Lens Protective Covers or Camo Covers

[Paul T]

Just a question for those members who use camo or protective covers on your telephoto lenses.

I am considering purchasing a protective cover for my 600mm telephoto lens to protect it from scratches etc.

What I am concerned about however is that the cover may attract and trap grit, sand and or dust between the cover and the lens body.

Has anybody experienced this or other drawbacks with protective or camo covers.

cheers & thanks for all and any information.

 

[Eric Yellowstone]

I have used Lens Coat and RolanPro brands. I have not experienced any problems with them. I do prefer RolanPro over Lens Coat. Lens Coat uses neoprene that tends to move around more on the lens. RolanPro stays in place more on the lens. (I think the neoprene tends to show, maybe even attracts dust)
If I use the lens out in the rain I never put the lens back into my camera bag until it's completely dry.

 

[Woodpecker]

As @Eric Yellowstone I have used LensCoat and now use Rolanpro only.
With the LensCoat made of neoprene I have occasionally had moisture underneath the cover, which due to the nature of the material was a bit hesitant to come out again on its own. But is was a rare occurence.

These day I use Rolanpro for new lenses only, because - at least for me - they have a couple of advantages:

• Very snug fit keeps everything in place
• Much preferred manufacturing quality like stitched edges and very exact openings for buttons, scales, displays a.s.o. up to including a cover element even for the foot (at least for some models (I know this from the Z 180-600 cover). I don't use it, because it is designed for the original foot and I use Wimberleys, but for amyone using the original foot with a plate this would work. On the LensCoats the firdst thing I had to do was removing these hard, in my eye useless and hampering plastic windows, especially over the control buttons.
• The rotation of the rings is not hampered, as it sometimes happens with lens coat, when the open neoprene edges of the elements rub against each other and act as a break.
• The different character of the Rolanpro parts fell much more convenient when storing lenses in bags/backpacks, moving the around in it. Especially the hood elements of LensCoat tends to be rolled up, especially after some time of usage and thus becoming ab it loose, when having to go in a tighter compartment, while the Rolanpro parts slip in easily without getting torn off or rolled up or ...
• The surface seems to be less prone to "collecting stuff from the surrounding" like when dealing with prickly or "adhesive" parts of plants.

I don't shoot so often in critical environment with especially sand, but I would expect that due to the tight fit of the Rolanpro parts the ris of getting something under it is pretty negligible. I would be more concerned about gettting the debris in betwenn static and rotating parts of the lens or in the sliding switches at the side of the bigger lenses.

 

[ButlerKid]

I have used both LensCoat and Alphagvd. Almost nothing gets trap under the skins. With neoprene, they can remain damp when used in rainy or very humid condition. While many folks have had neoprene fray badly, I never experienced that. The adhesive skins take a bit more time and skill to apply. Almost all the better brands come with cut outs for buttons, etc. On some, the lens ring may not turn as easily when covered. In that case, don't cover the ring.

 

[Abinoone]

Just a question for those members who use camo or protective covers on your telephoto lenses.

I am considering purchasing a protective cover for my 600mm telephoto lens to protect it from scratches etc.

What I am concerned about however is that the cover may attract and trap grit, sand and or dust between the cover and the lens body.

Has anybody experienced this or other drawbacks with protective or camo covers.

cheers & thanks for all and any information.

I've used Lenscoats on my tele lenses for years and never had an issue. In fact, just last week I removed the camo cover that had been on one of my lenses for years, and found that it had done such a good job, my lens looked as new as the day I took it out of the box. I highly recommend using a good neoprene lens cover for any lens you care about.

 

[ajrmd]

Interestingly, I had started the move away from neoprene covers (I use the ones from outdoor UK) to vinyl wraps for better functionality of the buttons and rings. Then, I accidentally dropped my Z8/186 which had both a Smallrig L-bracket and neoprene cover on a gravel trail. Apart from cracking the lens hood ring where it attached to the lens, the entire assembly was unscathed. It's compelling me to rethink my strategy. Another bonus when I used neoprene on the lenses, I pulled the dividers out from the bags and was able to pack more stuff for travel.

 

[AlanB313]

I use the lenscoat covers but I plan to switch to rolanpro when mine wear out. My lenscoat versions are badly frayed and seem to shift position here and there while hiking. I had to remove the one covering the manual focus ring.
They also hold moisture when I shoot in damp conditions. Hopefully the rolanpro will work better.

 

[Gov]

I put a AlfaGvrd skin on my 800 PF but ended up taking most of it off (left it on the lens hood) because it interfered with the control rings and buttons. I tried to put it on carefully, with help, but there were too many places where it was close to rings or buttons.

 

[Calson]

My lenses are either on my camera or in a backpack where they are protected. If I had bright white lenses from Canon or Sony it might be a consideration to have a skin but in the past on my 600mm lenses I found that the skin made it more difficult to grasp the lens and I worried about dropping and damaging the lens and ending the trip.