Sigma vs Nikon (Page 4): Nikon's newest lenses have Fluorite, focus motors in the lenses and electronic diaphrams ........wonder where they got those ideas ??

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

imagesintime wrote:

The Canon lenses that are white are the lenses that use fluoride elements in their construction. Fluoride crystals are VERY susceptible to heat. Black Canon lenses do not use fluoride in their construction. For years Nikon said the fluoride did not improve a lens. They changed their mind and their grayish white lenses use fluoride elements. Those Nikon lenses are more expensive because of the added costs of the very expensive fluoride crystals.

Nikon's newest lenses have Fluorite, focus motors in the lenses and electronic diaphrams ........wonder where they got those ideas ?? - same with Sony/Minolta btw.

imagesintime Loc: small town, mid-America

MT Shooter wrote:

Maybe you could inform Canon of this, they claim ALL "L" lenses have at least one flourite (not fluoride) element in them.

Sorry about the spelling. According to this list from Canon

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/fluorite_aspherical_and_ud_lenses.do

they don't show fluorite in any non-white lens. Can you give me the Canon source that says otherwise?

imagesintime Loc: small town, mid-America

MT Shooter wrote:

Maybe you could inform Canon of this, they claim ALL "L" lenses have at least one flourite (not fluoride) element in them.

Doing some more research I find quite a few high-end Canon video lenses with fluorite that are not white.

imagesintime Loc: small town, mid-America

Good page on Canon's L lenses -

http://www.kehblog.com/2013/02/an-overview-of-canon-l-series-lenses.html

Carter, one of the pages I read said Canon claims all L lenses contain at least one fluorite or ultra-low dispersion element in the lens. Maybe that is what you saw?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

imagesintime wrote:

Good page on Canon's L lenses -

http://www.kehblog.com/2013/02/an-overview-of-canon-l-series-lenses.html

Carter, one of the pages I read said Canon claims all L lenses contain at least one fluorite or ultra-low dispersion element in the lens. Maybe that is what you saw?

My info comes from the confidential dealer I go package from Canon where they state their L lenses all offer weather sealing and at least one flourite element. I don't have that info at home, it's back at the store.
I am aware of LOTS of conflicting info on the internet as well.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

Nikon makes some white lenses too, motive for this isn't clear and they are rare.

I also found this...

HERE IS THE REAL STORY.....on page 86 of the Canon Lens Work; copyright 1981; printed in Japan by Baba-Seizando Co Ltd. (approx 178 glossy pages)

"The exterior of the lens is treated with grey paint to protect the lens from heat when shooting under strong sunlight"
(Notes on the 600mm F4.5 New FD super telephoto lenses; page 86)

I also just makes sense to me, that on such a long lens with so many elements and groups that have line up so perfectly, that any expansion from heat, not matter how minute, could effect IQ performance, especially at the longer end. Fluorite sees to be the main reason given.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Flyextreme wrote:

Nikon makes some white lenses too, motive for this... (show quote)

It is just garbage, You believe in 1986 marketing garbage. If any of it was true all lenses would be white. They are not. None of this is backed up by any current laboratory. You have bought Canon's marketing ploy - that makes you a fool and a sad one at that.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Mark7829 wrote:

It is just garbage, You believe in 1986 marketing garbage. If any of it was true all lenses would be white. They are not. None of this is backed up by any current laboratory. You have bought Canon's marketing ploy - that makes you a fool and a sad one at that.

Here is one explanation of why not all Canon lenses are white. Knowledgeable readers will recognize whether or not it is a marketing ploy.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/black_or_white_lenses.do

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

Mark7829 wrote:

It is just garbage, You believe in 1986 marketing garbage. If any of it was true all lenses would be white. They are not. None of this is backed up by any current laboratory. You have bought Canon's marketing ploy - that makes you a fool and a sad one at that.

This type comment along others that you have posted elsewhere, make you a disrespectful ass and a sad one at that :hunf:

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

Mark7829 wrote:

You're a freaking idiot, not worthy of making any comments about photography. The white lens as a superior performing lens because it is white is stupid and disgusting. BACK IT UP with any certified lab. You can't because it was and is a marketing ploy. You bought it and now you own it. Why don't you just disappear.

Wow!!! What is your malfunction? No one said anything to that effect.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Flyextreme wrote:

Wow!!! What is your malfunction? No one said anything to that effect.

Read the comments that were made.... that's all I dispute. One indicated that white drew less heat than black and that heat caused lenses to malfunction.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Mark7829 wrote:

Read the comments that were made.... that's all I dispute. One indicated that white drew less heat than black and that heat caused lenses to malfunction.

Do you dispute that a white lens will absorb less heat than a black lens?

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

boberic wrote:

But it is only an "impression". I don't think that any one seriously considers Canon's or Nikon's lenses are actually better than the others. And after all that's the reason that both Sigma and Tamron are in business. Virtually no one would buy either of them if Canikon woud reduce their prices to compete. I think they probably have thought about it. And for one reason or another decided against it.

Of course there better if they were the same price as for same mm as sigma
Tamron . No one would buy , sigma or tamron . In the 80 to 400mm . Have you ever seen a big blow up of a bird , deer grizzly etc taken at the same time . With the four lens .I have and canon nikon win , hands down . They just seem to have a better look to them picture wise .

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Leitz wrote:

Do you dispute that a white lens will absorb less heat than a black lens?

To the point where it affects performance - you bet, oh yeah, yes. If you believe it affects performance - you're a dolt - pure and simple. Why are you even here? Uou have to be embarrassed.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Bram boy wrote:

Of course there better if they were the same price as for same mm as sigma
Tamron . No one would buy , sigma or tamron . In the 80 to 400mm . Have you ever seen a big blow up of a bird , deer grizzly etc taken at the same time . With the four lens .I have and canon nikon win , hands down . They just seem to have a better look to them picture wise .

You may hav misunderstood , or I may have said it wrong- what I meant to say is-does anyone really believ that Canon glass is better than Nikon glass or verse visa (pun intended) And if they reduced their prices they just might put Sigma/tamron out of business.