# Kickstarter: The Universal Lens Cap by KUVRD



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 12, 2017)

```
<a href="https://223f0d.kckb.st">Here is a Kickstarter campaign we thought you’d like</a>, it’s for a pretty cool universal lens cap solution. This lens cap will fit every lens with a diameter between 60mm and 150mm, so that will cover most non supertelphoto lenses, as well as protecting pretty much every lens mount.</p>
<p>Not only will it protect the glass on either side of the lens, it’s also good protection from drops, as the rubber from the universal lens cap will give you some added protection.</p>
<p><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-32569" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/e1bacc65c3e1f3eb0887d4c6825ba829_original.gif" alt="" width="680" height="383" /></p>
<p>Beyond drop protection, these caps will give you good protection from dust, dirt, water and pretty much anything else you may subject your lens to.</p>
<p><strong>From KUVRD:</strong></p>
<p><em>OUR MISSION: To Eliminate Photographer’s Anxieties.</em></p>
<p>At some point, we lose lens caps and worry about the protection of our lenses. The Universal Lens Cap (ULC for short) is the best way to cover and protect your camera lenses. Period.</p>


<p>It’s designed to fit every camera lens. Now, you can travel stress free knowing you won’t loose your lens cap, it won’t fall off, and you can go wherever and however you desire knowing you have the lens protection you need against the elements.</p>
<p><a href="https://223f0d.kckb.st"><img class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-32563" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/be6a8222ecf9d8e40899f8706cbe66e3_original-578x1024.png" alt="" width="578" height="1024" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/be6a8222ecf9d8e40899f8706cbe66e3_original-578x1024.png 578w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/be6a8222ecf9d8e40899f8706cbe66e3_original-325x575.png 325w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/be6a8222ecf9d8e40899f8706cbe66e3_original-127x225.png 127w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/be6a8222ecf9d8e40899f8706cbe66e3_original-610x1080.png 610w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/be6a8222ecf9d8e40899f8706cbe66e3_original.png 680w" sizes="(max-width: 578px) 100vw, 578px" /></a></p>
<p><strong><a href="https://223f0d.kckb.st">You can learn more about the Universal Lens Cap project at Kickstarter</a></strong></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2017)

I have an idea for an even better, more protective universal lens cap...with even more bounciness! Where can I get kickstarted?


----------



## slclick (Dec 12, 2017)

Everyone gets a bubble!


----------



## unfocused (Dec 12, 2017)

I can't believe that more than 500 people thought this was a good enough idea to actually pledge money for this product. 

Or maybe, they just have really big families.


----------



## slclick (Dec 12, 2017)

I was just talking to my preteen son about how things that try and do everything do many things only mediocre to poorly and things that have solitary purpose tend to do them much better. But hey, I don't have a marketing degree.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 12, 2017)

I am really, really hoping the Kuvrd person will see this thread and react like that crazy filter guy and start picking fights. We could use the entertainment.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 12, 2017)

Also, I guess people are running out of sensible names now that haven't been used by everyone else.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I can't believe that more than 500 people thought this was a good enough idea to actually pledge money for this product.



_Cameron:_ But we don't have any money. 

_Michael: _Yeah, well, what we need is a backer. 

_Cameron:_ What's that?

_Michael:_ Someone with money who's stupid. 

</obscure movie reference>


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 12, 2017)

Just a first glance look at this thing:

1) It's reversible so stuff can much more easily touch the inside 'bottom' (glass covering bits) of it, unlike a rear element cap which is rigid and therefore permanently recessed.

2) Universal front mounting makes identifying your lenses in your bag (when you can only see the end of them in a bag chamber) much more difficult. A standard front element lens cap doesn't occlude the barrel of the lens or mask its relative diameter to other lenses.

3) No possible way it is faster to put on / take off than a lens cap. None.

4) Rubbery material will cling to dust/dirt/particulate in ways that hard plastic will not. An air blower can clean a plastic cap, but you'd likely need to immerse and air dry these silicone things to clean them. 

5) Some good lenses are externally focusing (think 85 f/1.2L II, 50 f/1.4 USM, etc.), so I'm not sure how an elastic sock like this won't pre-load an extended internal barrel that you shouldn't be pushing on.

6) It is less rigid than a plastic lens cap, so what is preventing the middle bit from being bumped/pushed into the very front element it was designed to protect?

7) One would assume a flexible + sticky/friction grab design like this will not dismount in a [connected/disconnected] binary way. Partial dismounts will lead to odd orientation situations in which you might tuck your fingers under the dismounted bit and possibly touch the front/rear element.

8.) If you want to pull this off quickly and shoot with an attached CPL or variable ND, you'll have to reset the ring before you go -- no leaving it at max ND or max pol and just shooting.

9) Current lens hoods (on not-too-long FL lenses) allow you to leave the hood on and still get the lens cap on / off. This new idea does not. In fact, this new idea would completely forego the opportunity for you to reverse your lens hood, which will require more space to be made available for lens hoods in your bag.

10) Lenses will now take up more space in your bag than your usual low profile plastic lens caps.

I hate to pile on here, but this appears to be a textbook example of a solution looking for a problem, or possibly someone with tunnel vision on one design concept despite it blowing up 6-7 other requirements that are already being well met with current technology. 

- A


----------



## slclick (Dec 12, 2017)

I can't help but think it was devised for another use (which failed) and they repurposed it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2017)

slclick said:


> I can't help but think it was devised for another use (which failed) and they repurposed it.



Some other purpose for which an impermeable rubber slip-on barrier is required?  :-X


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 12, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Also, I guess people are running out of sensible names now that haven't been used by everyone else.



Millenials in rock bands, entrepreneurial endeavors, etc. absolutely LOV dropping letters from existing words to name their projects. It gets them:


Top of google's search results -- if this thing was called 'Covered' it would get lost amongst insurance carriers, CoveredCA, tupperware, trash can lids, etc.


A free lane towards trademarking as there's very little chance of this being used elsewhere


A free lane towards social media handles so that their identity is 100% consistent across all platforms (FB, Twitter, business URL, IG, etc.)


The hip millennial startup vibe -- love it or hate it, it's a thing and has proven successful commercially

I'm no fan of it myself, but they are not doing it without good reason.

- A


----------



## basisunus (Dec 12, 2017)

The only lens that I have is Canon TS-E 17mm F/4L


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 12, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I can't help but think it was devised for another use (which failed) and they repurposed it.
> ...



Yep. Was thinking the same thing.

PVC piping end-caps.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Dec 12, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I guess people are running out of sensible names now that haven't been used by everyone else.
> ...



Blame Prince. He started it.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 12, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Just a first glance look at this thing:...
> 
> ...this appears to be a textbook example of a solution looking for a problem, or possibly someone with tunnel vision on one design concept despite it blowing up 6-7 other requirements that are already being well met with current technology.



I was tempted to dissect this as well, but you've done a great job. 

Can't resist adding: 

I believe the video specifically mentions the beach and/or sand. I can just imagine the damage these things would do once you get some sand inside and it starts to grind into your lens. 

I could not believe they were actually suggesting that these rubber sleeves would provide any real protection for a lens that gets dropped (as shown in the video). They better put aside a significant portion of their proceeds to hire a good attorney when some fool bounces his lens on the ground and then points to the video as an implied promise that their little sleeve was supposed to protect the lens.

I really do hope that they call the largest size "magnum." 

Thanks CR Guy for posting this. It's a fantastic break from all the dreary fights over Canon's impending doom.


----------



## slclick (Dec 12, 2017)

"Thanks CR Guy for posting this. It's a fantastic break from all the dreary fights over Canon's impending doom."


AND endless yammering about 85mm lenses. Wait...will this fit my 85?


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 12, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I could not believe they were actually suggesting that these rubber sleeves would provide any real protection for a lens that gets dropped (as shown in the video). They better put aside a significant portion of their proceeds to hire a good attorney when some fool bounces his lens on the ground and then points to the video as an implied promise that their little sleeve was supposed to protect the lens.



I _believe_ they did this to show that the silicone stays in place even in the event of a drop, something a traditional lens cap typically won't do. But I agree, it's irresponsible to imply you are drop-proofing your lens. Try that same test with a heavier lens and it won't matter if there's a small margin of silicone -- that lens would be toast.

- A


----------



## RGF (Dec 13, 2017)

slclick said:


> "Thanks CR Guy for posting this. It's a fantastic break from all the dreary fights over Canon's impending doom."
> 
> 
> AND endless yammering about 85mm lenses. Wait...will this fit my 85?



Should this have been posted on the first day of April?


----------



## Ah-Keong (Dec 13, 2017)

I was thinking why don't use a waterproof cloth like material and wear it like a sock.


----------



## davidcarlyon (Dec 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Just a first glance look at this thing:



11) Takes 2 hands to put it on and remove it, judging by the video


----------



## davidcarlyon (Dec 13, 2017)

These are ribbed, for her pleasure.


----------



## Talys (Dec 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I could not believe they were actually suggesting that these rubber sleeves would provide any real protection for a lens that gets dropped (as shown in the video). They better put aside a significant portion of their proceeds to hire a good attorney when some fool bounces his lens on the ground and then points to the video as an implied promise that their little sleeve was supposed to protect the lens.
> ...



That's like saying, if you wrap your glass tabletop real tight with a few layers of shrinkwrap poly before you wack it with a hammer, the glass will still retain its shape even though it's broken into a thousand bits and is unusable as a tabletop 

But then again, to demonstrate how they don't fall off, in the video, they also take a mounted lens and wack it against a table a few times, lol.

Seriously, though, this lens cap will looks like it's tight-fitting, and is described as both water/dust resistant and fitting a huge variety of lens diameters. That means that it must fit tightly, which sounds like a pain (and slow) to both put on and take off, compared to traditional lens caps. 

Also: what about lens hoods? It doesn't seem possible to store a lens with hood, either facing forward or reversed, with this cap.

And finally, a lens cap is supposed to protect the outer element from light damage like incidental scratches. It's not supposed to replace a pelican case.


----------



## snoke (Dec 13, 2017)

Kurvd lens cap not lens cap.
Is lens condom.


----------



## infared (Dec 13, 2017)

LOL!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## eosuser1234 (Dec 13, 2017)

Even they take a patent on something like this, it will be mass produced in China by some chinese factory and sold on cheap sites for 1/10 of the price. The cost of this is very little after the molds are made. A factory who can make the mold themselves, can put them out for pennies.
Who knows, maybe the factories will make knock off versions with Canon and Nikon printed on the tops, like they already do for plastic injection molded lens caps. 

As much as I applaud them for making this, cheap photo accessories are a dime a dozen these days.


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have an idea for an even better, more protective universal lens cap...with even more bounciness! Where can I get kickstarted?



Holy Canoli this is hilarious! I'm making this my screensaver!!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I can't believe that more than 500 people thought this was a good enough idea to actually pledge money for this product.
> 
> Or maybe, they just have really big families.



580 at this point!  Well, this is our thought. With a Lifetime Warranty and a free 30-Day Money Back Guarantee from when you receive the product, we feel that this is a good approach to showing people we're not here to screw them out of their money. We're all photographers here and hope that the Universal Lens Cap provides a benefit to each of our photography is really our main hope! But who know, maybe there are just a lot of big families out there!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

slclick said:


> I was just talking to my preteen son about how things that try and do everything do many things only mediocre to poorly and things that have solitary purpose tend to do them much better. But hey, I don't have a marketing degree.



We feel the exact same way! Complexity creates confusion, simplicity stimulates growth. The two biggest issues we've found with lens caps are that they always pop off and they only fit a specific filter ring diameter. Once we went through 6 molds, trying to create something that fixed these issues, we also found that the Universal Lens Cap has a whole host of other features, ones we were totally unaware of! Being Waterproof, Dust-Proof, Shock-Absorbent, functioning as a Front & Rear Lens Cap are ALL second to the Universal Lens Cap being 'Universal' (fitting every DSLR & Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera Lenses) and that it doesn't fall off! Anyways, sorry to talk your ear off, just wanted to say that we are in total agreement with each other about things trying to do a hundred different things at once!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I am really, really hoping the Kuvrd person will see this thread and react like that crazy filter guy and start picking fights. We could use the entertainment.



Haha, you think I would, but I'm actually getting a kick out of reading all this! Some of you guys come up with some pretty funny stuff! Keep up the good work!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Also, I guess people are running out of sensible names now that haven't been used by everyone else.



YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT. We had all kinds of good ideas but kept running into domains taken, copy-right issues, etc. Eventually, we just got tired of it and thought, "What are some words that we could spell phonetically? Or maybe, close to their phonetic spelling?" And low and behold, we came up with KUVRD. haha.


----------



## Jester (Dec 13, 2017)

Does anybody else feel that the bounce in the second GIF looks very odd and should be way higher, even if you factor in some energy loss from the (thin) layer of rubber which cushions the fall? I'm trying hard not to put on my tinfoil hat here, but I can't shake off the feeling that either this was shot in a high gravity environment of about 2G (lol), or the image has simply been tampered with.
*ducks and runs*


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe that more than 500 people thought this was a good enough idea to actually pledge money for this product.
> ...



Haha... I guess you could phrase it that way. I give props to backers though! In just in the past couple of years, crowdfunding has been able to successfully help thousands of businesses and startups! Early-Adopters of products, services and ideas have never had a platform by which they are continually exposed to people with varying ideas, products and services! Now that this is possible, it's hastening innovation in a whole new way! Really cool stuff!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

slclick said:


> I can't help but think it was devised for another use (which failed) and they repurposed it.



Actually, instead of calling it the Universal Lens Cap, we were thinking of calling it the Camera Condom... ha


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I guess people are running out of sensible names now that haven't been used by everyone else.
> ...



Excellent points! All from which we are benefitting currently!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



Very good point! That's a good idea!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

basisunus said:


> The only lens that I have is Canon TS-E 17mm F/4L



So guess what? It works for that too! It'll stretch over it, it won't fall off and the 8 bumpers and protruding circle in the middle help with shock absorption! 

You can always put your Traditional Lens Cap on first and then the Universal Lens Cap... double the protection and better chances at not loosing your Traditional Lens Cap!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

unfocused said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Just a first glance look at this thing:...
> ...



That magnum part was hilarious! We were thinking the nickname the Camera Condom! haha.. Anyways, in our Kickstarter Campaign, no where does it say that it's Shock-Proof. At the very bottom of the KS Campaign, we also discuss what is insured and what is not;

===

The Universal Lens Cap does have a warranty. In fact, a lifetime warranty! For as long as you own the product, you're 100% insured against defects in material and workmanship. However, we do NOT provide a warranty against damage or any other defects/issues caused to your lenses WHILE using or NOT using the Universal Lens Cap. In addition, we will not replace lost or stolen Universal Lens Caps.

If your lens breaks while using our product, we are not liable for your camera gear, its repair/replacement, nor act as a financial insurance agency against potentially harmful issues to your camera gear, especially your lenses. The Universal Lens Cap acts as an aversion tool to mother nature and potentially harmful elements. That is it. We strongly advise you seek out and invest in insurance for your gear just as any other professional would do in any other industry! 

===
I'm sure we'll run into problems with people frustrated that their lens dropped and broke, that finely grain sand got into the ULC and roughed up the glass. Those issues are inevitable. Our hope is that we can continually advise people how to use the ULC, how it's beneficial and help remind them of our product's limits.... the same limits found in a Traditional Lens Cap.


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

slclick said:


> "Thanks CR Guy for posting this. It's a fantastic break from all the dreary fights over Canon's impending doom."
> 
> 
> AND endless yammering about 85mm lenses. Wait...will this fit my 85?



Yep! It sure will, no problem!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I could not believe they were actually suggesting that these rubber sleeves would provide any real protection for a lens that gets dropped (as shown in the video). They better put aside a significant portion of their proceeds to hire a good attorney when some fool bounces his lens on the ground and then points to the video as an implied promise that their little sleeve was supposed to protect the lens.
> ...



Hey, thanks for responding with your first sentence! Much appreciated! To respond to your second sentence, we intentionally stated that the ULCs are Shock-Absorbent and never state that it is drop-proof or shock-proof. You're totally right with a heavier and more expensive lens because we tried it! We purposefully conducted drop tests at a height from the hip, dropping one lens 43 times onto concrete (twice the size of a lens shown in the GIF), and another two lenses 27 times and 18 times onto asphalt before noticing internal damage... Now, we're pretty sure most photographers aren't clumsy enough to drop their lenses 18 times in a row... onto asphalt... repeatedly... but in regards to shock absorbency, it does absorb shock... but it is NOT DROP-PROOF and it is NOT SHOCK-PROOF.


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

Ah-Keong said:


> I was thinking why don't use a waterproof cloth like material and wear it like a sock.



Great point! By the way, awesome gear you have!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

davidcarlyon said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Just a first glance look at this thing:
> ...



It does! It takes 2 hands to put it on, one had to remove it!


----------



## unfocused (Dec 13, 2017)

Big nod and hats off to KUVRD. 

We've been piling on the abuse and I give them credit for being good-natured about it. A welcome contrast to a certain other filter maker who took great offense at the comments on this forum. 

When this hits the streets I may buy one simply because they are good sports.


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

snoke said:


> Kurvd lens cap not lens cap.
> Is lens condom.



The Camera Condom!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

eosuser1234 said:


> Even they take a patent on something like this, it will be mass produced in China by some chinese factory and sold on cheap sites for 1/10 of the price. The cost of this is very little after the molds are made. A factory who can make the mold themselves, can put them out for pennies.
> Who knows, maybe the factories will make knock off versions with Canon and Nikon printed on the tops, like they already do for plastic injection molded lens caps.
> 
> As much as I applaud them for making this, cheap photo accessories are a dime a dozen these days.



hey, thank you for your input and we hope to circumvent these potential issues in the future!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

arthurbikemad said:


> Will this fit a 500/4? (I know the size but wanted to ask anyway!), also could someone do a drop test of a 500 and 600mm for me please?? :-*



Hey! So the 500mm f/4 has the following dimensions;

Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 5.75 x 15.08" (146 x 383 mm)

Our Universal Lens Cap stretches to 150mm, so yes it does fit the 500! However, the Diameter of the 600 is 167mm which is 17mm greater than what we've ever tried to stretch it. For now, I'm going to say 'no' on the 600 but definitely 'yes' on the 500mm!


----------



## mnclayshooter (Dec 13, 2017)

Dew point issues/Vapor Barrier
Sandpaper
Cold Weather flexibility
That pretty well sums it up for me on this product.


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Big nod and hats off to KUVRD.
> 
> We've been piling on the abuse and I give them credit for being good-natured about it. A welcome contrast to a certain other filter maker who took great offense at the comments on this forum.
> 
> When this hits the streets I may buy one simply because they are good sports.



That is what I'm talking about! Thank you for that mentioning that! A lot of the comments had really great insights and have helped us to better communicate with potential buyers about the features and benefits of the Universal Lens Cap! I know we're not here to solve world hunger and we totally get that our product isn't for everyone. With that said, we feel we've helped resolve a lot some inconveniences with the Universal Lens Cap and based on how many people have backed us thus far, we see that we are helping some photographers and that our product is a benefit! Again, thank you for your last comment. We'll definitely keep our eye on this article as it has been a way to get a good laugh in the morning and show us how to better market our product! I mean come on "Magnum" as the name for the largest size of the Universal Lens Cap?? Gosh that's good. hahaha


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

Jester said:


> Does anybody else feel that the bounce in the second GIF looks very odd and should be way higher, even if you factor in some energy loss from the (thin) layer of rubber which cushions the fall? I'm trying hard not to put on my tinfoil hat here, but I can't shake off the feeling that either this was shot in a high gravity environment of about 2G (lol), or the image has simply been tampered with.
> *ducks and runs*



Hey!That's a great viewpoint, one we didn't even think about! To be honest, it was the high-gravity environment... haha. No, I'm kidding. I'm not sure why exactly it didn't bounce more... we didn't tamper the images or footage at all... but I assume that because both lenses were dropped from the height of a hip (which was about 1ft above the top of the viewfinder of the camera), the lens on the left has its backend hit slightly before its frontend making it bounce right out of the shot, where the lens with the ULC dropped and hit right on the corner, absorbing most of the bounce by virtue of having no where for the inertia and potential energy to go except right into the corner that hit the ground.. that's MY guess. We didn't mess with the footage at all and I'm no physicist, but my first thought would be that! Hopefully that helps answer your question


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 13, 2017)

To the KUVRD designer/spox here, first and foremost, thanks for coming on. I design products for a living myself (in a very different field), and I fully appreciate what it means to face a peanut gallery of skeptics / potential customers, and we all appreciate you answering questions here. 

That said, I've aggregated a list of pros/cons for this from this thread that may or may not be _true_ pros or true cons. It's a hip shot of why this idea might be great and why it might not be.

Unless I am missing a crushing unmet need that is not enumerated here, the Cons are both far more numerous and impactful than the Pros unless you are a very niche need shooter (e.g. guy/gal who changes lenses... while paddling on an ocean Kayak? Color Run reportage specialist? Gallagher's personal performance photog? Pro paintball shooter?). 

Please whittle down my misconceptions on the Cons list, for they can't _all_ be so. I'm sure you vetted some of these potential drawbacks to either minimize/mitigate/eliminate their impact. Please share that experience here to start to thaw this skeptic (and others here, I'm sure) into a potential customer.

But without a systematic rebuttal of this quickly spitballed list of glaring downsides, one would logically come to the conclusion that this idea is simultaneously slower / less efficient / less effective than the bush league plastic caps that do _not_ have this rap sheet of potential concerns. In short, the big sexy killer app with your idea undoes 6-8 things that we count on that plastic caps address perfectly well today.

Thx

- A


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> To the KUVRD designer/spox here, first and foremost, thanks for coming on. I design products for a living myself (in a very different field), and I fully appreciate what it means to face a peanut gallery of skeptics / potential customers, and we all appreciate you answering questions here.
> 
> That said, I've aggregated a list of pros/cons for this from this thread that may or may not be _true_ pros or true cons. It's a hip shot of why this idea might be great and why it might not be.
> 
> ...



Hey, thanks for reaching out! Hopefully I can respond to the cons you’ve listed in a way that helps everyone see where we’re coming from. In the end, regardless if the Universal Lens Cap is a home-run product and solves a bunch of issues or is a short-lived fad, the product is $30 per Universal Lens Cap… you get a second one free for sharing on your social media (making it $15 per ULC), it comes with a Life Time Warranty and a free 30-day Money Back Guarantee from the day you receive it. We’re not here to screw people or steal their hard earned money. This isn’t a do or die purchase. This will not solve world hunger or fix every problem every photographer has had with Lens Caps. We fully admit that our product is NOT FOR EVERYONE and hope that through our transparency, our reasonable price, our warranty, our guarantee, and our efforts at portraying what the Universal Lens Cap DOES DO is enticing enough and establishes enough trust in a potential buyer to willingly spend less than one would on a full tank of gas to have the Universal Lens Cap.

*Anyways, with that said, to respond to your CONS:*

*Two hands required to put it on. *You’re right. It does take two hands to put the ULC on… about a 5 second delay from putting on a Traditional Lens Cap… the reason we don’t see this as a CON is because whenever someone is putting on a lens cap on a lens is either at the end of the photoshoot, when you’re packing everything up, you’re switching lenses or you’re just quickly taking one or two photos and then putting the ULC back on. While it's just as easy and quick to pull the ULC off of a lens as it is in removing a traditional lens cap, we find that it's good it takes longer to consciously stretch the ULC onto a lens, knowing that those extra seconds of effort provide peace of mind later when leaving, your camera is around your neck swaying about as you walk or feeling your lenses are protected and the lens caps are staying put.

*Does not coexist with hoods at all; no reversing hoods possible, more space in bag wasted on hood storage.* For all the photographers who use hoods, this is not an issue. This is NOT a CON. It still stretches over a lens hood in reverse or when it’s locked into place at the end of lens. You are right that it does not work if you put the ULC on first and THEN the lens hood. It will not grab onto the filter ring. But, you can still put the lens hood over the ULC. It just wouldn’t be locked into place. Meaning it would not take up more space. 

*Lenses will take up more space in your bag.* Lenses will NOT take up more space in your bag. In fact, there is so much cushion and empty space around lenses that even if the Universal Lens Cap took up more space, it would be taking up space that could otherwise NOT be utilized. You can stack one or multiple ULCs onto a lens in the camera bag, providing even more protection within your bag but that is the only point I could see someone arguing with taking up more space. 

*Surely takes up more space in your pocket than a plastic lens cap, and the material is for more likely to collect lint/dust when you do. *It doesn’t take up more space relative to a plastic lens cap. Also, a lot of female photographers shoot in dresses with no pockets. You can stick the ULC in any pocket, in your shoe, in your wallet, your bra, stretch it over ANOTHER lens you have in your bag, etc. You can clean off the Universal Lens Cap simply by running water on it and drying it off.

*Peeling it off exposes the inside / glass-facing side of it, and that material will surely collect more lint/dust than a hard plastic cap surface.* This is user-error, not a product error. I’ve shot at Monument Valley, Banff, Jasper and Glacier National Parks and BURIED lenses in dirt and sand. These lenses are STILL used today with no internal damage because I simply wash the ULC off with water before putting them back onto the lenses.

*Slower to use than a traditional lens cap; people who ‘stop and pop’ and then put their camera away will hate the added time needed to use this.* Well, I can’t argue subjectivity. If you say people who ‘stop and pop’ will "HATE THE ADDED TIME NEEDED TO USE THIS” then okay. I could state that maybe the peace of mind that comes with knowing your lenses are better protected and you’re not going to LOSE your lens cap from falling off is worth the extra 5 seconds and therefore 'stop and pop' photographers would like it, but again, to rebuttal subjectivity is difficult and not really effective.

*Will likely reposition / alter your variable ND or CPL ring orientation each time you use it.* NEVER in my life have I ever heard of a photographer who literally pulls out their camera and just takes a shot…. Photographers are ALWAYS adjusting knobs, camera settings, lenses etc. because of light, subject proximity, motion, etc. In addition, we’ve stretched a Universal Lens Cap onto a lens, moved it around and then taken it off 115 times in a row, check periodically to see if the focusing ring or zoom ring change and the end result was that the focus ring was off focus by a few degrees. NOT enough of a PRO or a CON to place it on one side or the other.

*Masks the true size/shape of the lens in your bag, making lenses harder to identify.* haha, okay this was kind of a funny one. I don’t know about you, but I know of only three people that have more than 5 lenses… and camera gear is so frequently used and so intimately cared for that each photographer not only knows their gear, but literally shapes and graphs their camera bags and cases to have their camera gear and lenses fit in certain spots… besides that, the shapes of each lens are relatively distinguishable… It's pretty easy to recognize the shape differences between a 70-200, a 35mm, a 24-70mm and a 85mm.. and say you can’t recognize which lens you’re grabbing…. you loose what, 10 seconds to figure it out? So, haha, unless you're totally unfamiliar with your own camera bag, you can’t recognize the difference between your own camera lenses and where you put them in your own bag and you're shooting some moment that cannot be captured just 10 seconds later, then yes, this is a con. 

*Stickier than plastic caps = Can’t clean it with air.* When I used to use traditional lens cap and clean them with air, the only way I did it was by blowing on it, which just replaces what was on the traditional lens cap with bacteria and my spit so naturally I follow up with wiping it off with my shirt sleeve... which times collected dust and lint. I haven’t clocked the time to do that, but my gut feels it would take just as long as running the ULC under some water and then drying it off.

*More Flexible than plastic caps = could flex and touch glass elements.* Yes, you’re right. It COULD flex to then possibly touch glass elements. You’re right. Again, I can’t rebuttal assumptions and possible case scenarios. So yes, in some cases, the elasticity of the ULC might actually touch the glass elements.

*Externally focusing lenses with protruding inner barrels (85 f/1.2L II, 50 f/1.4, etc.) may get a pre-load/push from using this*… We’ve tested this on other such camera lenses like this and this hasn’t been the case… but even if it was, I don’t understand what the issue is… Would you mind clarifying the “CON” that would come from this? 

*Removal is not a binary on/off think like a plastic cap; you may get partial removal that leads to you touching the glass to finish removing it*. That's true, it MIGHT lead to someone to touching the glass. It is correct in saying that removal is not a binary on/off thing like a plastic cap. The ULC takes two hands to put it on and one had to remove it. It’s still a one step process in both putting it on and removing it, it just takes two hands to do so when putting it on.

Like I stated at the beginning, we’re not trying to scam anyone, nor trick anyone into buying our product. We feel that a frequent issue photographers deal with is that they’re constantly loosing their lens caps and tired of having to have specific lens caps for specific lenses. With the Universal Lens Cap, the ULC will not fall off and thus get lost and it fits 99.99998% of DSLR and FULL-FRAME MIRRORLESS Camera Lenses. It also acts as an aversion to mother nature and her elements and function as both a front and rear lens cap. But just like any new invention, there is always going to be something wrong about it, some improvements that need to be made, etc. Our hope is that by accepting the fact that the Universal Lens Cap isn’t the end-all-be-all solution to lens caps, we can begin to focus on the solutions that it provides… and if not, and we're still hung up on the inconveniences that the ULC creates, then don’t buy it! haha.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 13, 2017)

KUVRD said:


> Hey, thanks for reaching out!



Huge respect for a (wow) thoughtful reply.

We've had other designers come on here and simply dismiss concerns with a 'trust me, it's awesome' and they promptly get taken apart. Not so with your comments, which are appreciated.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2017)

KUVRD said:


> *Anyways, with that said, to respond to your CONS:*



Thanks for responding in detail. Unfortunately, it seems to me that a few of your responses ignore common real-world use cases. For example...




> *Two hands required to put it on. *You’re right. It does take two hands to put the ULC on… about a 5 second delay from putting on a Traditional Lens Cap… the reason we don’t see this as a CON is because whenever someone is putting on a lens cap on a lens is either at the end of the photoshoot, when you’re packing everything up, you’re switching lenses or you’re just quickly taking one or two photos and then putting the ULC back on.



When switching lenses in an active shoot, the difference between less than a second to slap a traditional lens cap on vs. the extra 5 seconds apply a ULC can matter...a lot. Especially since it requires two hands to put on the ULC, meaning I’d have to set the camera down. Normally, I can ‘fully’ swap lenses in 3-4 seconds (one mounted lens and a second lens with both caps on and hood reversed to the second lens mounted with hood in place and prior lens with both caps on and hood reversed), and the camera never leaves my hand. The ULC would least triple that time.



> *Peeling it off exposes the inside / glass-facing side of it, and that material will surely collect more lint/dust than a hard plastic cap surface.* This is user-error, not a product error. I’ve shot at Monument Valley, Banff, Jasper and Glacier National Parks and BURIED lenses in dirt and sand. These lenses are STILL used today with no internal damage because I simply wash the ULC off with water before putting them back onto the lenses.



How much time does that add to switching lenses? I’m guessing a lot more than 5 seconds...




> *Stickier than plastic caps = Can’t clean it with air.* When I used to use traditional lens cap and clean them with air, the only way I did it was by blowing on it, which just replaces what was on the traditional lens cap with bacteria and my spit so naturally I follow up with wiping it off with my shirt sleeve... which times collected dust and lint. I haven’t clocked the time to do that, but my gut feels it would take just as long as running the ULC under some water and then drying it off.



Your gut is really, really wrong on this one. A wipe of the inner surface of a traditional lens cap on a shirt sleeve can’t take more than a second, or two if you want to be really thorough. If you honestly believe that you can rinse and dry the interior of a cylindrical piece of silicone/rubber in 1-2 seconds, you’re deluding yourself in the extreme. It would take longer than that just to get water running over the silicone (unless you were standing in a thunderstorm or under a waterfall...in which case, drying it would be somewhat problematic).




> *More Flexible than plastic caps = could flex and touch glass elements.* Yes, you’re right. It COULD flex to then possibly touch glass elements. You’re right. Again, I can’t rebuttal assumptions and possible case scenarios. So yes, in some cases, the elasticity of the ULC might actually touch the glass elements.



In some cases...it might actually? Although some lenses have recessed front elements, for most lenses, the front element is fairly close to the filter threads (which are generally the front-most part of the lens). With those typical lenses, any mild, focused pressure on the front of the covered lens would certainly result in the ULC contacting the glass. In some cases, like the 11-24 and TS-E 17 (which you earlier suggested was a suitable lens for the ULC), the front element is bulbous and would be in continual contact with the ULC. Moreover, if there is a front filter on a lens, the distance between the glass and the front of the filter mount is usually less than a millimeter, and in that case, contact of the ULC with the filter would be frequent or continuous. Far different than a traditional, rigid lens cap.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 13, 2017)

KUVRD said:


> *Externally focusing lenses with protruding inner barrels (85 f/1.2L II, 50 f/1.4, etc.) may get a pre-load/push from using this*… We’ve tested this on other such camera lenses like this and this hasn’t been the case… but even if it was, I don’t understand what the issue is… Would you mind clarifying the “CON” that would come from this?



Some lenses, esp. the 50 f/1.4 USM, stick out and can be a bit fragile if you push on the front element and the inner barrel is pushed forward. See attached from LensTests.com -- at MFD (or anything approaching MFD), the inner barrel sticks out and force (downward in this shot) forces the inner barrel to retract in a friction-y fragile sort of way. 

I suppose you could avoid pushing KUVRD on all the way, but _would you know if you did?_

- A


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 13, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> KUVRD said:
> 
> 
> > *Anyways, with that said, to respond to your CONS:*
> ...



Hey! I don't want you to think I'm not going to respond... I'm just heading out to lunch with the wife and then have to run a couple of errands and finish a couple of meetings... After all that, I WILL RESPOND!


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 13, 2017)

Neuro's underscoring my concerns pretty well.

I'll particularly call out this idea being problematic for: 


The stop and pop enthusiast shooter. A lot of people shoot street, candids, and travel this way. Unless I'm leaving my camera out in a general walkabout shooting situation (usually with a hood on, attached to a BR strap, etc.), the flow is: open satchel --> draw --> un-cap --> frame --> shoot --> cap --> holster in bag --> move on. That flow would be dramatically slowed down by this idea.


Not identifying lenses in the bag --> my 16-35 f/4L and 24-70 f/4L would just look like two 77mm diameter black beer cans in this setup. Other lens pairs (adjacent FL primes comes to mind) have similar footprints and would be difficult to ascertain here. The risk is not the added few seconds -- the risk is taking the wrong lens with you as you don't bring everything you own to every shoot! 


Stuff sticking to the inside requiring a rinse out and air dry: that's fine to do at home, but what do you do if you get your KUVRD gunked in the field? One could rinse it out easily enough, but particulate free drying in the field is a non-starter -- few of us carry chamois cloths in the field, and using a shirt / cloth will leave dust and residue inside the cap. And just rinsing it and shaking it out and then using it is tantamount to putting your front element in a humidor. Strikes me as a problematic limitation.


I have a fundamental problem squaring how something designed to protect a front element could quite easily come into direct contact with the thing it was intended to protect. Hard caps never have this problem, right?

- A


----------



## Talys (Dec 13, 2017)

Thanks for coming on and replying to so many posts. It's pretty awesome to see a product designer answer questions.



KUVRD said:


> *Does not coexist with hoods at all; no reversing hoods possible, more space in bag wasted on hood storage.* For all the photographers who use hoods, this is not an issue. This is NOT a CON. It still stretches over a lens hood in reverse or when it’s locked into place at the end of lens. You are right that it does not work if you put the ULC on first and THEN the lens hood. It will not grab onto the filter ring. But, you can still put the lens hood over the ULC. It just wouldn’t be locked into place. Meaning it would not take up more space.



I think the easiest way to overcome this and objections about the time to put on or take off a lens cap is to have these in camera stores, were someone like me can just try it for themselves. It's really hard for me to imagine the efficacy of a this with a hood, but it's entirely possible that I'm just not imagining it right. 

Also, many Canon lens hoods have a button to unlock (facing outwards). Wouldn't this concept interfere with that?

I also have a hard time imagining this being very helpful in being protective on some reversed hoods (or more protective than a regular lens cap), like 24-70 f/4, which has quite a bit larger outer diameter than the lens, but is quite shallow.




KUVRD said:


> *Will likely reposition / alter your variable ND or CPL ring orientation each time you use it.* NEVER in my life have I ever heard of a photographer who literally pulls out their camera and just takes a shot…. Photographers are ALWAYS adjusting knobs, camera settings, lenses etc. because of light, subject proximity, motion, etc. In addition, we’ve stretched a Universal Lens Cap onto a lens, moved it around and then taken it off 115 times in a row, check periodically to see if the focusing ring or zoom ring change and the end result was that the focus ring was off focus by a few degrees. NOT enough of a PRO or a CON to place it on one side or the other.



The difference, though, is on a Variable ND or CPL, you set it to taste for the purpose, and may run around a whole bunch (like, while hiking) and you may not need to fuss with the filter again for a while (if you're taking similar types of shots). Unlike a dial or knob, you can't see if it moved on you, and there's no lock. Especially if you're outdoors, between stretches, you might want to pop a lens cap on to prevent your filter from getting scratched (since those can be super expensive), or even dirty (since some can also be a pain to clean).

On the other hand, the outer diameter of the filter is usually slightly smaller than the lens barrel, so perhaps it won't get moved much, because contact with the filter ring is minimal? 



KUVRD said:


> *Masks the true size/shape of the lens in your bag, making lenses harder to identify.* haha, okay this was kind of a funny one. I don’t know about you, but I know of only three people that have more than 5 lenses…



Without trying to sound confrontational, I think there are a lot of people participating on this forum who have a whole lot more than 5 lenses  I know I do, and some of them that I may carry around at the same time do have similar dimensions. Maybe a solution is to offer colored, patterned, or otherwise marked ones in the future.


For myself, it's hard to imagine this as a solution for me. I know we're talking about only few seconds here and there, but I it doesn't seem like there are enough advantages to justify that. However, I respect that you guys are trying to make something new and innovative, and if I see this in a camera store, I'll give it a fair shake!

Thanks much for your time.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 13, 2017)

KUVRD said:


> Hey! I don't want you to think I'm not going to respond... I'm just heading out to lunch with the wife and then have to run a couple of errands and finish a couple of meetings... After all that, I WILL RESPOND!



Nonsense, you are clearly not that person. We're not going anywhere. 

Don't consider this stone-throwing so much as a design review. KUVRD's 2.0 is going to be much better. 

- A


----------



## slclick (Dec 13, 2017)

I think he found us after I gave him a heads up on FB that there's a tough crowd here for him to check out. Who knew it would turn into such a market research love fest!


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 13, 2017)

slclick said:


> I think he found us after I gave him a heads up on FB that there's a tough crowd here for him to check out. Who knew it would turn into such a market research love fest!



With design work, I've found that if one is honest with the limitations of their own work, it can improve.

If one is bull-headed and takes grave umbrage to folks calling his baby ugly, it's hard to improve because your ears/mind are closed.

The KUVRD person here is clearly the former and not the latter, so I welcome improving the concept here. 

Don't get me wrong, stubbornness is useful for steamrolling through barriers and overcoming tough obstacles, or if you have a crystal clear marketing message you don't want to deviate from, but stubbornness is a serious liability in optimizing designs with a wide spread of different user groups. In those cases, it literally takes a village, and in this case, we the photogs of the world _are_ that village.

- A


----------



## unfocused (Dec 13, 2017)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm actually thinking there might be some cases where I could use these. 

Explanation: The shoulder bag I use (a discontinued Nova Sport 35L from Lowepro) works very well to carry two bodies and three lenses -- 24-105; 16-35 and 70-200. But sometimes I want to throw in a specialty lens -- the 8-15 fisheye for example. That means one lens either has to go in one of the webbed pockets on the outside, where it gets banged into doors, against fences, dugouts, seating, etc., or it has to share space with one of the other lenses, were they both can get banged around. 

I can totally see myself putting one of these over the lens to provide a little extra protection. In those cases, I'm also unlikely to need to switch lenses super fast, so the extra time and handling wouldn't be a problem. Heck, I could even see myself setting a lens down in the grass beside my bag while I'm shooting. 

Other times I may be walking around a track meet, cross country meet, golf meet, etc., with a backpack where I'll throw in an extra lens or body. Again, I could see myself slipping one of these babies over a lens so I can just toss it in the backpack without taking much care or worrying about it bouncing around a bit.

I realize that most people don't mistreat their equipment quite to the extent that I do. But, I am saying that maybe, just maybe, for some of us these might be worth considering.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 13, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I realize that most people don't mistreat their equipment quite to the extent that I do. But, I am saying that maybe, just maybe, for some of us these might be worth considering.



My similar application would be throwing my [5D3 + lens attached] plus perhaps a spare small prime floating loose in a satchel -- happens all the time with my work laptop bag, which only has a laptop sleeve and a big open chamber. I have Tenba photo inserts for it, but that completely commandeers the open compartment and sometimes I don't want to do that. 

So I actually deconstruct the Tenba approach and use a beer coozy (it's money on the 50 f/1.4, 35 f/2 IS, 28 2.8 IS, etc.) for the spare lens rather than put an entire Tenba photo insert in the bag. The camera + lens combo would get stuffed in a winter hat. But that's like a lens protection alternative and not a lens cap / end cap alternative. I still would use hard standard caps for everything in this scenario.

- A


----------



## JPAZ (Dec 13, 2017)

Been reading all the comments and the developer's responses and thinking. I have to say that a front and rear traditional cap with a label on the front cap works well for me. But, there are times when I bring along an extra lens or use a smaller bag where two lenses are in the same "compartment." Presently, I use a piece of foam or an extra divider (bet we all have them left over from re-arranging bags) or wrap a lens in a lens sack or use a beer cozy to create a layer between these lenses. 

Another scenario is to use this (if it is more protective) instead of a beer cozy and an old sock that I might use for a 70-200 in a briefcase or small bag.

I can see using this product instead of a divider that I might need to "unvelcro" to get to the lens below. I don't think this device is the every lens / every day answer for me but can see a place in my kit.


----------



## brad-man (Dec 13, 2017)

unfocused said:


> Other times I may be walking around a track meet, cross country meet, golf meet, etc., with a backpack where I'll throw in an extra lens or body. Again, I could see myself slipping one of these babies over a lens so I can just toss it in the backpack without taking much care or worrying about it bouncing around a bit.



I have some of these for just such occasions:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/4PCs-Waterproof-DSLR-SLR-Camera-Lens-Bag-Pouch-Case-Cover-For-Canon-Nikon-Sony/291882488488?hash=item43f58d52a8:g:Vv0AAOSwe7BWxoef


----------



## slclick (Dec 13, 2017)

Constructive dialog, a rare bird on the interwebs. Great thread.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 13, 2017)

I just hope the Breakthrough filters guy is taking notice.*

There's a way to respond to feedback fairly/honestly, harness our collective experience/perspective to improve your product (crowdsourcing the rev 2.0 if you will)... Or you can just make a boatload of claims, imply we're using similar products incorrectly without substantiation and just say 'trust me' a lot.

- A

*[Ron Howard Arrested Development voice] _"He was not taking notice."_


----------



## snoke (Dec 14, 2017)

Talys said:


> Thanks for coming on and replying to so many posts. It's pretty awesome to see a product designer answer
> 
> 
> KUVRD said:
> ...



KURVD right, Talys wrong.



Talys said:


> KUVRD said:
> 
> 
> > *Masks the true size/shape of the lens in your bag, making lenses harder to identify.* haha, okay this was kind of a funny one. I don’t know about you, but I know of only three people that have more than 5 lenses…
> ...



Smart Talys. Optional extra: color stripe on rubber. Good.


----------



## snoke (Dec 14, 2017)

KUVRD said:


> Hey, thanks for responding with your first sentence! Much appreciated! To respond to your second sentence, we intentionally stated that the ULCs are Shock-Absorbent and never state that it is drop-proof or shock-proof. You're totally right with a heavier and more expensive lens because we tried it! We purposefully conducted drop tests at a height from the hip, dropping one lens 43 times onto concrete (twice the size of a lens shown in the GIF), and another two lenses 27 times and 18 times onto asphalt before noticing internal damage...



Damage never happen only last time. Each drop weaken lens. When you do focal calibration check? When you do autofocus test?

Drop test dumb idea. People do it themselves. Damage lens. Maybe minuscule damage cannot see. Damage still exist.

Drop test dumb marketing.


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 14, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> KUVRD said:
> 
> 
> > *Anyways, with that said, to respond to your CONS:*
> ...



OKAY! I'm back on!! SO



> When switching lenses in an active shoot, the difference between less than a second to slap a traditional lens cap on vs. the extra 5 seconds apply a ULC can matter...a lot. Especially since it requires two hands to put on the ULC, meaning I’d have to set the camera down. Normally, I can ‘fully’ swap lenses in 3-4 seconds (one mounted lens and a second lens with both caps on and hood reversed to the second lens mounted with hood in place and prior lens with both caps on and hood reversed), and the camera never leaves my hand. The ULC would least triple that time.



*That's a good point and seeing that a 5 second delay is a big issue in this situation, especially swapping out lenses multiple times in one photoshoot totally negates getting the Universal Lens Cap. If I were you with this scenario, I wouldn't get the ULC either. The product doesn't help, but hinder your photoshoots and we don't want that.*



> How much time does that add to switching lenses? I’m guessing a lot more than 5 seconds…



*You’re right on this. It probably does take longer than 5 seconds but I couldn’t give you an exact time delay due to not being in those situations at the moment. My conclusion is that if your style of photography REQUIRES no delays and maximum efficiency, the ULC wouldn’t be an asset but a liability to your photography. *




> Your gut is really, really wrong on this one. A wipe of the inner surface of a traditional lens cap on a shirt sleeve can’t take more than a second, or two if you want to be really thorough. If you honestly believe that you can rinse and dry the interior of a cylindrical piece of silicone/rubber in 1-2 seconds, you’re deluding yourself in the extreme. It would take longer than that just to get water running over the silicone (unless you were standing in a thunderstorm or under a waterfall...in which case, drying it would be somewhat problematic).



*Haha, again I should have thought through my response with this one. I just tested it again to see how long it would take and it takes much longer to wash and dry than it does to blow then dry off with a sleeve. The ULC is definitely not an efficiency-promoting accessory in this instance.*



> In some cases...it might actually? Although some lenses have recessed front elements, for most lenses, the front element is fairly close to the filter threads (which are generally the front-most part of the lens). With those typical lenses, any mild, focused pressure on the front of the covered lens would certainly result in the ULC contacting the glass. In some cases, like the 11-24 and TS-E 17 (which you earlier suggested was a suitable lens for the ULC), the front element is bulbous and would be in continual contact with the ULC. Moreover, if there is a front filter on a lens, the distance between the glass and the front of the filter mount is usually less than a millimeter, and in that case, contact of the ULC with the filter would be frequent or continuous. Far different than a traditional, rigid lens cap.



*That is all totally true, good point. I’m not sure how often the contact of the ULC with the glass would have collected sand and dust particles, scratching the glass or potentially roughing up the glass, but in any case, we’ll better communicate this to potential buyers that the ULC can come into contact with the glass of one’s lenses and because of this, it would behoove anyone to buy the ULC that they take into account this factor. To the ULC’s defense, it can be stretched over traditional lens caps, making it so the ULC never touches the glass, the lens has double the protection thanks to the TLC (Traditional Lens Cap) and the ULC, and neither lens cap will be falling off thanks to the ULCs grip to the sides of the lenses.

Anyways, thank you for bringing up all valid points. I've already set up a meeting with our entire team today that will be going over specifically the points you brought up and other points mentioned by other photographers on this forum. Thank you again for all of your help. All of your points are really going to help us better market and design future versions of the ULC and all our future products moving forward!*

Sincerely,

KUVRD


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> KUVRD said:
> 
> 
> > *Externally focusing lenses with protruding inner barrels (85 f/1.2L II, 50 f/1.4, etc.) may get a pre-load/push from using this*… We’ve tested this on other such camera lenses like this and this hasn’t been the case… but even if it was, I don’t understand what the issue is… Would you mind clarifying the “CON” that would come from this?
> ...





> Some lenses, esp. the 50 f/1.4 USM, stick out and can be a bit fragile if you push on the front element and the inner barrel is pushed forward. See attached from LensTests.com -- at MFD (or anything approaching MFD), the inner barrel sticks out and force (downward in this shot) forces the inner barrel to retract in a friction-y fragile sort of way.
> 
> I suppose you could avoid pushing KUVRD on all the way, but would you know if you did?




*Great point. In this instance, there is no ‘pushing’ the ULC onto a lens.. it’s more a stretching it over the lens. In regards to the inner barrel sticking out, this is the case with a lot of older lenses and STM lenses and with all the older lenses we’ve tested it on, there hasn’t been any issues of barrel retraction and hurting the lens. I wish I could give you more feedback than that, but that’s all I’ve got for now. Sorry! *


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Neuro's underscoring my concerns pretty well.
> 
> I'll particularly call out this idea being problematic for:
> 
> ...



Ahsanford, that first bullet point is true. Your process would be slowed dramatically by the ULC.

Your second point is valid as well. With the varying lengths of lenses, the ULC doesn’t completely cover them but that wouldn’t take away from the fact the ULC might ‘confuse’ a photographer from grabbing the right lens. 

Third point is valid as well. If you’re out in the field and you get gunk inside the ULC, and rinse it out and don’t want to wait for the ULC to dry or to shake off the remaining water and then pat down the ULC and if you don’t carry chamois cloths… then yes, it’s problematic and the ULC isn’t for you. With that said, someone like that doesn’t sound like a photographer who loses a lens cap… and if they are someone who did lose it, wouldn’t you agree that having the ULC is better than not having anything to cover your lenses?

With your last point, you are right. Hard caps don’t have the problem but as mentioned by other photographers, you could always put the hard cap on first and then stretch the ULC onto the lens with prevents the hard cap from falling off, better protects your lens in general and the ULC won’t potentially touch the glass.

Hopefully that answers your questions!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 14, 2017)

slclick said:


> I think he found us after I gave him a heads up on FB that there's a tough crowd here for him to check out. Who knew it would turn into such a market research love fest!



Yes, and I appreciate greatly you showing us this! It's really helped us gather great feedback and take a better look at our product and how we might better market it and design it in the future!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I think he found us after I gave him a heads up on FB that there's a tough crowd here for him to check out. Who knew it would turn into such a market research love fest!
> ...



112% agree with this. One's ego needs to be checked at the door when designing something that is supposed to be used by a wide-spread group of different users. If not, the product usually fails and often times impedes general innovation and progression of humanity in general. Great points ahsanford.


----------



## AJ (Dec 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Not identifying lenses in the bag --> my 16-35 f/4L and 24-70 f/4L would just look like two 77mm diameter black beer cans in this setup.
> 
> - A



Good point. It got me thinking - why not just use a beer can cozy
https://mybeercozy.com/product/funny-beer-quotes-set-1/


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 14, 2017)

unfocused said:


> I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm actually thinking there might be some cases where I could use these.
> 
> Explanation: The shoulder bag I use (a discontinued Nova Sport 35L from Lowepro) works very well to carry two bodies and three lenses -- 24-105; 16-35 and 70-200. But sometimes I want to throw in a specialty lens -- the 8-15 fisheye for example. That means one lens either has to go in one of the webbed pockets on the outside, where it gets banged into doors, against fences, dugouts, seating, etc., or it has to share space with one of the other lenses, were they both can get banged around.
> 
> ...




YESSSSSSS, that’s what I’m talking about! hahaha… As Frank Underwood said on House of Cards, “You can't turn a no to a yes without a maybe in between.”


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I realize that most people don't mistreat their equipment quite to the extent that I do. But, I am saying that maybe, just maybe, for some of us these might be worth considering.
> ...



All fair points. Thanks for the comment!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 14, 2017)

JPAZ said:


> Been reading all the comments and the developer's responses and thinking. I have to say that a front and rear traditional cap with a label on the front cap works well for me. But, there are times when I bring along an extra lens or use a smaller bag where two lenses are in the same "compartment." Presently, I use a piece of foam or an extra divider (bet we all have them left over from re-arranging bags) or wrap a lens in a lens sack or use a beer cozy to create a layer between these lenses.
> 
> Another scenario is to use this (if it is more protective) instead of a beer cozy and an old sock that I might use for a 70-200 in a briefcase or small bag.
> 
> I can see using this product instead of a divider that I might need to "unvelcro" to get to the lens below. I don't think this device is the every lens / every day answer for me but can see a place in my kit.



All great points! The ULC has been used as 'dividers' in camera cases and camera bags and often times photographers will stretch multiple ULCs onto one side of the lens which really cushions the lenses when they're next to each other!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 14, 2017)

slclick said:


> Constructive dialog, a rare bird on the interwebs. Great thread.



I think so too!!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 14, 2017)

brad-man said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Other times I may be walking around a track meet, cross country meet, golf meet, etc., with a backpack where I'll throw in an extra lens or body. Again, I could see myself slipping one of these babies over a lens so I can just toss it in the backpack without taking much care or worrying about it bouncing around a bit.
> ...



Oh these are really cool! Interesting idea!


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 14, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> I just hope the Breakthrough filters guy is taking notice.*
> 
> There's a way to respond to feedback fairly/honestly, harness our collective experience/perspective to improve your product (crowdsourcing the rev 2.0 if you will)... Or you can just make a boatload of claims, imply we're using similar products incorrectly without substantiation and just say 'trust me' a lot.
> 
> ...



Haha... more than anything, we want to better photographer's experiences with their cameras, their camera gear and help them get the 'perfect shot'. We are the first to admit that our product isn't for everyone and the last thing we would want is to claim that our product helps everyone, is for everyone and will fix all problems all photographers have. In fact, in this forum there have been several situations photographers have brought up where the ULC actually PREVENTS photographers from having a better experience with their cameras, their camera gear and even getting the perfect shot.... and we don't want that. If our product prevents photographers from enhancing their experience, we'll be the first to pull the ULC off our warehouse shelves and dump all the inventory in the trash. It's not about making a profit, it's about making a difference and a difference can't be made without adaptability, being able to take criticism and channel that feedback into a better iteration of the product until it's truly pure innovation; Actualizing an idea or invention into a good or service that generates value without creating new problems.


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 14, 2017)

snoke said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for coming on and replying to so many posts. It's pretty awesome to see a product designer answer
> ...



OH! A color strip on rubber... interesting idea!


----------



## mnclayshooter (Dec 14, 2017)

What is the vapor permanence rating of the product? 


To be more blunt: Wrapping your lens in something that effectively locks all liquid phase, solid phase and/or vapor phase water up against and inside the lens body CANNOT be a good idea, especially for those of us who live in cold climates and travel from inside to outside and back inside (warm/humid to extreme cold/dry to warm/humid) and deal with condensation issues regularly. Some suggest that wrapping your gear actually helps reduce condensation issues, which, in theory, it does... for vapor... but not for snow/ice/water that is physically already in contact with the equipment. 


Allowing water to evaporate and leave the lens body is important for any outdoor photographer if they hope to reduce potential for microbial growth in/on their equipment. 


Also, what is the modulus of elasticity of the product at various cold temps... for example: -40,-20F, 0F, 20F, 40F, 60F? 


What stability does the product have over time (will any of it's compounds/chemical makeup outgas or degrade in various exposures such as heat- potentially levels achieved if equipment is left in the trunk of a car in mid-summer heat, UV exposure, various solvents such as lens cleaners, sensor swab chemicals, sunscreen for the photographer, sweat, bodily oils etc). And does it have potential to dissolve the paint from the lens body? 


For example... getting sunscreen on wood furniture, car paint, or just about anything else will, over time, peel the finish. Most common solvents will also do this to plastic/elastic materials. 


In other words, how much lab testing has been done, and what are the results?


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 14, 2017)

snoke said:


> KUVRD said:
> 
> 
> > Hey, thanks for responding with your first sentence! Much appreciated! To respond to your second sentence, we intentionally stated that the ULCs are Shock-Absorbent and never state that it is drop-proof or shock-proof. You're totally right with a heavier and more expensive lens because we tried it! We purposefully conducted drop tests at a height from the hip, dropping one lens 43 times onto concrete (twice the size of a lens shown in the GIF), and another two lenses 27 times and 18 times onto asphalt before noticing internal damage...
> ...



Thank you for your comment! We did a focal calibration test, autofocus test and aesthetics test after every 3 drops. You're right though that it was a dumb test... we lost three lenses because of it... haha.. but yes, damage happens over time but one can drop a lens once and at just the right angle, height and point of contact, it will break the lenses. This is why we state it is shock-absorbent and not shock/drop-proof.


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 14, 2017)

Talys said:


> Thanks for coming on and replying to so many posts. It's pretty awesome to see a product designer answer questions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the easiest way to overcome this and objections about the time to put on or take off a lens cap is to have these in camera stores, were someone like me can just try it for themselves. It's really hard for me to imagine the efficacy of a this with a hood, but it's entirely possible that I'm just not imagining it right. 

*Excellent point! Our plan is to finish up the Crowdfunding Stages within the next 3 months and then get them into retail stores for people to try them out and see for themselves if they like it!*

Also, many Canon lens hoods have a button to unlock (facing outwards). Wouldn't this concept interfere with that?

*Actually, it totally interferes with Canon Lens Hoods. The best would be putting on the lens hood in reverse, locking it into place and then stretching the ULC over the reversed lens hood.*

I also have a hard time imagining this being very helpful in being protective on some reversed hoods (or more protective than a regular lens cap), like 24-70 f/4, which has quite a bit larger outer diameter than the lens, but is quite shallow.

*Because of the ULCs elasticity, it can still stretch over the lens hood without issues! *


Without trying to sound confrontational, I think there are a lot of people participating on this forum who have a whole lot more than 5 lenses I know I do, and some of them that I may carry around at the same time do have similar dimensions. Maybe a solution is to offer colored, patterned, or otherwise marked ones in the future.

*Great idea! We might just do that in the future, which would allow a way to differentiate lenses. Thank you for that insight!*

For myself, it's hard to imagine this as a solution for me. I know we're talking about only few seconds here and there, but I it doesn't seem like there are enough advantages to justify that. However, I respect that you guys are trying to make something new and innovative, and if I see this in a camera store, I'll give it a fair shake!

*Thank you for your feedback and hopefully we’ll be able to get it into camera stores soon for that exact reason!*


----------



## KUVRD (Dec 14, 2017)

mnclayshooter said:


> What is the vapor permanence rating of the product?
> 
> 
> To be more blunt: Wrapping your lens in something that effectively locks all liquid phase, solid phase and/or vapor phase water up against and inside the lens body CANNOT be a good idea, especially for those of us who live in cold climates and travel from inside to outside and back inside (warm/humid to extreme cold/dry to warm/humid) and deal with condensation issues regularly. Some suggest that wrapping your gear actually helps reduce condensation issues, which, in theory, it does... for vapor... but not for snow/ice/water that is physically already in contact with the equipment.
> ...





> What is the vapor permanence rating of the product?
> 
> To be more blunt: Wrapping your lens in something that effectively locks all liquid phase, solid phase and/or vapor phase water up against and inside the lens body CANNOT be a good idea, especially for those of us who live in cold climates and travel from inside to outside and back inside (warm/humid to extreme cold/dry to warm/humid) and deal with condensation issues regularly. Some suggest that wrapping your gear actually helps reduce condensation issues, which, in theory, it does... for vapor... but not for snow/ice/water that is physically already in contact with the equipment.
> 
> Allowing water to evaporate and leave the lens body is important for any outdoor photographer if they hope to reduce potential for microbial growth in/on their equipment.



*Now these are great questions! We have a couple of photographers who have used the ULC in Iceland and in the Great Rocky Mountains and state that there were no issues…. but they were there for only a week which, in my mind, wouldn’t be a strong enough case to determine if potentially trapped humidity over a long period of time - because of the ULC - wouldn’t negatively affect a lens. We also have a concert photographer who travels all around the world photographing the DJs at Techno Concerts. He enters and exits dry, humid, wet, cold and hot environments on a daily basis and has reported no issues with his lenses using the ULC. Finally, we have NOT received a vapor permanence rating. *



> Also, what is the modulus of elasticity of the product at various cold temps... for example: -40,-20F, 0F, 20F, 40F, 60F?
> 
> What stability does the product have over time (will any of it's compounds/chemical makeup outgas or degrade in various exposures such as heat- potentially levels achieved if equipment is left in the trunk of a car in mid-summer heat, UV exposure, various solvents such as lens cleaners, sensor swab chemicals, sunscreen for the photographer, sweat, bodily oils etc). And does it have potential to dissolve the paint from the lens body?
> 
> ...



*Another awesome question! We are testing that now to determine elasticity at -20F, 0F, 20F, 40F, 75F, 100F and 200F. We’ll leave them in those temperature controlled environments for 1 hour, 3 hours, 6 hours, 24 hours and 48 hours, testing the elasticity at each tier to determine the elasticity of the ULC. We’ll have to get back to you about this test results. In regards to structural integrity, it has indefinite stability… but if any of the materials or workmanship of the ULC degrade or the ULC breaks in some way, it’s guaranteed for life so we’ll replace it at that point. Hopefully that helped answer your questions a bit. *


----------



## unfocused (Dec 14, 2017)

I feel like we've harassed Mr. Kuvrd about enough. He's been very patient, but I think it's time to wrap up this thread. Anyone with half a brain can determine for themselves whether or not this is a product they would be interested in. The dead horse has been flogged into dust at this point.


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 19, 2017)

Now I saw this today and immediately starting wondering if this might be connected ;D


https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/twopillars/unilid?ref=rrea.ch&utm_source=rrea.ch&utm_medium=facebook&utm_term=rrea.ch&utm_campaign=wwhb_006


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 19, 2017)

jolyonralph said:


> Now I saw this today and immediately starting wondering if this might be connected ;D
> 
> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/twopillars/unilid?ref=rrea.ch&utm_source=rrea.ch&utm_medium=facebook&utm_term=rrea.ch&utm_campaign=wwhb_006



Silicone is everywhere these days. It's a problem-solver, yo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytc-LWxPFVg

We use a set of covers like this (Magnifique is the brand) in our kitchen. It's gold for leftovers when you don't want to transfer from your bowl to Tupperware and it has eliminated the need to waste Saran wrap in the microwave to block splatter.

So it's not a flying leap to extrapolate covering things (my link above) to wrapping things (your prior link) to protecting a camera lens. You just need to play around with the durometer to get the right balance of firm/stretchy and then you start optimizing the shape, dialing in the grippable elements, surface finish, etc.

It's not a trivial endeavor to bring a product like this to market -- not at all. But the progression of applications of these materials makes perfect sense. 

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (Dec 20, 2017)

I'm not being critical. I think the kickstarter project has a lot of potential.


----------



## snoke (Dec 20, 2017)

Idea: buy kurvd, cut ends. Rubber shell for lens use all time.


----------

