# Do you wish your 70-200L were black?



## sunnyVan (May 22, 2013)

Today for the first time ever I saw a refurbished 70-200L IS II 2.8 in stock. Never saw that before. Usually it's out of stock almost immediately. It was very tempting! !! But I decided to hold on to my f4 version and a 135L. It's nice to combine them in one package but it's nice when I want to be stealthy with the 135. 

The white color is too showy. I always feel that it attracts unnecessary attention. 

Boy...it's still tempting


----------



## iSy (May 22, 2013)

The white lens does attract, I have even been asked if someone can take a photo of it during some street shooting lol

Plus side to this, I do a lot of weddings and it does demand some kinda professional respect as its just looks expensive (it is too) and I find you dont need to introduce as the official photographer as they basically know where as with the black lenses you do tend to blend in with the other togs I find.

I dont tend to flaunt my gear although I am not one to duct tape it all up like some people, although I am sure if they had an option for black or white they would sell a lot of black perhaps for photo journalists.

At least you can spot a Canon shooter when in the crowd


----------



## RLPhoto (May 22, 2013)

Not in texas, Black gets hot quick.


----------



## sunnyVan (May 22, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Not in texas, Black gets hot quick.



You'd need a white camera too then.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 22, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Not in texas, Black gets hot quick.
> ...



Camera not so bad rubber grips, but a hot black hunk of metal 70-200L is not desired by me.


----------



## crasher8 (May 22, 2013)

Mine is, Tamron 70-200 Di VC


----------



## vscd (May 22, 2013)

Yepp. Mine, too. 80-200*L*


----------



## dstppy (May 22, 2013)

The 200mm 2.8 is nice incognito, but it gets warm in the sun . . . tradeoffs.


----------



## Quasimodo (May 22, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> Today for the first time ever I saw a refurbished 70-200L IS II 2.8 in stock. Never saw that before. Usually it's out of stock almost immediately. It was very tempting! !! But I decided to hold on to my f4 version and a 135L. It's nice to combine them in one package but it's nice when I want to be stealthy with the 135.
> 
> The white color is too showy. I always feel that it attracts unnecessary attention.
> 
> Boy...it's still tempting



It would look too much like a Nikon..  Kidding aside, - if it had the same temperature stabializing features as the white material in the 2.8 II, then maybe.


----------



## CanadianInvestor (May 22, 2013)

Canon's lenses are distinctive: the optics, the build and in some cases the L ring and the white colour. The colour adds *je ne sais quoi*, that particular thing that is instantly recognisable. I know it appears to put me in a whole new strata in the observer's view when using it, 'though the output is, in my case, still pedestrian. I would not want it to be any other hue.


----------



## hamada (May 22, 2013)

i lie awake every night and wish it was blue..... yes i have no other problems.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 22, 2013)

There is a technical reason for the lens to be white, it contains a fluorite element which improves the lens performance, but is susceptible to extreme heat and cold. The white paint absorbs less heat.

Larger sized L-lenses, such as the 70–200 mm and 100–400 mm zooms and longer focal length primes (300 mm+), usually have an off-white barrel (sometimes referred to as the color "putty") to reduce heat absorption under the sun that may otherwise affect the performance of the lens,[4] as well as to identify Canon's lenses (for example at sporting events). However, shorter focal length L-lenses can be black (such as the Canon EF 24–70 mm f/2.8L and all L-lens primes under 300 mm, with the exception of the discontinued 200 mm f/1.8L and current 200 mm f/2.0L IS). Therefore L-lenses can be identified by either a lens barrel's off-white color or, as on all L-lenses, the distinctive red ring on the lens barrel.



http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_70_200mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm#Specifications


----------



## AlanF (May 22, 2013)

The relationship between colour and temperature of bodies receiving radiation is not as straightforward as 99% of postings on the net say. Although black absorbs heat better than white, it correspondingly radiates heat better. The inescapable consequence is that black and white bodies reach the same temperature when they are in sunlight but black gets there faster. Conversely, the black body will cool down faster when taken out of sunlight. So, the Nikon lens heats up faster than the Canon L, but both eventually reach the same temperature and the Nikon cools down faster.


----------



## RGF (May 22, 2013)

I started with Nikon and when I switched to Canon I missed the black lens. White lens show wear faster - plus stand out too easily. If I had a choice, I would pick black over white


----------



## sunnyVan (May 22, 2013)

I never thought there's scientific reason behind the color of the barrel. I guess I learn something new everyday. 

I would think perhaps marketing plays an important role here. The white distinguishes Canon from the rest. Technologically I guess there's probably some way to get around the heating issue if Canon wanted to.


----------



## jthomson (May 22, 2013)

AlanF said:


> The relationship between colour and temperature of bodies receiving radiation is not as straightforward as 99% of postings on the net say. Although black absorbs heat better than white, it correspondingly radiates heat better. The inescapable consequence is that black and white bodies reach the same temperature when they are in sunlight but black gets there faster. Conversely, the black body will cool down faster when taken out of sunlight. So, the Nikon lens heats up faster than the Canon L, but both eventually reach the same temperature and the Nikon cools down faster.



While not as straight forward as some postings would indicate, the basic fact that a typical flat black object will reach a higher temperature in the sun that a typical white painted object is correct. The black traps more of the suns energy, the white reflects it. That is why things like propane tanks are painted white. You can verify this yourself on a sunny day. Put one hand on some ashphalt surface and the other on same grass alongside it. The asphalt will be much hotter than the grass, guaranteed.


----------



## crasher8 (May 22, 2013)

comparing a plant with a rock?


----------



## Harv (May 22, 2013)

LensCoat to the rescue.....


----------



## Pi (May 22, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> comparing a plant with a rock?



How about comparing rock to rock? Black sand is hotter than white one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 22, 2013)

AlanF said:


> The relationship between colour and temperature of bodies receiving radiation is not as straightforward as 99% of postings on the net say. Although black absorbs heat better than white, it correspondingly radiates heat better. The inescapable consequence is that black and white bodies reach the same temperature when they are in sunlight but black gets there faster. Conversely, the black body will cool down faster when taken out of sunlight. So, the Nikon lens heats up faster than the Canon L, but both eventually reach the same temperature and the Nikon cools down faster.



I think chemistry ≠ physics.  

While you're correct that the black object will both absorb and radiate heat faster, you are incorrect that they will reach the same equilibrium temperature under constant illumination by sunlight. You're not considering reflection, and the 'white' paint will reflect more of the incoming solar radiation than the black paint, meaning the equilibrium temperature (combination of the effects of absorption/radiation and reflection) will be higher for the black lens.

Try a simple empirical test - go to a decent-sized parking lot on a sunny day, find a black car and a white car parked next to each other that have been there for a while, and put one hand on the hood (or perhaps bonnet in your case?) of each. Your statements suggest that they will be the same temperature, but you'll find that's not the case. Don't leave your hand on the black one too long...


----------



## vscd (May 23, 2013)

If you shoot football for hours, you may get heatingproblems in the full sun. Maybe. I think normal usage of lenses won't cause you troubles with black lenses. I like the smaller attention with a black lense, even if it's more prone to heating.

I guess Nikon has a lot of professional lenses, too, without painting them white. So... if I'd had the choice I would always buy black ones. Maybe we can meet us at 18% grey. So we can even adjust the whitebalance at any time on it? ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Renegade Runner (May 23, 2013)

Sure you get looks holding a white telephoto lens but think of the alternative. If you were holding a large black lens such as the sigma 800mm, would it not look like some type of weapon from a distance?

And of course if you use it like the guy below then people are sure to run.


----------



## raptor3x (May 23, 2013)

AlanF said:


> The relationship between colour and temperature of bodies receiving radiation is not as straightforward as 99% of postings on the net say. Although black absorbs heat better than white, it correspondingly radiates heat better. The inescapable consequence is that black and white bodies reach the same temperature when they are in sunlight but black gets there faster. Conversely, the black body will cool down faster when taken out of sunlight. So, the Nikon lens heats up faster than the Canon L, but both eventually reach the same temperature and the Nikon cools down faster.




Not true at all. The equilibrium temperature will vary with the 1/4th power of the emmissivity.


----------



## Click (May 23, 2013)

Renegade Runner said:


> Sure you get looks holding a white telephoto lens but think of the alternative. If you were holding a large black lens such as the sigma 800mm, would it not look like some type of weapon from a distance?
> 
> And of course if you use it like the guy below then people are sure to run.




The word "shooting" takes all its sens here. ;D


----------



## Pi (May 23, 2013)

raptor3x said:


> Not true at all. The equilibrium temperature will vary with the 1/4th power of the emmissivity.



You are ignoring the other ways heat dissipates. Also, once sunlight has heated the object, the radiated heat is at much lower frequencies and the emissivity is more or less the same then (this is somewhere on Wikipedia). 

It is a fact that brighter surfaces reach lower eq. temp., not just because the day is too short for them to reach it.


----------



## yogi (May 23, 2013)

Could it have something to do with how quickly it heats up--that is the rate of expansion/contraction of the metal in the lens?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 23, 2013)

vscd said:


> I guess Nikon has a lot of professional lenses, too, without painting them white. So... if I'd had the choice I would always buy black ones. Maybe we can meet us at 18% grey. So we can even adjust the whitebalance at any time on it? ;D ;D ;D


Nikon does not use Fluorite in their lenses. That is why they are longer and often have more CA's than Canon lenses, and often do not focus as closely. Fluorite allows better correction of CA's which allows a shorter lens.

Maybe black paint is more expensive?? That Nikon 800mm sells for $18,000


----------



## Swphoto (May 23, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Nikon does not use Fluorite in their lenses. That is why they are longer and often have more CA's than Canon lenses, and often do not focus as closely. Fluorite allows better correction of CA's which allows a shorter lens.
> 
> Maybe black paint is more expensive?? That Nikon 800mm sells for $18,000



The new Nikon 800mm does use fluorite: http://www.nikon.com/news/2013/0129_lens_06.htm

Edit: Despite the negative comments about it here: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/glossary.htm#ed

"However, fluorite easily cracks and is sensitive to temperature changes that can adversely affect focusing by altering the lens' refractive index. So Nikon designers and engineers put their heads together and came up with ED glass, which offers all the benefits, yet none of the drawbacks of calcium fluorite-based glass"


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Nikon does not use Fluorite in their lenses. That is why they are longer and often have more CA's than Canon lenses, and often do not focus as closely. Fluorite allows better correction of CA's which allows a shorter lens.
> 
> Maybe black paint is more expensive?? That Nikon 800mm sells for $18,000



Actually, Nikon's new 800/5.6 does use fluorite elements - two of them. This, despite previous Nikon marketing blurbs that fluorite was used long ago, but they made ED glass so they could avoid using temperature-sensitive, fragile lens elements (e.g., this link). 

I wonder how the fluorite will do in a black barrel? If it has thermal issues, Nikon will be blasted. If not, it supports the idea that Canon's white paint is purely a marketing ploy (already supported by the white lenses with no fluorite, like the 300/4L IS). Either way, I see egg on the face of one or maybe both...


----------



## STEMI_RN (May 23, 2013)

Pentax made a white DSLR body. The reasons they gave were for heat distribution according to DPS

http://digital-photography-school.com/pentax-k2000-k-m-white-dslr-review


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon does not use Fluorite in their lenses. That is why they are longer and often have more CA's than Canon lenses, and often do not focus as closely. Fluorite allows better correction of CA's which allows a shorter lens.
> ...


 
Nikon uses Fluorite in their high end Microscopes, so they are familiar with it. Polishing Fluorite Crystals is said to take 4X as long, and that adds to the cost.

I'd think that its possible to design a lens to allow for the expansion and contraction of the Fluorite. I'm thinking that's its a differential expansion issue that causes the elements to crack.

Canon uses Fluorite is those expensive black telephoto cinema zooms, so I'd tend to agree that what was once a reason for white paint is now marketing and that construction techniques alleviate the thermal expansion / contraction issues.


----------



## Shane1.4 (May 23, 2013)

Yes. It does look kind of dated.


----------



## jdramirez (May 23, 2013)

No. I don't mind the attention, I don't think that black is all that nice. I really like the style and design of Canon L telephoto lenses. I also enjoy seeing them at basketball games and football games. It makes me think that my gear is good enough if pro's use it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Nikon uses Fluorite in their high end Microscopes, so they are familiar with it.



As does Zeiss in many of the objectives on my scopes. The crystals are a little smaller, though.


----------



## Stewbyyy (May 23, 2013)

The fact it's white has never bothered me at all. I work mainly in PR/sports photography and the white lenses are very common.

I think the Canon white has always been a very iconic sight and sometimes it's nice to have people think "oh, he's a professional, we better not get in his way".

I've never had to shoot in extreme candid situations so it's never gotten in my way. And the weather here in Ireland is never hot enough for the white to make a difference.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 23, 2013)

blk or wht, I don't care. Fast AF + sharp @ f2.8 are my #1 reason I bought this lens.

Do you want 70-200 in blk? Try this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/687942-REG/LensCoat_LC702002BK_Canon_Lens_Cover_Black.html


----------



## IWLP (May 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, Nikon's new 800/5.6 does use fluorite elements - two of them. This, despite previous Nikon marketing blurbs that fluorite was used long ago, but they made ED glass so they could avoid using temperature-sensitive, fragile lens elements (e.g., this link).
> 
> I wonder how the fluorite will do in a black barrel? If it has thermal issues, Nikon will be blasted. If not, it supports the idea that Canon's white paint is purely a marketing ploy (already supported by the white lenses with no fluorite, like the 300/4L IS). Either way, I see egg on the face of one or maybe both...



I was under the impression that the white telephotos were white to keep a lens' autofocus system from overheating, not the fluorite elements - going back to the early days of AF where Nikon was using focus motors in their bodies.

At any rate, I don't mind the white 70-200. In some situations where I shoot, it adds an air of legitimacy to the fact that I'm standing around with a camera taking photos. I walked around a large city in China and never hesitated to pull it out. Of course the fact that _I'm_ white was probably a bigger deal most of the time.


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 23, 2013)

You can spot a Canon shooter instantly? Are not Sony telephotos also white? I would prefer my 70-200 to be black. I had the original 80-200 2.8L that was black and liked the color better. But it does not take tele extenders and it was too much carrying that plus the 300 4L to cover the range (in addition to standard lens), so I sold them for the 70-200 2.8L plus 1.4X extender. (Actually in between I used a Sigma 100-300 4 which was all black and sharp and great, but it stopped autofocusing and Sigma said repair parts were no longer available).

I kind of think the silver Pentax telephotos are cool. Alternatively, I really like the white bodies like the Pentax shown above and wish Canon made one because it would look great with their white lenses. If I was rich I would probably just have all my bodies and lenses done in a matching original paint scheme from Pimp Your Camera in Germany http://www.pimpyourcam.com/


----------



## birtembuk (May 23, 2013)

Black or white I also don't care. Meanwhile, some around are willing to pay an arm to get theirs painted in white ... 
http://petapixel.com/2012/02/17/camera-lenses-with-custom-paint-jobs/


----------



## raptor3x (May 23, 2013)

Pi said:


> You are ignoring the other ways heat dissipates.



Okay, sure, convective heat transfer could definitely overpower solar radiative heat transfer but you'd need a fairly strong wind to get to the point where a white and black object will have essentially the same equilibrium temperature. And I doubt conduction has any significant effect in this situation.



Pi said:


> Also, once sunlight has heated the object, the radiated heat is at much lower frequencies and the emissivity is more or less the same then (this is somewhere on Wikipedia).



Actually it's quite the opposite, as the object's temperature rises the frequency distribution of the blackbody radiation shifts toward higher frequencies. This shift toward higher frequencies is what causes the increase of heat transfer out of the body via blackbody radiation. If it were the opposite, and the frequency distribution moved to lower frequencies as the temperature increased you might have bodies near absolute zero giving off high energy radiation. It's true that emmissivity will change as a function of temperature and for most materials the emmissivity will tend to increase with increasing temperature, but you're not going to see a white and black object achieve the same emmissivity just by exposing them to 0.1 kW/m^2.



Pi said:


> It is a fact that brighter surfaces reach lower eq. temp., not just because the day is too short for them to reach it.



I'm a bit confused here, maybe I'm misreading your statements and if so, I apologize, but you seem to be contradicting yourself.


----------



## Pi (May 23, 2013)

raptor3x said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Also, once sunlight has heated the object, the radiated heat is at much lower frequencies and the emissivity is more or less the same then (this is somewhere on Wikipedia).
> ...



Wikipedia: *Lighter colors and also whites and metallic substances absorb less illuminating light, and thus heat up less; but otherwise color makes small difference as regards heat transfer between an object at everyday temperatures and its surroundings, since the dominant emitted wavelengths are nowhere near the visible spectrum, but rather in the far infrared. Emissivities at those wavelengths have little to do with visual emissivities (visible colors); in the far infra-red, most objects have high emissivities. ... The main exception to this is shiny metal surfaces, which have low emissivities both in the visible wavelengths and in the far infrared.*

It is a fact that black surfaces get hotter, I do not know why we are even discussing that.


----------



## M.ST (May 23, 2013)

No. White is perfect for me.


----------



## Zv (May 23, 2013)

Be glad they don't come in bright hot pink with flashing LED lights! Perfect for wildlife! 

I wonder which would be better on safari? Black or "putty"?


----------



## Grumbaki (May 23, 2013)

IWLP said:


> At any rate, I don't mind the white 70-200. In some situations where I shoot, it adds an air of legitimacy to the fact that I'm standing around with a camera taking photos. I walked around a large city in China and never hesitated to pull it out. Of course the fact that _I'm_ white was probably a bigger deal most of the time.



Exactly that. People tend to forget that many things are noticed when you are shooting before they notice the color of your lense.
Acting extremely obvious is often less threatening/disturbing to passer by than trying to get sneaky. I recently had a case of that: while i had no problems having "marginals" to pose to a 5d3, my shooting from the hip compadre had several arguments...


----------



## Markus D (May 23, 2013)

In Aust, when cricket matches are on, the temperature can easily be 40celcius but there are still a plethora of Canon whites around the ground. Whilst I am nowhere near pro standards, I have owned the 100-400 L IS (and am eagerly awaiting the replacement), the 70-200 L IS 2.8, I now have the f4 and the 70 - 300 L IS. I take both to the bush in the middle of Australia and do not notice any issues with the performance of the lenses even on days when the temp is well over the 40 celcius level.

But to answer the original, I do feel somewhat prominent when using them around others and would prefer if they were black. I am sure that the quality of photos taken with black Nikon lenses in the majority of cases would not be that different to Canon white lenses to make a big issue.

I don't know about blue though! maybe a light aqua ;D


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (May 23, 2013)

I love the fact that my 70-200ii is a giant hunk of white medal. Similar to what iSy said earlier, it tends to set the paid photographer apart from the others, especially at a wedding. It also distracts babies, toddlers, and kiddos so they actually look at the lens. Additionally, it feels like you've somehow earned your wings once you upgrade your black tele to a white tele. I can't come up with a good way to end this paragraph, so I will end it... here. ;D


----------



## vscd (May 23, 2013)

>somehow earned your wings once you upgrade your black tele to a white tele

There is no upgrade to a Magic Drainpipe!


----------



## whothafunk (May 23, 2013)

M.ST said:


> No. White is perfect for me.


I second that.


----------



## vscd (May 23, 2013)

@Whodafunk

>Canon 20-700L f2.8 IS USM II 

...is this lense white, too?  Of course this monster has to be White. I just imagine a 250mm aperture in my Hands :


----------



## AvTvM (May 23, 2013)

I do not need lenses in screaming pink, fresh turquoise, champagne gold or in off-white.
I would prefer them all in matte black.


----------



## Forceflow (May 23, 2013)

i am kinda torn on the white/black issue with Canon lenses.
I don't like the white look and I really don't like how it can attract unwanted attention. But the heat thing is something to keep in mind. I did a shoot some time ago in the blistering sun with no shade. Had my 100-400 connected to the camera and the heat difference between the body and lens was quite significantly. The lens at times was almost cool to the touch whereas the body itself began to heat up to uncomfortable levels. (At which point I began to make sure that the body itself was covered by a shirt or my own shade to give it some time to cool off) 
Wouldn't have thought that the paint made that much difference, but it sure did.


----------



## MiceBass (May 23, 2013)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> I love the fact that my 70-200ii is a giant hunk of white medal. Similar to what iSy said earlier, it tends to set the paid photographer apart from the others



I agree, but sometimes that can be a bad thing if you're NOT a paid photographer and you're trying to sneak your kit in somewhere.


----------



## AlanF (May 23, 2013)

jthomson said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > The relationship between colour and temperature of bodies receiving radiation is not as straightforward as 99% of postings on the net say. Although black absorbs heat better than white, it correspondingly radiates heat better. The inescapable consequence is that black and white bodies reach the same temperature when they are in sunlight but black gets there faster. Conversely, the black body will cool down faster when taken out of sunlight. So, the Nikon lens heats up faster than the Canon L, but both eventually reach the same temperature and the Nikon cools down faster.
> ...



Near-white concrete will also feel far hotter than grass. Try it - also guaranteed. The transfer of heat is far more complicated than just colour.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 23, 2013)

But we are talking about two similar built lenses, light concrete might be hotter than grass, but it is a lot cooler than black concrete or tarmac in the same sun.

I understood, and I vaguely remember this being from a Canon Lenswork book a long time ago, the white lens colour was introduced solely because of the specific contraction and expansion characteristics of the artificial fluorite elements. Indeed wasn't the first artificial fluorite element in the Canon FL300mm f5.6? It was black with a green ring (pre DO and FD!) and came out in the early '70's. When they did the same thing with the black FD300 f2.8 (that also had a green ring) they did have "issues" with focus, that is also the reason all Canon teles used to focus past infinity, so on the update of the 300 f2.8 they went white specifically because of the fluorite elements thermal characteristics and all the subsequent teles did. 

I am sure it has since become a marketing tool, but there was a real reason for the introduction.


----------



## theobdt (May 23, 2013)

Nope. I like it as it is because when you pull that lens out people know you mean business!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Near-white concrete will also feel far hotter than grass. Try it - also guaranteed. The transfer of heat is far more complicated than just colour.





privatebydesign said:


> But we are talking about two similar built lenses, light concrete might be hotter than grass, but it is a lot cooler than black concrete or tarmac in the same sun.



Yep.

Bottom line, a black-painted metal object in the sun will reach a higher equilibrium temperature than a similar object painted white. Did you try my hood of the car suggestion? Maybe it's been too cloudy lately... You could try reading this, instead: http://rack1.ul.cs.cmu.edu/hotcars/


----------



## whothafunk (May 23, 2013)

vscd said:


> @Whodafunk
> 
> >Canon 20-700L f2.8 IS USM II
> 
> ...is this lense white, too?  Of course this monster has to be White. I just imagine a 250mm aperture in my Hands :


oops, will fix it. had to read your post several times to see the problem hehe.


----------



## MrFotoFool (May 23, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> I do not need lenses in screaming pink, fresh turquoise, champagne gold or in off-white.
> I would prefer them all in matte black.



Ooooh - champagne gold. I bet if they came out with a limited edition of these, they could sell for almost twice the price and people would buy them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2013)

MrFotoFool said:


> Ooooh - champagne gold. I bet if they came out with a limited edition of these, they could sell for almost twice the price and people would buy them.



I think they sort of tried that with the Jackie Chan 550D...


----------



## privatebydesign (May 23, 2013)

They did an Anniversary gold IXUS too.

http://www.submin.com/aps/collection/canon/cameras/gold.htm


----------



## pierlux (May 23, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Near-white concrete will also feel far hotter than grass. Try it - also guaranteed. The transfer of heat is far more complicated than just colour.



Hi all!

Grass is not the kind of "material" to take into account for such a comparison. Vegetables (and all living tissues) contain water and transpire, water evaporation abstracts heat and lowers the temperature.

Neuro's first post is spot on.

C'mon Canon, how long for the first sweating lens with built-in water tank to keep the temperature constantly low? ;D ;D ;D


----------



## AvTvM (May 23, 2013)

Yes white reflects more light than black and causes less temperature build-up. However, as far as lenses are concerned its irrevelevant. Some time ago I saw an interview with Chuck Westfall were he basically admitted that the off-white coloring on some Canon lenses is pure and utter marketing shit. 

Canon uses the white coloring even on some L-lenses - e.g. 70-200/2.8 L and 70-200/2.8 L IS without any fluorite element. http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/fluorite_aspherical_and_ud_lenses.do

There are only two valid reasons for the white coloring used in many Canon L-tele-lenses and a few Minolta G-tele-lenses:
1. white lenses stand out at large (sports and other) public events 
2. white color as well as the red L-ring are used by Canon and Minolta to create the impression of "premium grade" in order to charge more than for equally good black lenses


----------



## Rienzphotoz (May 23, 2013)

I like white lenses ... I'm neither shy nor scared of getting some attention


----------



## GregW (May 23, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> They did an Anniversary gold IXUS too.
> 
> http://www.submin.com/aps/collection/canon/cameras/gold.htm



I remember back in the late 80's, I believe it was, the owner of the local camera shop I frequented had a gold version of an AE-1 that I thought was really cool at the time since it was like mine, only better 
It may have been some type of sales reward or something, but I haven't been able to find anything like it during casual web searches.


----------



## Hannes (May 23, 2013)

Trust me, a 70-200 f2.8 attracts attention even if it is black. I have people turning and staring before bringing their own camera up and taking a photo of me. One of those lenses looks pretty massive to the average person no matter what, especially if you have the massive lens hood on (which I do because it is a sigma and flare isn't one of its strong points).

This have been my experience in London which after all is swarming with tourists at any given point in time so one would have thought people would be used to it. Even staff at the zoo were commenting on it


----------



## Gary W. (May 24, 2013)

Hey all,

Mine is.... Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD... 

Gary W.


----------

