# Are lens skins worth it?



## squarebox (Jun 21, 2012)

I came across these today at B&H and was wondering if anyone has tried them and if they really are easy to take off and help prevent minor abrasions and such. 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/814210-REG/LensSkins_LS_C2470XXXBS_Lens_Wrap_for_Canon.html

I think they look cool, but might be labeling myself as a noob if i were to go out shooting with them


----------



## ddashti (Jul 2, 2012)

It all comes down to preference and how the "looks cool" falls into place. To some, it might look cool, to others, it might look uncool.
The more basic skins would be a better choice in my opinion, since they provide protection, keep a white L lens hidden, and keep you clear of either side of the "fashion" opinion of others.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2012)

Personally, I don't see the point from a protection standpoint. Lenses are tools, yes, they'll collect signs of use over time, but I buy them to use them, not to keep them pretty. As a kid, I had an aunt with a formal living room filled with clear plastic-covered furniture and vinyl carpet runners... I didn't see the point then, and I don't now. 

The only exception would be a camo skin for birds/wildlife, when the business end of the supertele is the only thing sticking out of a blind.


----------



## blaydese (Jul 2, 2012)

Yes, if you plan to sell it on ebay. But get a plain color, no hot pink or plaid. 

Peace! 8)


----------



## bkorcel (Jul 2, 2012)

Not for the purpose ou would expect. They do help protect the shell from dings. However the most useful function is to keep your hands from freezing in the winter. Anyone that has used a large tele in the winter knows that gloves dont cut it and the lens gets quite cold when you are waiting for that eagle to swoop down and snag a fish.

From a camo perspective they dont do a whole lot. Critters are going to see you long before they see the lens. Does it help keep a low profile in the field? Not so much. I've found it just increases the number of questions people ask.

In summary, skins are good during the winter or to help protect from dings...but other than that you can save your money and get a good quality polarizer for the lens instead.


----------



## epsiloneri (Jul 2, 2012)

They are easy to use and take off (somewhat elastic material that provides a good fit). Could help prevent minor dents, I haven't tried that. If you choose an inconspicuous colour it also helps against attention from fellow humans, not only birds, in particular if you have a big white. Expensive but good in my experience (I use it on a 400/2.8 ).



squarebox said:


> I think they look cool, but might be labeling myself as a noob if i were to go out shooting with them



Best way to become cool is to care less what other people think 8)


----------



## unfocused (Jul 2, 2012)

If you ask people who have bought them, they'll probably say they are worth it. If you ask people who haven't, they'll say they aren't. No surprise there.

I fall into the "not worth it" category. To me, they are little like a "Car Bra." If you want to protect your lens/car so that it is pristine for the next owner that a nice gesture, but I'm not that considerate. 

On the other hand, keep in mind that once you've invested in a DSLR and start lugging around a camera bag with two or three spare lenses, you have already crossed the line into dorkdom. Once you are on this side of the line, a lens skin isn't going to make you any more or less of a dweeb. So, if you think they look cool, go ahead.


----------



## Kernuak (Jul 2, 2012)

I got them for my big whites, to make them less visible, white isn't exactly subtle when you're out shooting wildlife. If I was a sports shooter, Iwouldn't bother. The neoprene does also offer a little protection, but mainly from scratches and light knocks. Recently, I was climbing through some undergrowth in low light, with the camera slung on a Black Rapid, the 5D MkII ended up with a slight scratch annoyingly, but the lens is unmarked.


----------



## opiuman (Jul 2, 2012)

I have a few, I like them for the looks more than anything. I've gotten a few comments about it so I actually think it attracts MORE attention. They help a little for protection especially the lens coat ones but the lens skins are pretty thin. Overall, sorta worth it depending on what you want but they can be difficult to change or remove at times but I still like them.


----------



## xROELOFx (Jul 2, 2012)

i have a lenscoat on my 500mm and extenders. just like bkorcel mentions, it's great for winter/cold times. i also like the softness of the material, i guess it offers a little extra protection but not much. if you drop your lens, it's gonna hurt either way.

is it worth it? good question. the lenscoat can cost a lot of money. but for a little more comfort and the psychological ensurance my lens has a bit more protection, i thought it was worth it.

if you have the money and think you need a lenscoat/lens skin, you should get one. if you have other things to buy (like a filter or something), get that first.

by the way, i never take the coat of the lens because it can be annoying to put it on and off


----------



## GuyF (Jul 2, 2012)

I almost (but not quite) regret buying my big white 300mm f2.8. Why? Well, it would never cease to amaze me the number of people it attracted. They would almost line up to ask questions. Whilst shooting a falconry display a man asked if I was a professional - "no" I honestly replied to which his response was, "but that's a professional lens" as if I must be an idiot. I had no comeback to that other than to frown and feel sorry for the oaf. He then proceeded to ask what exposure I was using and when I told him he just gave a smug smirk as if to say, "Ha! What a fool!". I should've just whacked him with the lens but there were witnesses. Maybe next time.

So where does that anecdote lead us? As an experiment I cut the sleeve off an old black sweatshirt to use as a lens sleeve. Fits just fine and when using it, not a single person interrupts me! I couldn't believe it, not one person commented as I walked round a large busy lake with it. Instant invisibility cloak. Maybe I should patent it?

Give it a go - cheaper than buying a skin and should prevent some minor scuffs. We can always start a trend by wearing old sweatshirts with one sleeve missing - only "insiders" will know the reason why.


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 10, 2012)

Make your own! Many Many Many youtube and DIY sites on doing this for a fraction of $$


----------



## Danielle (Jul 10, 2012)

I've always kind of had a problem with the bright 'oh wow, look at me' canon's. And they really do, scream 'look at me'. I've attracted way too much attention with the times I've been dragging one around.

I'll admit I was a nikon user most of my life, and the whole look at me white thing wasn't an issue. However now that I've arrived in the canon camp, I'll be seriously contemplating the neoprene ones when I have a big white lenses of my own (won't be that far away).

I'll also go forth and admit that I have gaffer tape on my camera, across the name plate at the top to decrease people staring at me (not sure if that works btw), and some tape on my bottom grip to protect it from scrapes (that one works!).


----------



## bkorcel (Jul 20, 2012)

Probobly the dirtier the better! I will definately try that.



GuyF said:


> I almost (but not quite) regret buying my big white 300mm f2.8. Why? Well, it would never cease to amaze me the number of people it attracted. They would almost line up to ask questions. Whilst shooting a falconry display a man asked if I was a professional - "no" I honestly replied to which his response was, "but that's a professional lens" as if I must be an idiot. I had no comeback to that other than to frown and feel sorry for the oaf. He then proceeded to ask what exposure I was using and when I told him he just gave a smug smirk as if to say, "Ha! What a fool!". I should've just whacked him with the lens but there were witnesses. Maybe next time.
> 
> So where does that anecdote lead us? As an experiment I cut the sleeve off an old black sweatshirt to use as a lens sleeve. Fits just fine and when using it, not a single person interrupts me! I couldn't believe it, not one person commented as I walked round a large busy lake with it. Instant invisibility cloak. Maybe I should patent it?
> 
> Give it a go - cheaper than buying a skin and should prevent some minor scuffs. We can always start a trend by wearing old sweatshirts with one sleeve missing - only "insiders" will know the reason why.


----------



## koolkurkle (Jul 29, 2012)

I have one for my 300 2.8 which I use mostly on the vast open spaces of the soccer field sidelines. The main utility for me is it keeps the lens considerably cooler.


----------



## Zusje (Aug 22, 2012)

Danielle said:


> I've always kind of had a problem with the bright 'oh wow, look at me' canon's. And they really do, scream 'look at me'. I've attracted way too much attention with the times I've been dragging one around.


LOL I even get attention just using my 70-200 f2.8Lis ii with (white) Kenko TC and it's not even that huge. What is perhaps more surprising is the amount of attention my cheapo black Sigma 150-500 gets especially when I have it zoomed out, don't think a skin would fix that!


----------



## Bombsight (Aug 22, 2012)

koolkurkle said:


> I have one for my 300 2.8 which I use mostly on the vast open spaces of the soccer field sidelines. The main utility for me is it keeps the lens considerably cooler.


Thats my thinking when it comes to my go-to landscape lens.


----------



## Cannon Man (Aug 22, 2012)

I think skins for lenses are a stupid idea. "pimping" iphone cases is fine but professional lenses? Please.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Aug 22, 2012)

For me lens skin is important because I once had lots of dust in my EF 24-105mm L lens (as I mostly shoot in the deserts) and it cost me U$120 to get it cleaned ... I could have easily protected the lens from dust by having a lens skin. All my lenses cost at least US$ 1000 to US$ 2500 each, and I want them all to serve me well for years to come and if I can help by protecting them with a US$ 79 investment (with a lens skin on them) so be it. 
Now I use lens skin on all my lenses. Not only does the skin protect the lens from elements but it also increases the resale value ... eventually we all sell our lenses for the better / faster ones ... if the lens does not have scratches and dings and dust, the resale value of the lens goes up.
But what I've noticed (in my limited experience of using lens skins for 3 years) is that for all canon lenses the Lens Coat skin makes them look less "intimidating" ... however on the Sigma 150-500mm OS the lens skin actually makes the lens look even bigger and more intimidating.


----------



## zim (Aug 22, 2012)

I got a white skin for my pancake  ;D


----------



## Bombsight (Aug 22, 2012)

zim said:


> I got a white skin for my pancake  ;D


lol ... classic!


----------



## Jamesy (Aug 22, 2012)

zim said:


> I got a white skin for my pancake  ;D


It's waffer thin


----------



## 00ducky (Aug 23, 2012)

I never saw the point of skins. Unless its camo or wildlife. neuroanatomist said it vary well.

But just lately I herd a photographer talking about them and why you should buy them.
I think it was Moose Peterson. He said, when you want to sell them because of upgrade or other reasons. You take the lens skin off and it looks brand new under it, and you can sell it for more, and get more money back then you would with out it, the lens looking more well used. 

He has a point, but I still wouldn't buy them. Its money I could spend on other thing or putting towards a new lens, body, Starbucks, etc. If or when i sell a lens, it would because of a upgrade to a L lens, my none L lens will never have the life span of a L lens cause they will get replaced with a L lens, sooner then the life span of a L lens.


----------



## mirekti (Sep 27, 2012)

This might save you some money DIY Lens Coat
I plan on making one for my 70-200. 
The purpose is to be less noticable in public, but not sure if that's possible at all with that huge piece of glass 8)


----------



## squarebox (Sep 27, 2012)

I thought your weren't suppose to use super glue anywhere near a lens because the vapor destroys coatings on lens elements?


----------



## mirekti (Sep 27, 2012)

I've never heard of it, if true I'll might buy one for $79 after all.


----------



## canon816 (Sep 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I don't see the point from a protection standpoint. Lenses are tools, yes, they'll collect signs of use over time, but I buy them to use them, not to keep them pretty. As a kid, I had an aunt with a formal living room filled with clear plastic-covered furniture and vinyl carpet runners... I didn't see the point then, and I don't now.
> 
> The only exception would be a camo skin for birds/wildlife, when the business end of the supertele is the only thing sticking out of a blind.



I use Lens coat camo for my long lenses. 300 and 600 respectively and for the purpose of wildlife photography. I dont use skins on any of my shorter lenses. Lenses are tools. You take care of them and they last a long time... Sometimes the coat prevents scuffs and such, but thats not why I use them. It's to tone down that giant white thing lurking in the bushes..


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 12, 2013)

Canon whites draw attention...some of which is unwanted and can be a concern security wise when one travels or when one lives in or works through some neighborhoods...this is no laughing matter. So setting birds/wildlife aside, depending on your situation, you may need a basic black outer color... not necessarily these lens skins, but even do it yourself approaches...whatever works for you.

I will not claim this will deter dedicated criminals...but it will minimize calling attention to your gear...white lenses are recognized as high value items in some of the farthest corners of the world.

On the non-extending whites, something as simple as thin black dress socks can be slipped on after cutting it either as a single piece or as several shorter cuts. 

When we are talking about lenses typically in the range of $2000 to $12,000 ....its more than a used car or months of wages for some people...add a 1 series SLR body or a full camera bag with goodies and you quickly wander into $20,000+ range...which in some areas is "please mug me" category. 

All the resale, dings, freezing reasons are secondary to you having the lenses to resell...so it is perfectly ok to be careful especially if you wander around on your own.


----------



## jp121 (Jan 12, 2013)

I bought the grey camo lens coat for my 70-200 2.8 II. Not for protection of the lens but more for protection for me. Walking around the city with a big white lens screams "mug me".

The lens without the cover always draws comments & that just creeped me out. With the cover no one says a thing.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Jan 12, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> Canon whites draw attention...some of which is unwanted and can be a concern security wise when one travels or when one lives in or works through some neighborhoods...this is no laughing matter. So setting birds/wildlife aside, depending on your situation, you may need a basic black outer color... not necessarily these lens skins, but even do it yourself approaches...whatever works for you.
> 
> I will not claim this will deter dedicated criminals...but it will minimize calling attention to your gear...white lenses are recognized as high value items in some of the farthest corners of the world.
> 
> ...


Agree, where I live, Westerners are targeted by local thugs and are often robbed at gun point in the middle of the day. Although a black cover on the big white won't help against that, but at least it will offer some camoflage.


----------



## florian (Jan 12, 2013)

I got my for my new 600 II lens and I don´t regret it. Would buy it again, but only for my big whites.
My 70-200 IS II won´t get one.


----------



## willis (Jan 12, 2013)

If you are wildlife photographer and you don't want distract animals, obviously lens camo is way to go to hide much as possible that big white in middle of forest/field. Otherwise I don't see point using those.


----------



## mackguyver (Sep 13, 2013)

I just received my 300 2.8 II and had a LensCoat waiting for it. After putting it on, I don't like it and will be returning it. It covers all of the controls with plastic windows, and completely covers the drop in filter. WAY too obtrusive for me and I use all of those switches...that's why I paid $6k+ for the lens! The neoprene lens hoodie is handy and fits in your pocket, though, so I'm going to keep it. I'll probably scratch the hell out of my lens the first time out, but alas, I but it for shooting, not display. Never been a "bra" person with my cars, so I should've known.


----------



## eml58 (Sep 13, 2013)

I use the Lens Coat Covers for my 200/300/400/200-400 & 600.

I shoot Wildlife mostly, Africa & Arctic/Antarctica, these can be harsh Climates & Conditions on equipment, the Covers offer some protection against Dust/Dirt/Snow etc, plus the occasional bump & scrape situation.

But the main reason I use the Covers is to assist in "resale value", I've sold Version 1 300f/2.8 & 400f/2.8 Lenses after 2 years of use for the same price I originally purchased and in both cases having Lens Coat Covers have been a deciding factor from the point of view of the buyer, the Lenses not only are in pristine condition, but they give a clear message to the buyer that the previous Owner cared enough about his gear to protect it.

Some modifications are necessary though with the lens Coat Covers, you need to use a Box Cutter and remove the plastic windows so you can access controls when needed, you also need to cut a Box into the Cover to access the Drop in Filter, The big whites are weather sealed so the Covers less about water.dust getting in, and more about offering protection against scratches etc.

That all converts to $$$ for me, I cant comment on the "Lens Skins", until this thread I'de never heard of them, but i may now look at using something like this on my 70-200f/2.8 II, seems like a good idea to me.

Ultimately it's like a Car Cover, or Painting a house, you have a reasonable Investment tied up in Lenses, in my own case, Big Whites, +/- $50k, Lens Coat Covers for these Lenses cost +/-$450.00 If that helps protect the gear for ultimate resale at a best price, it's a sound investment.


----------

