Do You White Out for Nature Photography?

[russellsnr]

Hi, As a Canon user the one thing I wish they had done as Nikon do is make lenses that you would use in nature/Bird photography BLACK. So Canon shooters do you use camouflage type covering or something else for those white lenses so as not to tell all those shy animals that you are there or think it makes little differance? Thankyou, Russ.

[Manfred M]

Perhaps something like this will help...

https://lenscoat.com/


I'm not a wildlife photographer per se, but when I shoot, even with the "large" Sigma 150 - 500mm, I've never had a problem like you describe. Among the bird / wildlife photographers that I know, a few use a lens cover, some shoot from hides and others don't do anything to cover their gear. Perhaps it is the way you approach the wildlife rather than the lens? Certain birds and animals are skittish and are easy to scare while others tend to ignore people until they get too close.

[Tronhard]

I have spent most of my photographic life shooting wildlife and landscapes. As a Canon user I have heard many people complain about the large white L lenses (some - not here, saying it is just for show), but in fact Canon has clearly stated that the white lenses are all-metal that is subject to thermal expansion as temperatures rise, something that the synthetic plastics do not have to deal with to the same degree. Obviously white is more reflective than black so this reduces the heat effects on the lens body. This thermal expansion is said to have a significant impact on the optical integrity of the lens complex, hence the colour. In Canon's (and Sony's) non-metal lenses they have gone back to a black livery.

I must admit I have never used a camouflage wrap on my lenses, but as Manfred said I think the way in which we approach the subject is more significant in success with wildlife.

I am very careful in engaging with my subjects: if the situation permits trying to let my presence become part of their comfort zone - especially with birds. On one occasion I had been sitting quietly for some 15 minutes, waiting for my subjects to come back to my target area when a chap came along talking loudly. He was of the opinion that birds and many other kinds of wildlife don't care about the noise we humans make - a point of view that I cannot subscribe to. When I am at our local open bird sanctuary of Tiritiri I can hear the guided tours coming 10 minutes before they turn up and the birds (which live in a very wild state) have long-since gone quiet and withdrawn from sight.

[DickyOZ]

One man's meat is another man's poison. Here in OZ I have often wished Olympus would offer a white telephoto lens for wildlife shooting. My black 300mm F4 get too hot far too quickly in the summer. I have to keep it in the shade as much as possible between shots. If it was used on a tripod it would need cover. The planned 150-400mm lens will be white - hooray! Alas it will be well beyond my price range.

[Astro]

Hi Russell, I shoot with Canon lenses and I do quite a lot of 'wildlife' & insect macro. I've often been in locations where I am the only person around for as far as I can see. I have never been particularly aware that wildlife is scared off by my presence. Some species are naturally very secretive, in which case patience and settling down to wait rather than continually moving around seems to be the key.

I also often wear a rather bright red 'all weather' jacket, (on the premise that while I always let people know the general area I am shooting in, and carry a phone etc, it might be advantageus to be fairly visible should I ever need to be rescued by emergency services) and again I have never felt I was scaring off the general wildlife.

Trev's point about wildlife generally hearing us long before we get to see them is correct in my experience.

What I have noticed is that the sound of a shutter can sometimes get a reaction. And particularly when I am after insect macro's I'm convinced that some insects react to my lenses auto focus. I guess they pick up ultrasonics, so I switch to manual focus if I think this is occuring.

[DickyOZ]

What I have noticed is that the sound of a shutter can sometimes get a reaction. And particularly when I am after insect macro's I'm convinced that some insects react to my lenses auto focus. I guess they pick up ultrasonics, so I switch to manual focus if I think this is occuring.

I have noticed that too James. I use silent shutter, but still find that some small birds take no notice when I point the lens at them but immediately react as soon as I half-press for focus. They obviously can hear what I can't.

[Manfred M]

I have spent most of my photographic life shooting wildlife and landscapes. As a Canon user I have heard many people complain about the large white L lenses (some - not here, saying it is just for show), but in fact Canon has clearly stated that the white lenses are all-metal that is subject to thermal expansion as temperatures rise, something that the synthetic plastics do not have to deal with to the same degree. Obviously white is more reflective than black so this reduces the heat effects on the lens body. This thermal expansion is said to have a significant impact on the optical integrity of the lens complex, hence the colour. In Canon's (and Sony's) non-metal lenses they have gone back to a black livery.

There is some truth to Canon's assertion, but most of it is marketing quackery.

Metals do have a higher coefficient of thermal expansion than engineered resins, so metal does shrink and grow more than resin components used in a lens. Aluminum, the most common metal used in a lens has a coefficient of thermal expansion of about 23 µm / m / °C (a µm = 1/1,000,000 m), so given the dimensions of a lens even a very large temperature swing will result in expansion (or contraction) that is far less than the manufacturing tolerances used in the metal parts of the lenses. A black lens will warm up more quickly than a light coloured lens in direct sunlight. In theory (and in practice) this can lead to "bowing"; think of a banana shape.

Nicely said, if a white surface finish was superior more lens makers would be making white coloured lenses. They are not. I remember the time when most lenses had a chrome finish. Black painted lenses came in for cost and environmental reasons (chromium is a heavy metal and not at all environmentally friendly.

Let's not forget that the black metal parts that are exposed to the sunlight are just a protective housing for the lens that protects the critical optical and mechanical components from environmental contaminants and mechanical damage. There is an air gap between the protective housing and the mechanical focusing and zoom helices and air is a reasonably good insulator.

Outside of direct sunlight hitting the lens components, there is no difference in how much either black or white metal lenses heat up. Put them into an environment with the same ambient temperature and they will reach thermal equilibrium at the same rate.

There are a few downsides to white colours; white will yellow overtime when exposed to UV and it tends to be more reflective than black. This is also the reason that plastic components in the lens housing are black - these protect these components from UV damage and do not yellow under UV.

[Tronhard]

There is some truth to Canon's assertion, but most of it is marketing quackery.

I'm quite happy for you to argue that one with Canon and Sony! In the meantime I have no plans to paint my lenses black to make them less inconspicuous.

[Manfred M]

I'm quite happy for you to argue that one with Canon and Sony! In the meantime I have no plans to paint my lenses black to make them less inconspicuous.

I wouldn't paint them either. It was brilliant marketing on Canon's part when they first came out because they were easy to differentiate from all the other legacy lenses. I suspect Sony's reasoning is probably a bit more obscure but if Canon marks their premium lenses with white paint, Sony can do it too.

[Tronhard]

And then of course there is the RED RING!!! I looked up the white thing and according to an article the issue with temperature on the all metal lenses was "fluorite crystal lens elements are sensitive to heat - they can expand and contract, [with the head from the casing] altering their optical properties." Go figure...

[russellsnr]

Thankyou for the replies although some did drift of the question a little I have white hair and a big bald patch and in Summer at temps well over 100F that at times gets hot It's also the reason I wear a dark hat now when trying to photograph birds especially BOP, I also have the added problem of no hides at all as many people here are really more into shooting birds with guns than cameras (It's the Greek way) also the water's here (only two reservoirs) are man made and so not a great deal deal of approach cover. Again thankyou for the replies. Russ.

[Shadowman]

When I was looking to purchase my first DSLR lenses played a big part in the final decision, of the 4 brands considered (Sony, Pentax, Canon, and Nikon), my cons list included limited lens options and white lenses (felt they were too visible and distracting).

[Manfred M]

Thankyou for the replies although some did drift of the question a little I have white hair and a big bald patch and in Summer at temps well over 100F that at times gets hot It's also the reason I wear a dark hat now when trying to photograph birds especially BOP, I also have the added problem of no hides at all as many people here are really more into shooting birds with guns than cameras (It's the Greek way) also the water's here (only two reservoirs) are man made and so not a great deal deal of approach cover. Again thankyou for the replies. Russ.

It seems to me that the colour of your lens is the least of your problem.

The hunters and lack of cover to get to the shooting areas seem to be significant issues. It seems to me that bird photography might not be something you should be doing in that area.

[Manfred M]

And then of course there is the RED RING!!! I looked up the white thing and according to an article the issue with temperature on the all metal lenses was "fluorite crystal lens elements are sensitive to heat - they can expand and contract, [with the head from the casing] altering their optical properties." Go figure...

That is interesting. I went back and compared the thermal characteristics of optical glass; crown, flint and fluorite (sodium fluoride) glass and found that fluorite had roughly twice the thermal expansion coefficient of the other glasses. This is still lower than the aluminum used in the mechanical lens components.

Again, I continue to see more marketing than engineering as other companies seem to have used fluorite (Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, Sigma, etc.) and not had to paint their lenses white.

[rpcrowe]

The Lens Coat products are great and can be had in any number of black/white/camo colors and patterns. They also protect the lens from bumps, scratches and knocks. However, they are fairly expensive. This type of non-adhesive tape can be used to effectively cover your lens and is quite inexpensive.

https://www.amazon.com/Hunters-Speci...ateway&sr=8-10

If your lens is included in this relatively small sampling, this might be a fairly inexpensive way to camouflage your lens:
https://www.structuredshop.com/produ...gle%20Shopping

My mother-in-law fabricated a fabric tube with elastic to close either side. The function of this tube is to hang on the pantry door and to store plastic grocery bags. You put the bags in at the top and withdraw them from the bottom. Given the correct size and color/pattern this would be a very cost effective way to disguise the big white lenses.

This is basically what it looks like but, it could be fabricated from any type/color/pattern fabric. OTOH, this mesh might just do the job. It could just slip over the lens. The advantage to a mesh is that a photographer could very likely operate the lens controls with the mesh over the lens; while the mesh would break up the white profile of the lens...
https://www.amazon.com/FSLIFE-Dispen...garden&sr=1-11

Of course, if you are really sensitive about camouflage, here is an option
https://www.amazon.com/Arcturus-Ghos...=fsclp_pl_dp_2
If you are a dedicated wildlife photographer, this may not be as far fetched as it first seems

[Geoff F]

I sometimes photograph birds alongside someone who has a camouflaged cover while I use my black unadorned Sigma 150-600 and haven't noticed any difference.

But a couple of thoughts. Speed of movement, where you suddenly swing your gear around to face a bird which has appeared from the other direction, might be more noticeable with a brighter lens colour. Also, if you do use a fabric cover how do you manually focus or make quick adjustments to the lens settings.

[Tronhard]

That is interesting. I went back and compared the thermal characteristics of optical glass; crown, flint and fluorite (sodium fluoride) glass and found that fluorite had roughly twice the thermal expansion coefficient of the other glasses. This is still lower than the aluminum used in the mechanical lens components.

Again, I continue to see more marketing than engineering as other companies seem to have used fluorite (Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, Sigma, etc.) and not had to paint their lenses white.

To be honest the colour of the lens has been an issue for me less with wild animals and more with people. I don't really do much shooting of people - but I truly admire those like Manfred who do! - and as soon as a white lens is brought out people seem to zero into that right away.

As far as shooting on the long end, I have just got the Sigma 150-600 C lens, which is black, but haven't had the chance to (not) scare the local birds as yet.

The other thing that does drive the birds away is people who are out there with their cameras set on auto mode so that their flash pops up and fires under conditions when just having different exposure settings would get their shot without freaking out the wildlife...

[zen]

It's my understanding that most wildlife are color-blind or nearly so. If that's the case, the color of our lenses and other eqpt is inconsequential. E.g., the bright orange colored clothing required of hunters in the woods so that other hunters will not mistake them for wildlife. The bright color doesn't seem to scare off the deer, elk, moose, et. al.

As one of the posters mentioned, it's the noise and movement we make that is much more likely to startle the critters we are trying to capture.

Zen

[davidedric]

I don't have any lenses to check, but my memory and looking at pictures tell me that the lenses are not
in fact white. They are "off white" and that can make all the difference in whether it could be interpreted as an alarm signal.

[DanK]

I don't have any lenses to check, but my memory and looking at pictures tell me that the lenses are not
in fact white. They are "off white" and that can make all the difference in whether it could be interpreted as an alarm signal.

If my two are an indication, newer ones are whiter than they were in the past. However, that could be just aging of the coating.