Lens Cap Loc: The Cold North Coast

So as I scour the continent for a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM or a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens, I have noticed that pictures that are posted of these lenses the body can be white, or a tan/flesh color. Is there a significance in this color? if so please define the difference. Thanks in advance!

Japakomom Loc: Originally from the Last Frontier

My guess would be just different dye lots.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

There may be a SLIGHT difference over the years in the absolute true color of Canon lenses - but there will be a much GREATER difference due to the way they are photographed ie color balance - and that - I believe, is what you are mostly seeing ....

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

There is definitely a difference. The only time it will be of importance is if Canon needs to know which color you need for touch-up paint. It isn't just the 70-200's, other "big whites" suffer the same disorder.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

I'd say that's right.
The older ones are a little more cream and the newer one slightly more whitish.
But as long as they look BAD A$$, it's all that matters, who cares if you know how to use one, as long as it's COOL!!!!
SS

tsilva Loc: Arizona

there is a different color between the mkI and mkII, as well as the difference in quality

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I don't know Canon's reason for varying the colors but I have several white L lenses and no two are the same shade of white. All my black L lenses are the same shade of black.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Definitely! Canon has always placed appearance over performance. (kidding, of course)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I agree color balance of the photo being taken not the actual color. It has been pretty much the same as memory serves since they were FD lenses.
Here is an old FD lens.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Canon changed their "white color" for the applicable L lenses back around 2010. Models released after August 2010 have a more white / greyish color where older lenses have a more white / cream color. The color change applies to the release date, not the manufacture date.

BuckeyeBilly Loc: St. Petersburg, FL

From Canon Customer Service, "A white surface reflects sunlight, helping to keep the lens cooler. This is especially important in settings such as nature or sports, which these lenses are normally used in." I pursued my line of questioning and asked if there is a significance between gray lenses and white lenses. She referred me to Canon's Technical Support and its number is 1-800-828-4040. They are there starting at 10:00 am Eastern time. Hope this helps.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

mkI and mkII are designators for cameras, not lens. Lenses are designated by the singular Roman numeral.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

My MK I and MK II in my hand here look the same color.

imagesintime Loc: small town, mid-America

The original reason for white lenses was the use of flourite in the lens (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/fluorite_aspherical_and_ud_lenses.do) which is easily effected by heat. I would guess the slight changes of color have to do with the results of continuing research during the last 30 years.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

This is correct... fluorite elements are somewhat fragile and very often lenses that use it are deliberately painted a light color to reduce the chance of heat build up, which might lead to expansion of metals in the lens which in turn may damage the fluorite element.

Fluorite is used in lenses for two primary reasons: It is very effective at reducing chromatic aberrations and it's lighter weight than optical glass.

However, naturally occurring fluorite that's pure enough for use in lenses is rather rare and costly, especially in sizes large enough to make into lens elements.

Canon developed a means of "growing" their own fluorite for use in their lenses.... And they make extensive use of it, especially in telephotos. It's pretty rare to find fluorite in other manufacturers' lenses. You can buy a Canon lens with a fluorite element for roughly $750. The cheapest Nikkor with a fluorite elements costs over $10,000. AFAIK, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina don't make any lenses with fluorite. Not sure about Sony, Pentax or Olympus now. I know the latter two have used it in a few lenses in the past.

Some Canon lenses that use fluorite:

- three of the current Canon 70-200 models
- 100-400mm (both versions)
- 200-400mm
- all the Canon super tele primes (200/2, 300/2.8, 400/2.8, etc.... incl. Mk I and Mk II, as well as most earlier non-I)

The only "white" Canon lenses I can think of that don't use fluorite:

- 300/4
- 70-200/2.8 non-IS and the discontinued f2.8 IS Mk I
- 70-300L
- 400/4 DO (either version)
- 400/5.6L

I hardly think the minor differences in color has anything to do with lens design or serves any physical purpose. The rather slight color variation is probably due to a change in paint suppliers, types of paint or method of application... or was just done for marketing purposes.

Incidentally, when choosing cameras and lenses to use on the moon and for other space missions, reportedly NASA specifically avoided any lenses incorporating fluorite out of concern that the high G forces and heavy vibrations of launches and landings would damage the fluorite elements. They used Hasselblad cameras and lenses on the moon missions. They've used Kodak and Nikon gear for other, more recent missions and on the International Space Station.