I am planning to buy lenscoat protectors for several of my lenses, largely to protect the lenses from scratches etc. I am trying to decide between two patterns, realtree advantage and digital camo. Is there any objective reason to choose one over the other in terms of the effectiveness of the pattern in making the lens less visible to subjects (birds and mammals)?
As you stated, your primary reason for the lenscoat is protection, the pattern is just a personal choice, it makes little difference to the animals, it's usually movement, scent or noise that alerts them to your presence. If you are trying to conceal yourself, all the patterns help to break up the lens' outline which may help.
I'm going to throw a spanner in the works now. Recently I was shooting out my open, back window at a feeder setup, in cool conditions- about 5°C, 40°F. The sun was strong and was beating down on the 500/4 covered with the Forest Green Lenscoat. To avoid heat shimmer I make sure the small room equilibrates to outside temperatures, and then occasionally check by looking at something in Live View with double magnification turned on. Heat shimmer reveals itself by causing the image to go in and out of focus without touching anything on the camera. The room had equilibrated (it was cold in there!) but when I checked for shimmer, it was still there. Then in dawned on me- the Lenscoat on the hood could be warming up and possibly producing the shimmer in front of the lens. To test this hypothesis I took the hood off and sure enough, no more shimmer.
I put this down to the cool outside air and the dark Forest Green lenscoat, which absorbs a lot of heat radiation. So, re. the Lenscoat pattern and knowing what I know now I would have probably gone with a lighter colour like Real Tree or even the snow one, which will absorb less heat radiation. I might just remove the lenscoat from the hood to prevent this sort of thing in the future. Maybe Canon knew what they were doing when they made the classic white lenses?!
Last edited by John Chardine; 05-08-2010 at 11:12 AM.
I agree with you about Canon making the lens's white.. When I got my 300 2.8, I camo'd it up and used it for about a year, noting how the birds and animals reacted to me and my lens. Then I took the camo off and shot more images, and I could not tell any differences in the reaction of the creatures, that I got images of, to the white lens or the camo'd lens. Since then, I just leave the camo off..
If you really want to make it difficult for the birds or other wildlife to spot you, I think you have to do what the snipers do, i.e., put on a gilly suit and pay attention to your surroundings, move slooooooooowly, stay low, and stay motionless. Otherwise, just use a hide.
Last edited by Desmond Chan; 05-08-2010 at 06:52 PM.
Gene-
You're buying it for the protection. If you ever use a Better Beamer, you'll regret not having the Lenscoat protection on sooner or later. There are several black burn marks on my white/snow lenscoat protectors that would otherwise be on the lenses. The rubber coating will smell as it starts to burn, alerting you to the problem.
Interesting comments, like you said the white is to help with heat and reflection. Maybe the black would be out and choose a lighter color to help with heat. I assume all covers will add heat to some degree if they sport dark camo colors, it is a trade-off. Sounds like the lightest color of camo might be the best option?
Interesting thread on such a simple matter - very informative.
I doubt what you are hypothesizing is accurate; first while your cover is darker then your lens shade it does not “absorb a lot of radiation” the neoprene acts as a thermal barrier actually keeping the lens shade closer to the ambient temperature then with out it on. Only after extended periods of time and significant heat would the radiation be sufficient enough to be able to pass through the neoprene insulation and heat up the carbon fiber (also a good insulator) lens hood to affect the small amount of free moving air inside the lens shade. I'm in AZ now where it has been pretty hot.
Heat shimmer this close to the front element would also likely have little impact on sharpness while focused much further out where shimmer I not suspected. Also if this were true then Nikon shooters (all black lens shades) would rarely be able to take sharp images.
Thanks Lou, and good food for thought. You might be right, and this may explain why Nikon shooters don't generally produce sharp images!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!- I won't use Smiley faces on principle but I'M HAVING A LAUGH HERE. Hope that's clear and I hope the !!!!! mean something to most. You have to be so careful these days.
Pattern for lenscoat
Reply With Quote
