Canon primes in white !?!

Hi again!





Has anyone ever thought of requesting Canon to make their FFL (primes) all in white instead of having the telephoto lens line in white which makes them very conspicuous in public? Isnt it better having black telephoto lens which makes it more "paparazzi" like & hardly noticable? IMHO, i do prefer all canon zoom lens line to be in black & all primes in white. The red ring will still be the differentiating attribute for the L series.





I hope Canon hears us out & all of you who agrees! Cheers!

The white is about keeping down the heat in the lens barrel, according to Canon.

I knew that black will likely to absorb more heat compared to white. But how about on a cold weather? It does also mention something like "Operating temperature" right. Canon's advancement with regards to their lens & construction is quite impressive though. They can probably develop some kind of coating that negates atmospheric changes to maintain the lens in an acceptable operating temp.


Thanks for the info though.

I love the white...

I don't think cold weather changes anything to a lens's color [:P]


I could understand canon makes their big lenses grey/white to absorb less heat.


To be very honest, I hate the grey/white color [:P] I have had a 70-200 but you almost can't make a picture without people noticing. I had to shoot christmas at the childrensschool where my mother teaches and had to go 1 day before the big event so the kids aren't to focussed and aware of the camera and very big strange lens at D-day.


That's just an example. Also people asking me how much it costs and what it can do isn't really my thing, because it's 9/10 worse then their lens. At least for the things most people are expecting from it. It's only 70-200mm? Mine is 18-270...why do you pay so much for it...


sigh...





Nope... I like my pure black lenses [H] Got more important things to watch out for during a shoot than teaching people things they don't really care about [:P]

paint em.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ehcalum

paint em.

---

:-)


There's a less intrusive way actually. LensCoat do covers for several of Canon lenses. A lot of their covers have a camo-type design, but they also have plain black ones. This would be a simple way to turn your lens mostly black and protect it at the same time.


Tony


PS I also love the white on the longer lenses. I hope Canon keeps it.

Buy a lenscoat for your white lens, I have one for my 500, but trust me, white or black if you're walking around with a 400 f/2.8, 500, 600, be it Nikon black or Canon white, it doesn't matter, people will look at you weird.

OH no I already sold my 70-200 [:P] I stated myself wrongly....I like the color as it is, it's setting them apart. It's just that I don't like the attention at certain circumstances. Sometimes I wished I had a 70-200 that attracted a little less attention. Sometimes you just want to be invisible as a photographer.


And yes if you've got such a big cannon like a 400 or bigger(even 70-200 2.8) it doesn't really matter if it's black or white. You'll get strange faces anyways [:P]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

That's just an example. Also people asking me how much it costs and what it can do isn't really my thing, because it's 9/10 worse then their lens. At least for the things most people are expecting from it. It's only 70-200mm? Mine is 18-270...why do you pay so much for it...

---

my favorite is walking around with a prime and getting the "how much does that zoom?" question, but we had a discussion on questions photographers don't like somewhere else on this forum :)

Haha yeah I read that once... hilarious [Y]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhc_1

Isnt it better having black telephoto lens which makes it more "paparazzi" like & hardly noticable?

---

Yeah, that would be nice. Sometimes the white helps you blend in, like when you're shooting in the snow. [:D]

The reason Canon has white paint on the supertelephotos is they are often used for sports; at the 1984 summer (I think) olympics Professional photographers complained that their lenses were overheating due to the black color. Canon then produced white supertelephotos. While this does make them extremely noticeable, Canon had professionals, and not amateurs, in mind when they made this change. If you watch a professional football, baseball or soccer game on TV you will notice there is a sea of white lenses on the sideline, and then maybe one or two Nikons (if that). This popularity with professionals is largely due to the color change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sirhc_1

IMHO, i do prefer all canon zoom lens line to be in black & all primes in white

---

Might be a good idea, but most people use black lenses. Canon's white paint eventually chips, so painting all primes white would increase production and retail costs and decrease resale value.


I own a 300 f/4 prime and love it; I use it in 25º weather and after bringing it inside the lens barrel is still 25º for 20 minutes [:P] but then again, when I shoot in the Florida sun it stays cool. :)


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

If you watch a professional football, baseball or soccer game on TV you will notice there is a sea of white lenses on the sideline, and then maybe one or two Nikons (if that).

---

That used to be true, but I think it changed when Canon had all the autofocus problems with the 1D Mark III and Nikon came out with the excellent D3. Now it seems like half and half.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

This popularity with professionals is largely due to the color change.

---

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that other features of the lens and camera system are what do it. Canon had a much better line of image stabilized supertelephoto lenses for a long time, I think that was a big factor. When digital came along, their 1D series was better than everything Nikon had, especially in the low light needed for sports. Until the D3 came along, at least.

I still think canon has a much more extensive super tele prime range, I think it's almost 2 to one L series to G series in 200mm and up primes if i'm not mistaken. . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by photosurfer

I still think canon has a much more extensive super tele prime range, I think it's almost 2 to one L series to G series in 200mm and up primes if i'm not mistaken. . .

---

true. Canon has more lenses overall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

If you watch a professional football, baseball or soccer game on TV you will notice there is a sea of white lenses on the sideline, and then maybe one or two Nikons (if that).

---

That used to be true, but I think it changed when Canon had all the autofocus problems with the 1D Mark III and Nikon came out with the excellent D3. Now it seems like half and half.

---

I read an article about the 1D IV. A Pro sports shooter said a lot of guys didn't go with the 1D III because of the AF issues. He said a lot stayed with IIns and only a "few" jumped ship to Nikon. He didn't give numbers but made it sound like most of those Canons you see out there are still IIns.