Does LensCoat really help???

A good amount of research has been done on camouflage (visual response, risk perception, etc)- mostly in relation to whitetail deer and other game species, simply because that's where the money's at.

But yes- camouflage absolutely can help in wildlife pursuit, especially the "textual" camo such as the RealTree, Mossy Oak, Trebark, etc. Many (game) species have poor "visual acuity"...or the ability to quickly and accurately hone in on one object in the environment. Instead, the animal often sees a busy image where it has to map risks based on colors and movement. Camo is obviously all about breaking up the large solid color patterns. As Steve mentioned, the camo serves best to buffer our sudden or unnatural movements. And, (for most ), our movement is what kills the shot. It's obviously more complex than this, with situational differences (locale, species), but short answer is YES- camo (can) help.

On the other hand, nature photography is becoming a pretty social sport, in which camo itself is likely rendered useless. You'll only get a return on the effort you put into it- so that isolated piece of camo equipment (amidst the Oakleys, Rolex, solid color clothes, shooting buddies, etc.) is simply more of a fashion statement

Jim Zipp- very interesting comment. I see the black / white all the time, but never really thought about it until you mentioned it. Absolutely true with people too!

the white covers are for nicon users that want to look as good as cannon users

Jens Peermann wrote:...Those lenses have fluorite elements and fluorite decays when exposed to high temperatures. ...

My apologies for pulling this thread up again.
Jens, I'm curious where you got this info from?

To my knowledge heat is not decaying the fluorite element however the difference in CTE between the fluorite and "normal" optical glass elements can temporarily affect the optical performance at higher temperatures and that's all.

In any case the lenscoat actually would be of benefit in that regard since the neopren closed cell foam acts as a thermal insulator

I only use the lens coats for protection from knocks and scratches and to make the metal lens barrel easier to grip when it's really hot or really cold out.

I use them for protection as well. My Nikon 600vr cost me over 9 grand, the LensCoat for it is about $90 which is 1% of the cost of the lens, a no brainer to keep it free of the dings that would add up to a whole lot more than 1% when I go to sell the lens some day. All the other stuff the LensCoat may do is gravy. Whatever lens you may have look at the numbers and do the math.

In a word, YES. If nothing else, the day to day use of a lens in the field can bring small dings, scratches, etc. The Lenscoat prevents a lot of unnecessary wear and tear. Not to mention providing a nice surface to hold on freezing day.

George DeCamp wrote:I use them for protection as well. My Nikon 600vr cost me over 9 grand, the LensCoat for it is about $90 which is 1% of the cost of the lens, a no brainer to keep it free of the dings that would add up to a whole lot more than 1% when I go to sell the lens some day. All the other stuff the LensCoat may do is gravy. Whatever lens you may have look at the numbers and do the math.

Agree with you 100% and I am thinking to buy the lenscoats even for my 300mm f/4 for canon and nikon, Does it worth??? I think it is worthed cause I hate to see my gears in the hospital

What do you think about the D3x with coat??? Will that look weird???

Regards,
WW

This black vs. white deal is way overdone. I suppose it could be an issue in 110 degree heat but how often do you shoot in such conditions for extended periods of time? I would have other concerns ahead of impact to the lens. Most bodies are black and I haven't heard of any suffering heat stroke like effects.

I definitely rely on my LensCoat prodocuts to protect my lenses. I use them on all of my lenses from my 70-200mm on up. Highly recommended. I also use their Hoodies, which are excellent replacements for long lens hood covers, as all of the original covers are difficult to get off in a hurry.

I agree 100% with those who cite lens protection as a reason to use a LensCoat. I also think that the camo factor is a positive.

One thing I do not like about LensCoats is their cost. I have purchased LensCoats for 400, 500, and 600 mm lenses. My last one was for a Canon 400 DO lens. If my memory is correct the cost was right at $100. I did a search on the web for camo neoprene and found one supplier selling sheets approx. 4' x 7' in size for about $75. That comes out to $75 for approx. 28 square feet and I don't think my LensCoat has more than 2 sq. ft. of material. This is $5.75 of material for a $100 LensCoat. I am sure people who manufacture LensCoats buy their material at much lower prices than the one sheet price I saw on the web. The web site I saw has prices from 50 to 70% lower if more than 10 sheets are purchased. It looks to me like the actual material cost (for a LensCoat for which I paid $100) for the LensCoat manufacturer is somewhere in the $2 or $3 range.

IMHO, this is the most overpriced item of all the photo gear I have ever purchased. That said, I will continue to purchase a LensCoat for any big lenses I buy in the future.

I agree- the price does come at a premium, but its absolutely worth it.

It's clear a good amount of research, time and testing goes into getting the neoprene to fit correctly...something I most definitely don't have time or skills to do myself.

Like George mentioned, +/-$100 is a fraction of the cost of many supertele lenses, in which a small scratch can easily cost you $100 in resale value. Plus, the LensCoats have great re-sale value themselves, should you change your mind down the road.

Bruce Sherman wrote:That said, I will continue to purchase a LensCoat for any big lenses I buy in the future.

Bruce - The price charged (for anything, not just LensCoats) has very little to do with the cost of materials. The price is instead set in order to maximize revenue. If the LensCoat makers (who do frequent this site, btw) thought they could bring in more total revenue by lowering the price (and therefore selling more units), they probably would. (Or by raising it and selling less!)

There are secondary factors, of course, like how many they are capable of producing, and customer satisfaction and exposure. And material/production costs DO set a kind of floor for the price. But your statement above sums up why they charge what they do - people still see the value in it, even though it seems expensive. So it's not really over-priced at all.

The prices of specialty items for photographers (or any market for that matter) seem to be a source of complaint to some. Aside from the "value" mentioned above, what people often times do not realize is the magnitude of the investment in much more than the materials. Lenscoat for instance had to build and outfit a small fabrication facility with machinery, had to hire employees etc. as well as invest in time to package and market etc. The material cost is only a small fraction of the equation so I find it almost laughable when folks compare the "material" of a product to the overall cost of the finished item. Even if the material were free there is a still quite a bit involved in the process of bringing something to market. Then there is volume to consider - how much can they sell before they recoup their capital investment? Having done this myself on more than one occasion, and having been at the receiving end of such complaints (some recently), I have some idea what goes into such things.

Now that I have lanscoat on all my lenses, body bags for the cameras and various pouches, I will never be without them. Just the peace of mind knowing that my lens will look like new when I sell it is worth the investment.

I think they are; but then again just about any camo covering would do. Lenscoats as in the ones made by Lenscoat, are quite convenient. You pay for the convenience though.

BTW, the dings argument is lost on me... My 400/5.6L is UH date code and is wonderfully sharp (dings and all). The protection argument is also lost on me; the thickness of the lenscoat is a whopping 16th of an inch of neoprene. There is NOT much protection against anything more than a small bump.

Now comes some of the comments posted above re: cost. Yes, it is costly, as are most things which are special use. I am not sure there are many who think the 600$ Wimberley head is not expensive. It is expensive, but it does the job and they had to think/design/market/produce/test/stock and sell the thing so the expense is justified IMO.

As for LC, I just wish they used a thicker neoprene; I researched making one for myself at home and the material is definitely quite cheap on ebay...

-- V

Hi WW,
Lenscoat covers are way too thin for my usage/requirement/functionality and yes, too pricey for the purpose that they serve. So..... I make my own covers at home which give solid protection against "bumps/shocks" to the lens . As for me, I go on safaris where I have to shuffle equipment quickly without having to worry about hitting the metal bars of a jeep, or bumping my equipment with each other.
It looks and functions very well, is very light too.


Here's what you do :

1. Walk into a hardware store like OSH
2. Buy Sponge rubber/Neoprene (1/4th inch thick, my preference)
3. Drive over to a crafts store ( Michaels etc)
4. Buy camo cloth
5. Using a pair of scissors, tacky glue, ruler and pen, cut the sponge rubber to size, wrap in camp cloth and if needed, stitch the ends(from inside)

DIY on a rainy day, under 2 hours at home.It's not just about saving money, it's more about the functional use of something to protect thousands of $ of investment....any why not do it at home, if you can ?

Hope this helps...all under $15. My mom made some for Vivek (user above)...and he was more than happy.