Just preference... better in some ways, not in others
To "lens coat" or not to "lens coat" (for a Nikon lens)
- Thread starter RichF
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Darrellhar
Well-known member
I'm glad someone else asked this question before I did. I've used Lens Coat in the past and honstly didn't like it. People seemed to have better luck with the larger primes than extending zooms (which is all I've owned). I picked up 180-600 and thought about trying it again. Appreciate the suggestion for Rolanpro as I think I'm going to try that instead to see if I have better luck. I'd love to try the sticker ones but don't trust my patience when it comes to installation. Happy for all the input from everyone else on this subject.
Oldnintheway
Well-known member
It's really not that difficult. I found it quite forgiving, easy to pull back and reapply if needed. I just overlapped the ends, for now. It's thin enough that it's hardly noticeable. Pretty amazing material! And they're only $28. here so not much lost if you do mess it up.If you were closer I'd be bugging/paying you to do mine. I think I'd probably get annoyed with my screwups and end up tossing it (the lens coat, not the lens.....lol ). But I may give it a go at some point when I feel the need to get flustered...
Rene
Well-known member
I’m not sure what protection a skin gives….but then I have never seen the material so can’t really comment on it. What I do know is that the material of ONC , Fujing et all is a bit thicker so can better deal with bumps and its water/moist resistance. I just received the ONC Foto cover for the Z70-200. Ordered 5 days ago in Chine through EBAY arrived today in London
Rene
www.naturepics.co.uk
Rene
www.naturepics.co.uk
It's been hashed a few times on BCG, but in a nutshell:
Skins are much less bulky than the neoprene, pieces stay exactly where you put them, pieces don't fray or get all ratty over time, provides mainly incidental scrape/abrasion protection, but not as much bump/impact protection as the neoprene. Neither method is going to prevent water ingress, but at least the skin isn't potentially trapping water/dirt/debris underneath and causing mold/smell or contact abrasion from trapped stuff continually rubbing against the lens body. Neoprene coat is MUCH easier to install.
When considering the switch from my LensCoats to these skins, I asked myself: in all my time spent in the field as a bird photographer, have the neoprene coats saved a lens from being damaged from something that a skin would have failed at? It's not too often that I slam my telephotos into rocks or drop them onto the ground, so the answer was NO. Most any damage is coming from incidental scrapes against things, not blunt force trauma. If I were to drop a lens or it slams into something with force to the point where it's denting or damaging internals, I don't believe a LensCoat is going to provide that much more protection.
Skins are much less bulky than the neoprene, pieces stay exactly where you put them, pieces don't fray or get all ratty over time, provides mainly incidental scrape/abrasion protection, but not as much bump/impact protection as the neoprene. Neither method is going to prevent water ingress, but at least the skin isn't potentially trapping water/dirt/debris underneath and causing mold/smell or contact abrasion from trapped stuff continually rubbing against the lens body. Neoprene coat is MUCH easier to install.
When considering the switch from my LensCoats to these skins, I asked myself: in all my time spent in the field as a bird photographer, have the neoprene coats saved a lens from being damaged from something that a skin would have failed at? It's not too often that I slam my telephotos into rocks or drop them onto the ground, so the answer was NO. Most any damage is coming from incidental scrapes against things, not blunt force trauma. If I were to drop a lens or it slams into something with force to the point where it's denting or damaging internals, I don't believe a LensCoat is going to provide that much more protection.
Last edited:
I really hate neoprene coats on anything. UGH. The skins do help some and if they reduce/eliminate scratches what's not to like.
Question on the skins...do they come in circular form, ready to slip on (kinda like a lens coat), or is it just a bunch of flat vinyl flat pieces cut to fit properly?
Install video They are cut flat with 3M material.
Last edited:
Oldnintheway
Well-known member
It's the latter. Many small strips & pieces that you need to carefully apply. They are incredibly well cut/fitted.
Oldnintheway
Well-known member
My guess is the lens are optically scanned then laser cut.
Oldnintheway
Well-known member
Mine came with this. No guessing. Didn't see one on the video.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
ajrmd
Well-known member
I'm with you on the first paragraph though we diverge on the second. Yes, I've had the neoprene coats protect my lenses several times in circumstances where a skin or bare lens would not. The first such case occurred when I was shooting sports at a pool. On one body I had the 70-200 f/2.8 (bare) and on the second a 300 f/2.8 wrapped in neoprene. I accidentally bumped into a pole on deck with both lenses. The 300 sustained no damage, whereas the 70-200 had a nice gash in the paint. A second time I accidentally grabbed an unzipped camera bag out of the car and several lenses/tc's tumbled out about 2-3' above the gravel. The tc's (no covering) and a 16-35 suffered abrasions/dings on the bodies and end caps, whereas the neoprene covered lenses displayed no damage other than the caps. I seriously doubt that a wrap would protect as well in either of the scenarios I illustrated. Another area where I think the neoprene is superior is in packing. I've eliminated most of the padding in my cases for transport when using neoprene coated lenses and am able to fit in more gear. I would never attempt this method with wrapped lenses.
Personally, I dislike neoprene for many of the reasons mentioned - they move, they're unsightly, and they can interfere with lens operations - though the other issues water/dirt are overblown. I've shot many sessions in rain with neoprene covered lenses and afterwards, I simply removed the neoprene and allowed it to dry without issues. Likewise, I've never had problems with dust or dirt getting underneath the neoprene and causing any issues. Yes, wraps are more attractive, afford some scratch/abrasion/dirt resistance, and they don't change the contours or operational characteristics of the lens. Whether one wraps, uses neoprene, or chooses not to use any cover at all is up to the user to decide what works best for him/her.
Well, you can double wrap… lens will be nigh-indestructible then. Just make sure you put the vinyl on before LensCoat 
Oh sorry, it’s probably my black humour......
Oh, and I thought you were being sarcastic. My bad
Last edited:
I love the Shakespeare'esque character of this question, as its importance is almost as enormous as of the original
Here are my 2 cents about it, one aspect per cent:
1. Camouflage
-----------------
It is primarily a question of the used color composition and print pattern used. That said, not all suppliers are equally good in that.
Luckily not so much for me, but people I know do change the type of camouflage they use depending on the use case and for them the ease of fitting and removal without damaging the cover is an issue and many of them prefer soltuions with velcro fasteners, because you can just open and close an element, rather than pulling it off over the thing end of the lens, which in most cases involves maneuvering around tripod feet while paying attention not t overstretch an element.
2. Protection
---------------
Especially on long, bulky and costly lenses I find lens coating almost indispensable to protect them.
It always strikes me if i see what people sell on ebay and call mint condition, but when looking at the pictures you could think a bus went over it.
Yes, Steve is right in saying that his equipment is tools ather than jewels, but every good craftsman certainly looks carefully after his tools and the same should apply to lenses.
So why "long, bulky and costly".
Costly is obvious, because unless you have a 360° insurance, the more expensive the lens, the more costly will be repairing or replacing it.
Long and bulky has to do with kinetic energy. The longer a lens is, the faster the end further away from the rotation axis will be and the more likely a collision of this end with a hard obstacle will cause damage. This applies to bigger lenses accidently swinging on a strap, tipping over after standing upright or falling down while rotating. The latter includes the well-known tipping-over of things sitting on a ball head.
If the lens is heavy enough it can even buffer enough mechanical energy to destroy a camera body in case it happens to be on the fast end of the rotating bundle.
Lens covers are typically not really thick but it is knowm from other applications that even thin layers of absorbing material can help a lot, and here it's certainly neoprene that shines. When I got the first big 500mm it had a (real) lens coat on it and I was happy as at this time this thing indeed WAS a jewel for me at the time.
Today I prefer non neoprene solutions, because to my experience the neoprene cover has two disadvantges for me:
It tends to make the operation of the lens much less fluent. Neighbour elements tend to act as a break for operating the the rotating rings if the elements are just slightly off the ideal position.
Partly openings are missing or getting in the wrong place. If neoprene parts get floppy after sometime they can move and according to muphy's law they are always moving away from their ideal position, never towards it. And - heck - who needs hard plastic windows over switches I want to operate instantly and reliably, mayb e even with gloves ? Here "the original" is clearly not in the lead IMHO.
The other thing I don't like is that neoprene is proably the best material to trap moisture underneath it and if it comes out again, it happens where the rubber ends and this is typically where the gaps are between stationalry and rotating elements of the lens barrel.
The protection aspect is one reason I didn't decide for an alternative method introduced by someone here in the forum: Film wrapping.
It helps against surface scratches like it does with tuning cars, but there is no damping element to reduce the harshness of an impact with a bigger angle, i.e. not sliding along somthing but bumping straight into it. And if you wandt to do it properly you need to work REALLY acurate and still with a considerable risk of damaging the lens while installing the cover.
My next lens (Z 180-600) will get one of the more textile'ish covers (i.e. Rolanpro). I had the chance of looking in detail to several lenses ans use them with the cover and I love the snug fit compared to the neoprene hose getting wobbly after some time, especially smaller parts or thin elements around openings. IMO they are doing also a good job if it comes to accuracy and user experience in relation to openings and operating the lens, they simply stay where you put them.
If I can confirm these observations with my first own lens, my good old 500 f4G will get a "new shirt" and there will be an "original" for sale.
Here are my 2 cents about it, one aspect per cent
:1. Camouflage
-----------------
It is primarily a question of the used color composition and print pattern used. That said, not all suppliers are equally good in that.
Luckily not so much for me, but people I know do change the type of camouflage they use depending on the use case and for them the ease of fitting and removal without damaging the cover is an issue and many of them prefer soltuions with velcro fasteners, because you can just open and close an element, rather than pulling it off over the thing end of the lens, which in most cases involves maneuvering around tripod feet while paying attention not t overstretch an element.
2. Protection
---------------
Especially on long, bulky and costly lenses I find lens coating almost indispensable to protect them.
It always strikes me if i see what people sell on ebay and call mint condition, but when looking at the pictures you could think a bus went over it.
Yes, Steve is right in saying that his equipment is tools ather than jewels, but every good craftsman certainly looks carefully after his tools and the same should apply to lenses.
So why "long, bulky and costly".
Costly is obvious, because unless you have a 360° insurance, the more expensive the lens, the more costly will be repairing or replacing it.
Long and bulky has to do with kinetic energy. The longer a lens is, the faster the end further away from the rotation axis will be and the more likely a collision of this end with a hard obstacle will cause damage. This applies to bigger lenses accidently swinging on a strap, tipping over after standing upright or falling down while rotating. The latter includes the well-known tipping-over of things sitting on a ball head.
If the lens is heavy enough it can even buffer enough mechanical energy to destroy a camera body in case it happens to be on the fast end of the rotating bundle.
Lens covers are typically not really thick but it is knowm from other applications that even thin layers of absorbing material can help a lot, and here it's certainly neoprene that shines. When I got the first big 500mm it had a (real) lens coat on it and I was happy as at this time this thing indeed WAS a jewel for me at the time
.Today I prefer non neoprene solutions, because to my experience the neoprene cover has two disadvantges for me:
It tends to make the operation of the lens much less fluent. Neighbour elements tend to act as a break for operating the the rotating rings if the elements are just slightly off the ideal position.
Partly openings are missing or getting in the wrong place. If neoprene parts get floppy after sometime they can move and according to muphy's law they are always moving away from their ideal position, never towards it
. And - heck - who needs hard plastic windows over switches I want to operate instantly and reliably, mayb e even with gloves ? Here "the original" is clearly not in the lead IMHO.The other thing I don't like is that neoprene is proably the best material to trap moisture underneath it and if it comes out again, it happens where the rubber ends and this is typically where the gaps are between stationalry and rotating elements of the lens barrel.
The protection aspect is one reason I didn't decide for an alternative method introduced by someone here in the forum: Film wrapping.
It helps against surface scratches like it does with tuning cars, but there is no damping element to reduce the harshness of an impact with a bigger angle, i.e. not sliding along somthing but bumping straight into it. And if you wandt to do it properly you need to work REALLY acurate and still with a considerable risk of damaging the lens while installing the cover.
My next lens (Z 180-600) will get one of the more textile'ish covers (i.e. Rolanpro). I had the chance of looking in detail to several lenses ans use them with the cover and I love the snug fit compared to the neoprene hose getting wobbly after some time, especially smaller parts or thin elements around openings. IMO they are doing also a good job if it comes to accuracy and user experience in relation to openings and operating the lens, they simply stay where you put them.
If I can confirm these observations with my first own lens, my good old 500 f4G will get a "new shirt" and there will be an "original" for sale
.
Last edited:
ajrmd
Well-known member
We agree on all of the disadvantages of neoprene solutions though Rolanpro covers are made out of polyester and velvet. While they may "fit" better and provide superior operational benefits, water remains a potential issue and my suggestion is to treat it as you would a neoprene cover, namely take it off to dry.I love the Shakespeare'esque character of this question, as its importance is almost as enormous as of the original
Here are my 2 cents about it, one aspect per cent
1. Camouflage
-----------------
It is primarily a question of the used color composition and print pattern used. That said, not all suppliers are equally good in that.
Luckily not so much for me, but people I know do change the type of camouflage they use depending on the use case and for them the ease of fitting and removal without damaging the cover is an issue and many of them prefer soltuions with velcro fasteners, because you can just open and close an element, rather than pulling it off over the thing end of the lens, which in most cases involves maneuvering around tripod feet while paying attention not t overstretch an element.
2. Protection
---------------
Especially on long, bulky and costly lenses I find lens coating almost indispensable to protect them.
It always strikes me if i see what people sell on ebay and call mint condition, but when looking at the pictures you could think a bus went over it.
Yes, Steve is right in saying that his equipment is tools ather than jewels, but every good craftsman certainly looks carefully after his tools and the same should apply to lenses.
So why "long, bulky and costly".
Costly is obvious, because unless you have a 360° insurance, the more expensive the lens, the more costly will be repairing or replacing it.
Long and bulky has to do with kinetic energy. The longer a lens is, the faster the end further away from the rotation axis will be and the more likely a collision of this end with a hard obstacle will cause damage. This applies to bigger lenses accidently swinging on a strap, tipping over after standing upright or falling down while rotating. The latter includes the well-known tipping-over of things sitting on a ball head.
If the lens is heavy enough it can even buffer enough mechanical energy to destroy a camera body in case it happens to be on the fast end of the rotating bundle.
Lens covers are typically not really thick but it is knowm from other applications that even thin layers of absorbing material can help a lot, and here it's certainly neoprene that shines. When I got the first big 500mm it had a (real) lens coat on it and I was happy as at this time this thing indeed WAS a jewel for me at the time
Today I prefer non neoprene solutions, because to my experience the neoprene cover has two disadvantges for me:
It tends to make the operation of the lens much less fluent. Neighbour elements tend to act as a break for operating the the rotating rings if the elements are just slightly off the ideal position.
Partly openings are missing or getting in the wrong place. If neoprene parts get floppy after sometime they can move and according to muphy's law they are always moving away from their ideal position, never towards it
The other thing I don't like is that neoprene is proably the best material to trap moisture underneath it and if it comes out again, it happens where the rubber ends and this is typically where the gaps are between stationalry and rotating elements of the lens barrel.
The protection aspect is one reason I didn't decide for an alternative method introduced by someone here in the forum: Film wrapping.
It helps against surface scratches like it does with tuning cars, but there is no damping element to reduce the harshness of an impact with a bigger angle, i.e. not sliding along somthing but bumping straight into it. And if you wandt to do it properly you need to work REALLY acurate and still with a considerable risk of damaging the lens while installing the cover.
My next lens (Z 180-600) will get one of the more textile'ish covers (i.e. Rolanpro). I had the chance of looking in detail to several lenses ans use them with the cover and I love the snug fit compared to the neoprene hose getting wobbly after some time, especially smaller parts or thin elements around openings. IMO they are doing also a good job if it comes to accuracy and user experience in relation to openings and operating the lens, they simply stay where you put them.
If I can confirm these observations with my first own lens, my good old 500 f4G will get a "new shirt" and there will be an "original" for sale
Skins protect against scratches. That's it. I have used skins on a couple of lenses but really, it seems like a lot of work for little reward, depending on how much you like the "look."
Good quality neoprene lens covers provide some actual padding that can help prevent or at least minimize impact damage. The high quality ones (e.g., the rubber-backed ones from Outdoor Photography Gear UK) do NOT slide around. The things I don't like about them is that I don't like the "feel" of turning a large zoom ring with a neoprene cover, and I don't like the plastic windows over the switches. Also, with zooms, the cover piece usually ends up hiding the zoom focal length indicator marks, which is annoying.
The "camouflage" aspect of the covers is pretty much for show, let's face it.
Some people complain about what happens when neoprene gets wet from rain. I have never found this to be a real issue. The neoprene and the lens beneath it dry pretty quickly.
With zoom lenses, I don't use all of the pieces of the neoprene covers. With my Olympus 150-400mm zoom I actually reversed the piece that goes over the zoom ring, as the black textured side feels more natural to me for zooming.
Good quality neoprene lens covers provide some actual padding that can help prevent or at least minimize impact damage. The high quality ones (e.g., the rubber-backed ones from Outdoor Photography Gear UK) do NOT slide around. The things I don't like about them is that I don't like the "feel" of turning a large zoom ring with a neoprene cover, and I don't like the plastic windows over the switches. Also, with zooms, the cover piece usually ends up hiding the zoom focal length indicator marks, which is annoying.
The "camouflage" aspect of the covers is pretty much for show, let's face it.
Some people complain about what happens when neoprene gets wet from rain. I have never found this to be a real issue. The neoprene and the lens beneath it dry pretty quickly.
With zoom lenses, I don't use all of the pieces of the neoprene covers. With my Olympus 150-400mm zoom I actually reversed the piece that goes over the zoom ring, as the black textured side feels more natural to me for zooming.
Oldnintheway
Well-known member
I really don't see how 1/4" of neoprene will prevent any serious damage if you drop or otherwise heavily impact a lens, I may be wrong? This is the first time I've coated a lens with anything, and I chose the skin. I've held other's lenses with lenscoat and didn't like it at all. I bushwack often and am not particularly careful about it. I'm hoping to reduce, maybe eliminate the minor abrasions I typically get on this lens. So far I like it and hardly know it's there.
1/4 inch of neoprene provides more impact protection than a skin. I cannot quantify how much more. If you drop your lens on a hard floor or road from six feet it won't help, but actually a small amount of padding seems to make a difference with smaller mishaps, in my admittedly limited experience. Just like it's advantageous to have dropped something on even a thin carpet as opposed to a bare floor. It also helps a bit in keeping a lens from getting too hot or too cold. As for wet, I actually use a Storm Jacket on my rig when it's raining, and actually, I rarely remain out in the rain photographing for long in any case.
That said, I don't yet have lens coverings on my Nikon 180-600 or 800 PF. It's not a crucial thing one way or another.
That said, I don't yet have lens coverings on my Nikon 180-600 or 800 PF. It's not a crucial thing one way or another.
Anyone that puts a skin on knows what protection it provides. It is clearly stated.
Our skins will offer protection from daily usage such as tossing it in a bag full of equipment. The skin are rated to protect against light scratches and scuffs. While the skin does offer a layer of protection, it won't protect against heavy damages such as drops.
In my opinion, there’s no correct answer, only what level of risk each of us is willing to assume.
I received and am using a lens coat made by Fujing on my 600 PF tele. I actually was/am happy with the ones made by Outdoor Photography UK (which are actually quite a bit cheaper) but I guess I am easily bored and I wanted a new pattern. The material used by Fujing is very thin, so my arguments regarding "padding" are pretty moot for this brand. But the fit and workmanship are actually quite remarkable, and the material has a nice 'feel.' As usual, I did not use the pieces for the focus ring or the lens ring.
I probably will get another Fujing for my 800mm pf.
I probably will get another Fujing for my 800mm pf.
LMacky
New member
Now if only they could make something slightly softer looking like an abstract of paw prints or something like that.