Fluorite coatings on lenses have been around for decades. The coating is on the glass, not the lens body. The purpose is to provide a graded index of refraction interface between the glass and the air that reduces reflections (and flare). Has nothing to do with absorbing heat.

Newer lenses use newer materials for the coatings.

And as far as starting something, don't worry. Some of these threads take on a life of their own, reaching far afield from the original topic. Guess this is one of them.

I suppose people on this forum like to practice their typing skills.

I always thought the fluorite was used as a lens element, not a coating.
This from Canon's website: Link Here

"Fluorite, which boasts a very low dispersion of light, is capable of combatting the residual aberration that standard optical glass fails to eliminate. Canon succeeded in artificially creating crystal fluorite in the 1960s, producing the first interchangeable SLR lenses with fluorite elements. In the 1970s, Canon achieved the first UD (Ultra Low Dispersion) lens elements incorporating low-dispersion optical glass. This technology was further improved to create Super UD lenses in the 1990s. A combination of fluorite, UD and Super UD elements are used in many of today's super-telephoto L series lenses, telephoto zooms and wide-angle lenses."

Ah, here we go again. As you should know, Mr. Pigott, the reason Canon lenses stand out in a sea of black lenses is simply their color. I suspect Canon originally chose the color for that very reason; to make their lenses stand out in a crowd for no other reason than a fancy paint job. Also, a rumor has been circulating for years that Canon gives the pros those lenses, either outright or on an open ended 'loan', just for the product recognition value. That said, both companies make suburb optics and cameras. Granted Canon does a little better job marketing to the non-pro market but don't get hung up on a particular brand. I have a nephew living in Manhattan who is a well paid professional photographer and whose bag contains both Canon and Nikon equipment.

The new member who initiated this thread should 1) join a local camera club where will be found photographers of many levels of experience, 2) take a few basic courses at a community college or 3) sit down with a friend who has as many years as a serious amateur as he can find in his community. No pro or serious advanced amateur should espouse the notion that either N or C is better than the other. I have been using Nikon since 1960 when I got a model F in Japan. I've stuck with the brand for 54 years simply because all the lenses still fit all the bodies. Same could probably said by a long-time Canon owner. (BTW: That Nikon F is still alive and well and has never needed any maintenance in its life.)

Hello everyone,

My name is Nick and I am new to this digital photography thing. I have been collecting coins for many many years, and I've decided to sell a few, but getting good pictures has been a problem for me.

I purchased a Sony Alpha A58 DSLR Camera and SEVERAL different lenses, and I have tried to create the good coin macro photo's by trial an error, (mostly error). I just recently purchased a BUNCH of books on "Beginning photography", "how to do macro photography" etc. etc. and I will be reading them as soon as they come in. I've looked at several links on macro photography on coins and got some help there, but I'm sure it is going to take time for me to get really good at it. I know I can't become a professional overnight, so I'm going to do whatever it takes to get good at this.

If anybody has any suggestions that would help me out, or if you are having the issues, I would love to hear back from you. Anyway, that's about all for now, and I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Nick

Stupid word games! So you didn't like the title of the thread. Neither did I. We have all been moaning and groaning about that for quite a while. BUT the OP did give a good explanation of her needs, which you, as usual, chose to ignore. Instead you answered with a completely senseless comment about her ability, about which, I'm sure, you know nothing. Now Admin has gotten rid of JR1 (Kourtesy Kop), you show up as a ghost of horrors past (JR1/2, The Title Torquemada, the Subject Sheriff).

Ron, you're smart enough that, if you put your brain in forward gear, you could be a valuable asset to this forum, but you choose to be the Titular Troll. Give us all a break, please. Help us make this a better forum. Thank you!

HELP!! I am, hopefully, a budding outdoor/nature/landscape photographer. It seems most folks do not grasp the idea that i do NOT do portraits, even though i can show them many, many portrait images i have taken that, quite frankly, suck. How in the world do i convince people i do not do this kind of photography and it makes a difference? i have politely declined and referred them to someone i know who would do a much better job and will not charge them much, yet they still insist i am the photographer they want. The last thing i want to do is ruin someone's student photos or event photos. I am sure they think i will do it for no cost, which is probably their motivation. How do others handle this kind of situation??
i don't want to come off as a snobby photographer, but if i don't have the skill or inclination to learn portrait techniques more advanced than snapshots, i will only produce poor images for them.