mm?

No, the part that's hidden at 100mm is not covered by the lenscoat when it is extended to 400mm.

PacAce wrote in post #6019066
No, the part that's hidden at 100mm is not covered by the lenscoat when it is extended to 400mm.

That sucks

This may be a dumb question, but does the 70-200 have part of the lens hidden at 70mm? I would assume so, but then again, I could be completely off.

rpearce12 wrote in post #6019767
That sucks

This may be a dumb question, but does the 70-200 have part of the lens hidden at 70mm? I would assume so, but then again, I could be completely off.

No it doesn't. There is nothing that moves on the 70-200 when you zoom the lens other than the zoom ring itself.

Re the 100-400 lens, there really would be no way to cover up the part that's exposed when zoomed to 400 with the neoprene material that's used.

Has anyone had any problems, i.e. birds flaring, when shooting the 100-400 with the lenscoat?

A LensCoat on a 100-400mm is kind of stupid, if you ask me. It's made for the lens at the 100mm position... When you're stalking wildlife, more often than not you're going to be closer to 400mm - which leaves a nice wide, white band of lens not covered... Defeating the whole purpose at least as far as camouflage goes. But for general protection against bumps, etc. it works well.

These things really are best with ring zooms (not push/pull types) or better yet, primes like the super teles.

NSWESP wrote in post #6011578
1) They dont cover the whole lens
2) They dont cover the mount
3) They are neoprene

1+2+3 = Not water resistant

LensCoats do keep most moisture off the lens, at least for the parts that are covered. LensCoats are not water proof, they don't cover the entire lens BUT the neoprene is closed cell which does not allow water to penetrate except at the stitching and seams.

When I shoot with the 100-400, I don't typically walk around with it fully extended, when I do shoot with it extend beyond 100mm my left hand is usually covering a portion of the exposed area anyway.

I don't know if I'm particularly hard on my gear but the costs of the LensCoats have been more then made up for; in the scratches it has prevented (both in the field and during storage), making the lenses more comfortable to handle, and breaking up its shape making it less noticable/threatening.