Black Coating Issues Type Z?
p.1 #1Black Coating Issues Type Z?
I'm noticing that the new Z lenses like the 70-200/2.8 Z are available in a black coating model rather than the white coating.
In olden times it was explained that Canon ULD glass and fluourite were sensitive to high temperature from sunlight and hence white was preferred. Is that no longer the case or just that the 70-200/2.8 Z is small enough that it doesn't matter like in a 400/2.8 or 600/4? I don't want to use any wraps or covers on it. I have four Canon 70-200 lenses (f/2.8 II, f/4 IS, f/4 IS II, RF f/4) and they are all white, but am trying to decide if black is advisable.
Thanks,
EBH
In olden times it was explained that Canon ULD glass and fluourite were sensitive to high temperature from sunlight and hence white was preferred. Is that no longer the case or just that the 70-200/2.8 Z is small enough that it doesn't matter like in a 400/2.8 or 600/4? I don't want to use any wraps or covers on it. I have four Canon 70-200 lenses (f/2.8 II, f/4 IS, f/4 IS II, RF f/4) and they are all white, but am trying to decide if black is advisable.
Thanks,
EBH
Oct 15, 2026 at 01:08 AM
p.1 #2Black Coating Issues Type Z?
If I were buying that lens and it was available in black, then black is definitely the option I would go for.
It’s no secret here I hate using white lenses out in public - I cover sons football games with the old 100-400Lii
The camera and lens remains hidden until I’m pitchside. I loathe drawing attention to myself and nothing does it better than waving a big white in public. Attracts way too much unwanted attention.
I have several whites and none see use simply because of the attraction they draw.
I suppose if you’re the type that wants to “be seen” or to “show off” look at me everyone!! , then a big white is the perfect answer. Ugh, can think of nothing worse.
It’s no secret here I hate using white lenses out in public - I cover sons football games with the old 100-400Lii
The camera and lens remains hidden until I’m pitchside. I loathe drawing attention to myself and nothing does it better than waving a big white in public. Attracts way too much unwanted attention.
I have several whites and none see use simply because of the attraction they draw.
I suppose if you’re the type that wants to “be seen” or to “show off” look at me everyone!! , then a big white is the perfect answer. Ugh, can think of nothing worse.
Oct 15, 2026 at 01:34 AM
p.1 #3Black Coating Issues Type Z?
EB-1 wrote:
I'm noticing that the new Z lenses like the 70-200/2.8 Z are available in a black coating model rather than the white coating.
In olden times it was explained that Canon ULD glass and fluourite were sensitive to high temperature from sunlight and hence white was preferred. Is that no longer the case or just that the 70-200/2.8 Z is small enough that it doesn't matter like in a 400/2.8 or 600/4? I don't want to use any wraps or covers on it. I have four Canon 70-200 lenses (f/2.8 II, f/4 IS, f/4 IS II, RF f/4) and they are...Show more →
I always took Canon's explanation with a pitch of salt and instead considered it as a clever brand awareness technique. At least, more so in recent years and in lenses like the 70-200mm when lens technology has moved and a lot of parts (both internal and external) are made by polymers like fibre-reinforced plastic that are less subjective at getting all scorching hot or expanding/ shrinking due to temp changes.
If you look across all brands, only Canon and Minolta/ Sony use white for zoom lenses that go over 100mm (and only on their top lines) and in primes over 200mm. Nikon and Sigma use black on all of their lenses —the latter even has a green lens in the eyes of the Bigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX RF HSM! Olympus, Pentax, and Fujifilm are quite interesting: they generally use black, except in case of their top-end telephotos that go above 200mm.
Where am I getting at? Probably unless you shoot long hours in the desert or we are talking about much larger glass than the 70-200mm, it won't matter in modern lenses. I definitely think that the 70-200mm f/4L (especially) and both versions of the f/2.8L could be black without a problem but they offer the white versions due to brand recognition.
I'm noticing that the new Z lenses like the 70-200/2.8 Z are available in a black coating model rather than the white coating.
In olden times it was explained that Canon ULD glass and fluourite were sensitive to high temperature from sunlight and hence white was preferred. Is that no longer the case or just that the 70-200/2.8 Z is small enough that it doesn't matter like in a 400/2.8 or 600/4? I don't want to use any wraps or covers on it. I have four Canon 70-200 lenses (f/2.8 II, f/4 IS, f/4 IS II, RF f/4) and they are...Show more →
I always took Canon's explanation with a pitch of salt and instead considered it as a clever brand awareness technique. At least, more so in recent years and in lenses like the 70-200mm when lens technology has moved and a lot of parts (both internal and external) are made by polymers like fibre-reinforced plastic that are less subjective at getting all scorching hot or expanding/ shrinking due to temp changes.
If you look across all brands, only Canon and Minolta/ Sony use white for zoom lenses that go over 100mm (and only on their top lines) and in primes over 200mm. Nikon and Sigma use black on all of their lenses —the latter even has a green lens in the eyes of the Bigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX RF HSM! Olympus, Pentax, and Fujifilm are quite interesting: they generally use black, except in case of their top-end telephotos that go above 200mm.
Where am I getting at? Probably unless you shoot long hours in the desert or we are talking about much larger glass than the 70-200mm, it won't matter in modern lenses. I definitely think that the 70-200mm f/4L (especially) and both versions of the f/2.8L could be black without a problem but they offer the white versions due to brand recognition.
Oct 15, 2026 at 03:42 AM
p.1 #4Black Coating Issues Type Z?
Recklesscoding wrote:
In olden times it was explained that Canon ULD glass and fluourite were sensitive to high temperature from sunlight and hence white was preferred. Is that no longer the case or just that the 70-200/2.8 Z is small enough that it doesn't matter like in a 400/2.8 or 600/4? I don't want to use any wraps or covers on it. I have four Canon 70-200 lenses (f/2.8 II, f/4 IS, f/4 IS II, RF f/4) and they are all white, but am trying to decide if black is advisable.
Thanks,
EBHI always took Canon's explanation with a pitch of salt and instead considered it as a clever brand awareness technique. At least, more so in recent years and in lenses like the 70-200mm when lens technology has moved and a lot of parts (both internal and external) are made by polymers like fibre-reinforced plastic that are less subjective at getting all scorching hot or expanding/ shrinking due to temp changes.
If you look across all brands, only Canon and Minolta/ Sony use white for zoom lenses that go over 100mm (and only on their top lines) and in primes over 200mm....Show more →
I agree with you, I would possibly have bought the F4 RF 70-200 had it been available in black, but white… 😬 I know it would never see use so a pointless purchase. Canon would do well to listen to its customers.
I’ve seen a few white zooms on eBay fitted with aftermarket white hoods and I always wonder why they did that? Do they think it makes them appear more “ Professional “ to those looking on🤣
Every time I see a guy out in a busy public area with a white lens i immediately think he’s vain and wants to broadcast to everyone “look at me” I cringe and think what a tosser!!
Edited on Oct 16, 2026 at 11:12 PM · View previous versions
EB-1 wrote
I'm noticing that the new Z lenses like the 70-200/2.8 Z are available in a black coating model rather than the white coating.In olden times it was explained that Canon ULD glass and fluourite were sensitive to high temperature from sunlight and hence white was preferred. Is that no longer the case or just that the 70-200/2.8 Z is small enough that it doesn't matter like in a 400/2.8 or 600/4? I don't want to use any wraps or covers on it. I have four Canon 70-200 lenses (f/2.8 II, f/4 IS, f/4 IS II, RF f/4) and they are all white, but am trying to decide if black is advisable.
Thanks,
EBH
If you look across all brands, only Canon and Minolta/ Sony use white for zoom lenses that go over 100mm (and only on their top lines) and in primes over 200mm....Show more →
I agree with you, I would possibly have bought the F4 RF 70-200 had it been available in black, but white… 😬 I know it would never see use so a pointless purchase. Canon would do well to listen to its customers.
I’ve seen a few white zooms on eBay fitted with aftermarket white hoods and I always wonder why they did that? Do they think it makes them appear more “ Professional “ to those looking on🤣
Every time I see a guy out in a busy public area with a white lens i immediately think he’s vain and wants to broadcast to everyone “look at me” I cringe and think what a tosser!!
Edited on Oct 16, 2026 at 11:12 PM · View previous versions
Oct 15, 2026 at 05:13 AM
p.1 #5Black Coating Issues Type Z?
Recklesscoding wrote:
Nikon and Sigma use black on all of their lenses
The Sigma 200mm f/2 and 300–600mm f/4 are white.
Edited on Oct 15, 2026 at 06:56 PM · View previous versions
Nikon and Sigma use black on all of their lenses
The Sigma 200mm f/2 and 300–600mm f/4 are white.
Edited on Oct 15, 2026 at 06:56 PM · View previous versions
Oct 15, 2026 at 06:04 AM
p.1 #6Black Coating Issues Type Z?
Pixelpuffin wrote:
In olden times it was explained that Canon ULD glass and fluourite were sensitive to high temperature from sunlight and hence white was preferred. Is that no longer the case or just that the 70-200/2.8 Z is small enough that it doesn't matter like in a 400/2.8 or 600/4? I don't want to use any wraps or covers on it. I have four Canon 70-200 lenses (f/2.8 II, f/4 IS, f/4 IS II, RF f/4) and they are all white, but am trying to decide if black is advisable.
Thanks,
EBHI always took Canon's explanation with a pitch of salt and instead considered it as a clever brand awareness technique. At least, more so in recent years and in lenses like the 70-200mm when lens technology has moved and a lot of parts (both internal and external) are made by polymers like fibre-reinforced plastic that are less subjective at getting all scorching hot or expanding/ shrinking due to temp changes.
If you look across all brands, only Canon and Minolta/ Sony use white for zoom lenses that go over 100mm (and only on their top lines) and in primes over 200mm. Nikon and Sigma use black on all of their lenses —the latter even has a green lens in the eyes of the Bigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX RF HSM! Olympus, Pentax, and Fujifilm are quite interesting: they generally use black, except in case of their top-end telephotos that go above 200mm.
Where am I getting at? Probably unless you shoot long hours in the desert or we are talking about much larger glass than the 70-200mm, it won't matter in modern lenses. I definitely think that the 70-200mm f/4L (especially) and both versions of the f/2.8L could be black without a problem but they offer the white versions due to brand recognition.I agree with you, I would buy the F4 RF 70-200 if it were black, but white… 😬 I know it would never see use so a pointless purchase. Canon would do well to listen to its customers.
I’ve seen a few white zooms on eBay fitted with aftermarket white hoods and I always wonder why they did that? Do they think it makes them appear more “ Professional “ to those looking on🤣
Every time I see a guy out in a busy public area with a white lens i immediately think he’s vain and wants to broadcast to everyone “look...Show more →
I don't use camera gear in cities or public places like I think you mean. I don't ever wander around aimlessly with camera gear and almost never capture images of human species. It's more like national/state parks, BLM land or forests sometimes, or else it's a foreign safari or a group birding trip lately. If you were to see me in the field, mostly likely it's partly or all in camo depending on legality in the country. Basically I do landscapes and species including some macros and always 1,000-15,000km from home.
EBH
Recklesscoding wrote
EB-1 wrote
I'm noticing that the new Z lenses like the 70-200/2.8 Z are available in a black coating model rather than the white coating.In olden times it was explained that Canon ULD glass and fluourite were sensitive to high temperature from sunlight and hence white was preferred. Is that no longer the case or just that the 70-200/2.8 Z is small enough that it doesn't matter like in a 400/2.8 or 600/4? I don't want to use any wraps or covers on it. I have four Canon 70-200 lenses (f/2.8 II, f/4 IS, f/4 IS II, RF f/4) and they are all white, but am trying to decide if black is advisable.
Thanks,
EBH
If you look across all brands, only Canon and Minolta/ Sony use white for zoom lenses that go over 100mm (and only on their top lines) and in primes over 200mm. Nikon and Sigma use black on all of their lenses —the latter even has a green lens in the eyes of the Bigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX RF HSM! Olympus, Pentax, and Fujifilm are quite interesting: they generally use black, except in case of their top-end telephotos that go above 200mm.
Where am I getting at? Probably unless you shoot long hours in the desert or we are talking about much larger glass than the 70-200mm, it won't matter in modern lenses. I definitely think that the 70-200mm f/4L (especially) and both versions of the f/2.8L could be black without a problem but they offer the white versions due to brand recognition.
I’ve seen a few white zooms on eBay fitted with aftermarket white hoods and I always wonder why they did that? Do they think it makes them appear more “ Professional “ to those looking on🤣
Every time I see a guy out in a busy public area with a white lens i immediately think he’s vain and wants to broadcast to everyone “look...Show more →
I don't use camera gear in cities or public places like I think you mean. I don't ever wander around aimlessly with camera gear and almost never capture images of human species. It's more like national/state parks, BLM land or forests sometimes, or else it's a foreign safari or a group birding trip lately. If you were to see me in the field, mostly likely it's partly or all in camo depending on legality in the country. Basically I do landscapes and species including some macros and always 1,000-15,000km from home.
EBH
Oct 15, 2026 at 10:15 AM
p.1 #7Black Coating Issues Type Z?
Recklesscoding wrote:
In olden times it was explained that Canon ULD glass and fluourite were sensitive to high temperature from sunlight and hence white was preferred. Is that no longer the case or just that the 70-200/2.8 Z is small enough that it doesn't matter like in a 400/2.8 or 600/4? I don't want to use any wraps or covers on it. I have four Canon 70-200 lenses (f/2.8 II, f/4 IS, f/4 IS II, RF f/4) and they are all white, but am trying to decide if black is advisable.
Thanks,
EBHI always took Canon's explanation with a pitch of salt and instead considered it as a clever brand awareness technique. At least, more so in recent years and in lenses like the 70-200mm when lens technology has moved and a lot of parts (both internal and external) are made by polymers like fibre-reinforced plastic that are less subjective at getting all scorching hot or expanding/ shrinking due to temp changes.
If you look across all brands, only Canon and Minolta/ Sony use white for zoom lenses that go over 100mm (and only on their top lines) and in primes over 200mm....Show more →
I've worked with Canon 70-200/4s for many years in the southwest deserts (before that Nikkor 80-200s) and I have the RF f/4. That RF lens is nice and small but the lack of a tripod mount makes it a PITA to use, plus it does not take a 1.4x TC.
I'm rarely out when it is over 100°F/38°C even on days hotter than that. Towards summer I'm done shooting by 9AM and then start again around 5PM, but I'm not out there in July/August at all.
EBH
EB-1 wrote
I'm noticing that the new Z lenses like the 70-200/2.8 Z are available in a black coating model rather than the white coating.In olden times it was explained that Canon ULD glass and fluourite were sensitive to high temperature from sunlight and hence white was preferred. Is that no longer the case or just that the 70-200/2.8 Z is small enough that it doesn't matter like in a 400/2.8 or 600/4? I don't want to use any wraps or covers on it. I have four Canon 70-200 lenses (f/2.8 II, f/4 IS, f/4 IS II, RF f/4) and they are all white, but am trying to decide if black is advisable.
Thanks,
EBH
If you look across all brands, only Canon and Minolta/ Sony use white for zoom lenses that go over 100mm (and only on their top lines) and in primes over 200mm....Show more →
I've worked with Canon 70-200/4s for many years in the southwest deserts (before that Nikkor 80-200s) and I have the RF f/4. That RF lens is nice and small but the lack of a tripod mount makes it a PITA to use, plus it does not take a 1.4x TC.
I'm rarely out when it is over 100°F/38°C even on days hotter than that. Towards summer I'm done shooting by 9AM and then start again around 5PM, but I'm not out there in July/August at all. EBH
Oct 15, 2026 at 10:23 AM
p.1 #8Black Coating Issues Type Z?
Pixelpuffin wrote:
In olden times it was explained that Canon ULD glass and fluourite were sensitive to high temperature from sunlight and hence white was preferred. Is that no longer the case or just that the 70-200/2.8 Z is small enough that it doesn't matter like in a 400/2.8 or 600/4? I don't want to use any wraps or covers on it. I have four Canon 70-200 lenses (f/2.8 II, f/4 IS, f/4 IS II, RF f/4) and they are all white, but am trying to decide if black is advisable.
Thanks,
EBHI always took Canon's explanation with a pitch of salt and instead considered it as a clever brand awareness technique. At least, more so in recent years and in lenses like the 70-200mm when lens technology has moved and a lot of parts (both internal and external) are made by polymers like fibre-reinforced plastic that are less subjective at getting all scorching hot or expanding/ shrinking due to temp changes.
If you look across all brands, only Canon and Minolta/ Sony use white for zoom lenses that go over 100mm (and only on their top lines) and in primes over 200mm. Nikon and Sigma use black on all of their lenses —the latter even has a green lens in the eyes of the Bigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX RF HSM! Olympus, Pentax, and Fujifilm are quite interesting: they generally use black, except in case of their top-end telephotos that go above 200mm.
Where am I getting at? Probably unless you shoot long hours in the desert or we are talking about much larger glass than the 70-200mm, it won't matter in modern lenses. I definitely think that the 70-200mm f/4L (especially) and both versions of the f/2.8L could be black without a problem but they offer the white versions due to brand recognition.I agree with you, I would buy the F4 RF 70-200 if it were black, but white… 😬 I know it would never see use so a pointless purchase. Canon would do well to listen to its customers.
I’ve seen a few white zooms on eBay fitted with aftermarket white hoods and I always wonder why they did that? Do they think it makes them appear more “ Professional “ to those looking on🤣
Every time I see a guy out in a busy public area with a white lens i immediately think he’s vain and wants to broadcast to everyone “look...Show more →
I think that's kind of an absurd take. So if I need to use my telephoto for the shot I want, I'm instantly vain? Not to mention, I have, in all my years of shooting, never had a person come up to me and give me extra attention because my lens was white. I just think this is something you're fabricating in your own head and projecting onto others.
Recklesscoding wrote
EB-1 wrote
I'm noticing that the new Z lenses like the 70-200/2.8 Z are available in a black coating model rather than the white coating.In olden times it was explained that Canon ULD glass and fluourite were sensitive to high temperature from sunlight and hence white was preferred. Is that no longer the case or just that the 70-200/2.8 Z is small enough that it doesn't matter like in a 400/2.8 or 600/4? I don't want to use any wraps or covers on it. I have four Canon 70-200 lenses (f/2.8 II, f/4 IS, f/4 IS II, RF f/4) and they are all white, but am trying to decide if black is advisable.
Thanks,
EBH
If you look across all brands, only Canon and Minolta/ Sony use white for zoom lenses that go over 100mm (and only on their top lines) and in primes over 200mm. Nikon and Sigma use black on all of their lenses —the latter even has a green lens in the eyes of the Bigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX RF HSM! Olympus, Pentax, and Fujifilm are quite interesting: they generally use black, except in case of their top-end telephotos that go above 200mm.
Where am I getting at? Probably unless you shoot long hours in the desert or we are talking about much larger glass than the 70-200mm, it won't matter in modern lenses. I definitely think that the 70-200mm f/4L (especially) and both versions of the f/2.8L could be black without a problem but they offer the white versions due to brand recognition.
I’ve seen a few white zooms on eBay fitted with aftermarket white hoods and I always wonder why they did that? Do they think it makes them appear more “ Professional “ to those looking on🤣
Every time I see a guy out in a busy public area with a white lens i immediately think he’s vain and wants to broadcast to everyone “look...Show more →
I think that's kind of an absurd take. So if I need to use my telephoto for the shot I want, I'm instantly vain? Not to mention, I have, in all my years of shooting, never had a person come up to me and give me extra attention because my lens was white. I just think this is something you're fabricating in your own head and projecting onto others.
Oct 15, 2026 at 11:49 AM
p.1 #10Black Coating Issues Type Z?
I have the 24-105 in black and 70-200 in white, so that I can tell them apart (I run the small hood on the 70-200 as a bumper because the original is huge to pack). When people call me vain it's not because I have two big lenses at my hip, one of which is white.
Oct 15, 2026 at 04:39 PM
|
p.1 #11Black Coating Issues Type Z?
There is no question about the bare 70-200/2.8 Z, but are you happy with it plus RF 1.4x? I have not ever seen MTF as good wide open especially towards the edges and figure that at f/4.5-5.0 (effective f/6.3-7.1) it should be quite nice. Mostly I will be using the lens in mid-range to distance. Is there anything bad about the Z lens I should be considering?
EBH
EBH
Oct 15, 2026 at 06:39 PM
p.1 #12Black Coating Issues Type Z?
I can't think of anything outright bad. I bought the Z in black, but I photograph pretty much the opposite of what you do. I'm mostly inside and/or it's people related events, sports, etc. I wanted black because I think it draws less attention when I'm 'sneaking' around in the periphery of low light events trying to be inconspicuous. And it reminds me of the EF 80-200/2.8 classic from the early 90s that I owned way back then. 
I use it with the 1.4x TC and can't say I've noticed image quality loss. Maybe in some situations it's slightly lower contrast than without the TC shooting wide open? It's certainly better image quality than the EF versions with lightning fast AF, very stable IS, silky-smooth zoom and doesn't weigh a ton. I kind of don't like the tripod foot design, but it's also not a dealbreaker.
The Z's biggest downside is probably the tradeoff for it being an internal zoom design - it's longer than the other RF 70-200s when packed, meaning at about 8" long, there are few bags where it can be stood vertically to pack it more efficiently. I also have the RF 70-200/4 and I won't sell it even though I think the Z is a sharper lens, because the f/4 is so ridiculously compact. I also don't use the Z's supplied hood because it adds too much bulk. But rather than adapting the RF 50/1/2's hood I bought a cheap 1" metal screw-on 77mm hood and leave it pretty much permanently attached.
I use it with the 1.4x TC and can't say I've noticed image quality loss. Maybe in some situations it's slightly lower contrast than without the TC shooting wide open? It's certainly better image quality than the EF versions with lightning fast AF, very stable IS, silky-smooth zoom and doesn't weigh a ton. I kind of don't like the tripod foot design, but it's also not a dealbreaker.
The Z's biggest downside is probably the tradeoff for it being an internal zoom design - it's longer than the other RF 70-200s when packed, meaning at about 8" long, there are few bags where it can be stood vertically to pack it more efficiently. I also have the RF 70-200/4 and I won't sell it even though I think the Z is a sharper lens, because the f/4 is so ridiculously compact. I also don't use the Z's supplied hood because it adds too much bulk. But rather than adapting the RF 50/1/2's hood I bought a cheap 1" metal screw-on 77mm hood and leave it pretty much permanently attached.
Oct 15, 2026 at 10:39 PM
p.1 #13Black Coating Issues Type Z?
The f/4 tapers off near the edges and corners. It's not a lot but noticeable.
The main problem is lack of a tripod mount, so I need to use a nodal slide on the L bracket. The sesnor vibrated so much on the R5 that I had to use the EFCS for exposures times in the shake zone. The R5 II ES is good enough for the most part. It looks like I can use a Kirk or similar A-S foot. What is the concern about it?
EBH
The main problem is lack of a tripod mount, so I need to use a nodal slide on the L bracket. The sesnor vibrated so much on the R5 that I had to use the EFCS for exposures times in the shake zone. The R5 II ES is good enough for the most part. It looks like I can use a Kirk or similar A-S foot. What is the concern about it?
EBH
Oct 15, 2026 at 10:50 PM
p.1 #14Black Coating Issues Type Z?
I don't like that if the tightening knob on the tripod foot isn't tightened to the max that there's slight play that I feel whenever I handle the lens by the foot. Canon also should have made the foot Arca compatible, but that's what the third party replacement foot options provide (RRS, Kirk, Leofoto).
Oct 15, 2026 at 11:40 PM
p.1 #15Black Coating Issues Type Z?
FWIW Nikon used to sell their 70-200mm in a light grey as an option. But I think as well the white lens/red ring thing is probably more marketing than technical.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Nikon/comments/13xtjmo/bring_back_light_grey_nikon_lenses/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Nikon/comments/13xtjmo/bring_back_light_grey_nikon_lenses/
Oct 16, 2026 at 09:00 AM
p.1 #16Black Coating Issues Type Z?
rscheffler wrote:
I don't like that if the tightening knob on the tripod foot isn't tightened to the max that there's slight play that I feel whenever I handle the lens by the foot. Canon also should have made the foot Arca compatible, but that's what the third party replacement foot options provide (RRS, Kirk, Leofoto).
So if it is loose enough to rotate it's not tight enough to be stable on the tripod?
EBH
I don't like that if the tightening knob on the tripod foot isn't tightened to the max that there's slight play that I feel whenever I handle the lens by the foot. Canon also should have made the foot Arca compatible, but that's what the third party replacement foot options provide (RRS, Kirk, Leofoto).
So if it is loose enough to rotate it's not tight enough to be stable on the tripod?
EBH
Oct 16, 2026 at 10:47 AM
p.1 #17Black Coating Issues Type Z?
tsangc wrote:
FWIW Nikon used to sell their 70-200mm in a light grey as an option. But I think as well the white lens/red ring thing is probably more marketing than technical.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Nikon/comments/13xtjmo/bring_back_light_grey_nikon_lenses/
Yes I recall those, but don't think they were very popular.
EBH
FWIW Nikon used to sell their 70-200mm in a light grey as an option. But I think as well the white lens/red ring thing is probably more marketing than technical.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Nikon/comments/13xtjmo/bring_back_light_grey_nikon_lenses/
Yes I recall those, but don't think they were very popular.
EBH
Oct 16, 2026 at 10:47 AM
p.1 #18Black Coating Issues Type Z?
EB-1 wrote:
So if it is loose enough to rotate it's not tight enough to be stable on the tripod?
EBH
Not the rotating collar's tightening knob, but the knob that locks the removable foot onto the rotating collar. It's a 'clip-on' design that slides in and clicks in place but you have to tighten its locking knob to fully secure the foot to the collar. It's this knob that needs to be tightened to the max to prevent any wiggle at the foot-collar interface. And it's this wiggle, if the knob is not fully tightened, that bothers me. The rotating collar's locking knob also could have been made a bit lower profile, but whatever...
rscheffler wrote
I don't like that if the tightening knob on the tripod foot isn't tightened to the max that there's slight play that I feel whenever I handle the lens by the foot. Canon also should have made the foot Arca compatible, but that's what the third party replacement foot options provide (RRS, Kirk, Leofoto).EBH
Not the rotating collar's tightening knob, but the knob that locks the removable foot onto the rotating collar. It's a 'clip-on' design that slides in and clicks in place but you have to tighten its locking knob to fully secure the foot to the collar. It's this knob that needs to be tightened to the max to prevent any wiggle at the foot-collar interface. And it's this wiggle, if the knob is not fully tightened, that bothers me. The rotating collar's locking knob also could have been made a bit lower profile, but whatever...
Oct 16, 2026 at 06:31 PM
p.1 #19Black Coating Issues Type Z?
I would get a Kirk like we use for Nikon and Sony feet that clip in.
Whatever it is must be better than the awful RF 100-500 design that is already on it's 3rd tripod mount ring.
EBH
Whatever it is must be better than the awful RF 100-500 design that is already on it's 3rd tripod mount ring.
EBH
Oct 16, 2026 at 06:38 PM
p.1 #20Black Coating Issues Type Z?
Jman13 wrote:
In olden times it was explained that Canon ULD glass and fluourite were sensitive to high temperature from sunlight and hence white was preferred. Is that no longer the case or just that the 70-200/2.8 Z is small enough that it doesn't matter like in a 400/2.8 or 600/4? I don't want to use any wraps or covers on it. I have four Canon 70-200 lenses (f/2.8 II, f/4 IS, f/4 IS II, RF f/4) and they are all white, but am trying to decide if black is advisable.
Thanks,
EBHI always took Canon's explanation with a pitch of salt and instead considered it as a clever brand awareness technique. At least, more so in recent years and in lenses like the 70-200mm when lens technology has moved and a lot of parts (both internal and external) are made by polymers like fibre-reinforced plastic that are less subjective at getting all scorching hot or expanding/ shrinking due to temp changes.
If you look across all brands, only Canon and Minolta/ Sony use white for zoom lenses that go over 100mm (and only on their top lines) and in primes over 200mm. Nikon and Sigma use black on all of their lenses —the latter even has a green lens in the eyes of the Bigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX RF HSM! Olympus, Pentax, and Fujifilm are quite interesting: they generally use black, except in case of their top-end telephotos that go above 200mm.
Where am I getting at? Probably unless you shoot long hours in the desert or we are talking about much larger glass than the 70-200mm, it won't matter in modern lenses. I definitely think that the 70-200mm f/4L (especially) and both versions of the f/2.8L could be black without a problem but they offer the white versions due to brand recognition.I agree with you, I would buy the F4 RF 70-200 if it were black, but white… 😬 I know it would never see use so a pointless purchase. Canon would do well to listen to its customers.
I’ve seen a few white zooms on eBay fitted with aftermarket white hoods and I always wonder why they did that? Do they think it makes them appear more “ Professional “ to those looking on🤣
Every time I see a guy out in a busy public area with a white lens i immediately think he’s vain and wants to broadcast to everyone “look at me” I cringe and think what a tosser!!I think that's kind of an absurd take. So if I need to use my telephoto for the shot I want, I'm instantly vain? Not to mention, I have, in all my years of shooting, never had a person come up to me and give me extra attention because my lens was white. I just think this is something you're fabricating in your own head and projecting onto others.
You’re free to do as you wish
Last year we visited Prague, I so wanted to take FF but the size and weight put me off
Instead I settled for the old canon m50 with 3 lenses 11-22, 50mm 1.8 plus adapter and 18-150
It worked out great
We were sat in a busy area having just finished eating, son was on his phone and me and my partner were “people watching” aka watching the world go by
I then spotted a guy with a white lens probably 100yds way - it just stood out like a beacon . I watched as he ambled towards where we were sitting and watched people’s reaction… the number of double takes people did was quite funny, like us they were just either sitting or walking around but as soon as they saw the white they kinda did a double take, like casually saw the guy, then saw the white lens then looked at the guy again… maybe they were like me and had white lenses back home. I noticed teen girls and young women would see the lens and change their intended route as if to put other passersby by between them and the guy holding the white. While I’m watching this, my partner tapped my foot under the table and kinda motioned towards the same guy as if I hadn’t already seen him!! 🤣
Nothing , I mean absolutely nothing screams Look At Me like a freaking white lens does in public… everyone has clocked you…everyone!!
Sod that!!
Mine will stay put… pity.
Pixelpuffin wrote
Recklesscoding wrote
EB-1 wrote
I'm noticing that the new Z lenses like the 70-200/2.8 Z are available in a black coating model rather than the white coating.In olden times it was explained that Canon ULD glass and fluourite were sensitive to high temperature from sunlight and hence white was preferred. Is that no longer the case or just that the 70-200/2.8 Z is small enough that it doesn't matter like in a 400/2.8 or 600/4? I don't want to use any wraps or covers on it. I have four Canon 70-200 lenses (f/2.8 II, f/4 IS, f/4 IS II, RF f/4) and they are all white, but am trying to decide if black is advisable.
Thanks,
EBH
If you look across all brands, only Canon and Minolta/ Sony use white for zoom lenses that go over 100mm (and only on their top lines) and in primes over 200mm. Nikon and Sigma use black on all of their lenses —the latter even has a green lens in the eyes of the Bigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX RF HSM! Olympus, Pentax, and Fujifilm are quite interesting: they generally use black, except in case of their top-end telephotos that go above 200mm.
Where am I getting at? Probably unless you shoot long hours in the desert or we are talking about much larger glass than the 70-200mm, it won't matter in modern lenses. I definitely think that the 70-200mm f/4L (especially) and both versions of the f/2.8L could be black without a problem but they offer the white versions due to brand recognition.
I’ve seen a few white zooms on eBay fitted with aftermarket white hoods and I always wonder why they did that? Do they think it makes them appear more “ Professional “ to those looking on🤣
Every time I see a guy out in a busy public area with a white lens i immediately think he’s vain and wants to broadcast to everyone “look at me” I cringe and think what a tosser!!
You’re free to do as you wish
Last year we visited Prague, I so wanted to take FF but the size and weight put me off
Instead I settled for the old canon m50 with 3 lenses 11-22, 50mm 1.8 plus adapter and 18-150
It worked out great
We were sat in a busy area having just finished eating, son was on his phone and me and my partner were “people watching” aka watching the world go by
I then spotted a guy with a white lens probably 100yds way - it just stood out like a beacon . I watched as he ambled towards where we were sitting and watched people’s reaction… the number of double takes people did was quite funny, like us they were just either sitting or walking around but as soon as they saw the white they kinda did a double take, like casually saw the guy, then saw the white lens then looked at the guy again… maybe they were like me and had white lenses back home. I noticed teen girls and young women would see the lens and change their intended route as if to put other passersby by between them and the guy holding the white. While I’m watching this, my partner tapped my foot under the table and kinda motioned towards the same guy as if I hadn’t already seen him!! 🤣
Nothing , I mean absolutely nothing screams Look At Me like a freaking white lens does in public… everyone has clocked you…everyone!!
Sod that!!
Mine will stay put… pity.
Oct 16, 2026 at 11:33 PM