Nikon lenses - Canon "L" equivalents

[chuck]

There is a way to tell very high end Nikon lenses from others. Very high end Nikon lenses have a gold ring around their barrel just behind the filter ring, right where Canon's red "L" band is. But there is no special designation in the lens's name to indicate it. In any case, this gold ring is even more exclusive than than Canon's L label, only a dozen Nikon lens has it.

 

Even some constant aperture zooms don't have it.

[lex_jenkins]

Not all Canon "L" glass was created equal. The "L" version of the FD 100-300/5.6 was hardly any better than the non-L version, despite the addition of a single special optical element. It was also built with the relatively cheapo, plasticky construction of the later pushbutton FD's and the push-pull zoom action tended to slip.

 

OTOH, it was probably among the best buys in Canon FD glass, optically speaking, whether the L or non-L version.

 

As someone else - or several someones - have already said, user experience and reliable, independent lab tests carry more weight than just about any claims made by the manufacturer.

[andrew robertson]

One fluorite element is more than twice as effective as a ED glass element. ED has better

thermal stability, as Nikon shouts from every hilltop, but just how much more stable they

will not say. Probably not much, as Nikon now offers much of its big glass in a light

colored lens.

[andrew robertson]

Oh, and Lex, the 100-300 f/5.6 L was optically light years ahead of the non-L version.

What wasn't any different was the build quality. The 100-300 f/5.6 L remains the finest

Canon in that range years after being discontinued.

[vivek iyer]

I will watch out for the "Gold ring" from now on!

 

Is it 24 carat gold or just a colored paint that sticks to plastic?

[umd]

There is no such thing as exact equivalents to "L" in Nikon line, cause L is basically a marketing thing, not technical. For a rough match look at apertures, zoom ranges and price. L designation dates back to the days Canon introduced the F1n, aiming professional market. To accompany it Canon needed a face lift in the lens line and decided to mark some of their lenses above average, of course the ones that deserved it, usually that with rather fast apertures and uncommon zoom ranges, and marked them "L" for "Luxury". Those days Nikon was doing the opposite and labeling some of theirs as "E" lenses for "Economical" to compete with cheap offers from 3 party lens makers. Nikon didn't need to make a higher class segmentation cause most, if not all, their lenses were already very well regarded.

[chuck]

It's probably a brass band wedged in a slot on the lens barrel just behind the filter ring.

 

Nikon offers their lens in light color for purely cosmetic reasons. It is a resounding vindication of Canon's Marketing astuteness, but in no way effects temperature sensitivity of its lens elements.

[ilkka_nissila]

And no-one I know actually buys these light grey versions of the Nikkors because they cost more. They exist just for marketing reasons.

[alex_lofquist]

Aspherics are designed to correct for (surprise!) spherical aberration. ED glasses (there are several types of them) were created to correct for the chromatic aberrations.

[ShunCheung]

After playing around with my 300mm/f4 AF-S, a friend of mine bought the light-grey version of that lens. He thinks it won't heat up as much under the California sun. Another friend has two 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S, one black and one grey. But those are exceptions. I rarely see grey-colored Nikkor lenses out there.

[amit_bronstein]

I think the answer is simple.

1. better lens costs more.

2. Like mentioned above, PRO=Zoom fixed F2.8 (80-200,35-70,28-70,...)

 

I had a 70-300ED D type F4. I bought it new and sold it for half the money I paid for after 2 months. Instead I ordered a 80-200F2.8 heavy tank, the difference is HUGE!.

You just need to hold the lens and you will have the "PRO" feeling. If you still don't feel it, just look at the price and you will realize it.

 

 

Amit

[mark_chappell]

As the owner of a Canon 500/4 lens in easily-scratched white(ish) finish, and also by trade

a biologist who does a lot with temperature regulation and the associated biophysics, I

have my doubts that paint color will have much of an effect on the temperature of a lens in

the vast majority of circumstances. There is going to be <I>some</i> influence of finish

color if a

lens is receiving direct sunlight, but -- unless Canon is using some extremely tricky paint

that strongly reflects in the infrared as well as the visible range (highly unlikely) -- the

effect of color is

probably less than one might expect. Maybe a few degrees on average. A big lens will

get a little warmer in the sun than a small lens, but even in desert heat I've never really

had a lens that got too hot to touch during routine use. <P>

 

What I think really has the potential for seriously cooking a lens is leaving it in your car in

the sun on a warm day -- the 'greenhouse' effect of the window glass can turn a car into

an oven. In

those circumstances, the paint color on a lens means squat -- white or black, it will bake.

<P>

 

FWIW, I've got the JRF camo neoprene covers on my 500, mainly for scratch protection.

That largely negates any protection from solar heat conferred by the white paint, but I've

had no problems even in very high temperatures.

[asaf_tzadok]

I am sure that ther must be high-end lens which are not constant 2.8 and not too expensive. Canon have high-end "L" lenses such as 17-40 F4 and 70-200 F4 that cost about 680$ and 580$ respectively. It is not that expensive. Nikon incorporate 3 ED lens and 1 aspherical in their 300$ lens. If you just count the optics, you can say that Nikon invested in this lens. So I geuss that for just more money maybe there is a high-end lens fo about 600$.

 

Best, Asaf.

[lex_jenkins]

"Lex, the 100-300 f/5.6 L was optically light years ahead of the non-L version."

 

=================================

 

Which particular non-L version of the 100-300/5.6, Andrew? There was more than one. Mine was the last of the lot, a continuous close focusing type and, to my eyes, virtually equal to the L version I compared it against.

 

Anyway, this is getting too close to the pissing contest over Canon gear that Shun wanted to avoid. I don't use Canon gear any more so it's moot.

[ilkka_nissila]

Mark, since Canon has stated that the paint is chosen to minimize temperature variations, why wouldn't they then use a paint which reflects infrared? I'd imagine the difference could easily be that the white paint reflects 70-80% of the infrared radiation off, while the black paint would absorb it.

[mark_chappell]

Ilkka: keep in mind that we see only a small fraction of the solar spectrum, and visible

light contains only 50% (or less) of the energy in sunlight. A very high-reflectance white

color -- much 'whiter' than the paint on Canon telephotos -- may reflect 60-70% of the

visible spectrum (thus, 30-35% of total irradiance), and I suspect the Canon paint might

have at most 50% reflectance in the visible (maybe 25% of solar energy) -- I'm guessing,

not having put a lens under a reflectance spectrophotometer. An average-colored

object, like typical caucasian skin, has perhaps 25-30% reflectance in the visible spectrum.

 

In terms of IR reflection, paint that reflects much at all in the infrared is a very large

technical

challenge. Pretty much everything is 'black' to most IR wavelengths. Some years back a

scientific colleague needed high-IR reflectance paint for a thermal balance study in frogs

(the details are somewhat bizarre). He

could only find it from a company that produced camouflage paints for the military (and

the formula

was a closely-guarded secret). And even that stuff had high reflectance only in the near-

IR (short wavelengths), not in long-wave IR ("thermal IR") that contains considerable heat

energy when absorbed.

[ilkka_nissila]

Hi Mark,

 

I'm a little surprised to hear that white paints aren't white in IR. This is certainly true of TiO2. However, if it doesn't have to be cheap, I suppose something like Duraflect could be used; it has >90% reflectance up to about 2000 nm. Click comparative reflectance data from the page

 

http://www.labsphere.com/products.asp?parent_id=187&catId=275&pid=276&isProduct=true&productTree=

 

The solar spectrum can be seen at

http://www.squ1.com/index.php?http://www.squ1.com/solar/solar-radiation.html

 

which led me to think that only a small part of the IR is at sufficiently high wavelengths not to be reflected off the material I mentioned. Am I missing something (probably a lot :-)?

[mark_chappell]

That kind of starkly white paint might gain you a few degrees in ideal conditions (but I'm

guessing it's REALLY glaringly reflective, not like the off-white finish Canon uses).

Whether a few degrees is important to the thermal stability of optics is unclear (and the

temperature differential will be highly dependent on wind speed, orientation to the solar

beam, long-wave thermal IR from nearby objects, and a lot of other unpredictables). One

of the classic experiments in thermal biology is to use black vs. white painted cans in the

sun (to simulate white and dark animals). On a still day in strong sunlight with your

objects oriented perpendicular to the solar beam, you might get

10-20 F difference between cans (the ones I used to use were roughly 300 mm f4 lens-

size).

You'd expect somewhat more temperature differential in a bigger object and less in a

smaller object (mainly due to convective effects on size). As soon as the wind starts

blowing, the temperature gradient drops dramatically (more or less as the square-root of

wind speed).

 

Whether that kind of temperature differential is important for optical materials (or

lubricants, or electronics) is an open question. If it was

REALLY important, I suspect that lens manufacturers would bombard us with cautions

about using equipment in strong sunlight on hot days, or would use highly reflective

paint. But they don't, which makes me suspect that Canon's whitish color is more of a

marketing ploy than a thermal protection scheme.