Non-stick glass: Nikon demonstrates new fluorine coating

Thanatham Piriyakarnjanakul

Let's guess fluorinated hydrocarbons have a famous commercial name, and repel water real well, by making surfaces very slick.

So something along the lines of a Teflon coating--perfected for optical use.

May 28, 2014permalink

Michael Piziak

You watch the video and get the impression that this is a Nikon first technology. Then you read the comments below and learn that Pentax has been doing this for years.

May 26, 2014permalink

Nikon SEE COAT is very old technology.

May 25, 2014permalink

Awesome technology!

May 25, 2014permalink

The other brands like canon and pentax and EVEN TOKINA ALREADY have it in their lenses for MANY years!!! Pity that dpreview NEVER showed them also!!!

May 26, 2014*permalink

I've been hearing that. If it's true, that's a shame. But even so, "Awesome technology!" :D

May 26, 2014permalink

It IS TRUE Huyzer!!! You can easily find it even in dpreview news about new lenses!!! Na exemple: Tokina&Pentax unique 10-17!!! :)

May 27, 2014permalink

:) Thanks, Higuel.

May 28, 2014permalink

Most welcome Huyzer! :)
One day it will be you helping someone with FACTS and the information in Dpreview will be higher then the Disinformation that its now sometimes´:)

May 28, 2014permalink

More information vs. disinformation would be awesome! I hate it when people share rumors and chain letter sorts of things on facebook.

May 29, 2014permalink

I could not agree more with you Huyzer!!! :D
Hopefully in a far far distant but nice future the trolls will go to their greener pastures if there will be enough of us TRULY interested in facts and not EGOS or "my brand is better then urs»! ;)

May 29, 2014permalink

But my brand is better than yours. :D Just kidding.

Jun 1, 2014permalink

This tech needs to be on normal to wide lenses. It's practically irrelevant on long lenses.

May 25, 2014permalink

To be clear: You mean since dirt/oil on long lenses doesn't show up in images the way dirt/oils on shorter lenses does, right?

But with shorter lenses there are usually front filter threads, which are unusual with big telezooms, meaning one can use a filter. So this kind of coating is more useful for long lenses, though I guess not useless for short lenses like a 35mm.

May 25, 2014permalink

Yes, that's what I was thinking. You can really put a lot of rubbish on a long lens with no significant deterioration in IQ. Not the case with wide-angle.

With long lenses the hood is usually more than enough to protect from rain, so it's more an occasional cleaning convenience.

With wide-angle, the hood can be quite short plus filters are often undesirable because of flare issues. Sure, one does use them, circ pol for interiours, for instance, but landscape would usually use bracket filters for NDGrad which isn't going to be practical/useful for general protection duty.

May 25, 2014permalink

The Name is B:

I think better UV filters can be used on wide angle lenses--and in many case even help to suppress flair. (Example UV B+W MRC Nano filters really do help in many situations.)

May 25, 2014permalink

I was particularly thinking of side-light flare and sun-strike where any filter will only make things worse even with multi-coatings.

But yes, a really good filter will help in many situations but I reckon you'll be taking it off for a good many shots in sunlight.

May 26, 2014permalink

The Name is Bond,

Right, and if one is using a really wide angle lens, the filter ring can be a problem.

May 26, 2014permalink

Zvonimir Tosic

DPR thinks FL coating is news when Nikon delivers it, but when we state Pentax has done it ages ago, then suddenly no one cares about that fact.

May 25, 2014permalink

In fairness, when Pentax announced their coating several years ago, DPReview hadn’t yet got into the business of ‘content’.

May 25, 2014permalink

no where did dpreview state that it's new to the industry. it's new to nikon, and the article mentions that other manufacturer's use flourine. pentax and canon are two.

May 25, 2014permalink

Duckie

If they put it to glasses, they would earn so much money that they can give up their camera business!

May 25, 2014permalink

pfzt

that is true. the coating even on expensive glasses is really weak.

May 25, 2014*permalink

Rooru S

I'm quite sure Pentax have done something like that before...the marker thing and that stuff... On an actual lens...! I was like noooo what are you doing!

May 25, 2014permalink

Mike Griffin

Nikon's claim is not that they are first to apply liquid repellent coatings to lenses but that their coating is more durable and more adhesive than existing coatings.

May 24, 2014permalink

Dan Tong

Great stuff and the video is very pretty too!

May 24, 2014*permalink

Mike Griffin

It is very hard to understand exactly what this news article is promoting as there is insufficient information. Anti-reflective coatings are calcium and magnesium fluoride plus other components. Fluorite lenses are crystalline calcium fluoride and fluorine is a highly corrosive gas. Teflon is a polymer that contains fluorine atoms in its structure but it is translucent rather than transparent.

May 24, 2014permalink

Antony John

Interesting synopsis of optical coatings for anyone interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_coating

May 24, 2014permalink

Karabanphoto com

In general, I'm a little tired of the greed of both marketing - Nikon and Canon. Sometimes Sony and Pentax on them background look's good mother. Enough to hold the technology, I want to live now, not later! And even more so, I'm ready to pay for them!

May 24, 2014permalink

Shamael

I would like them to find an anti fungus coating, that issue is a real problem in tropical regions where every lens is for the trashcan within 3 years due to humidity. No dry cabinet stories please, that is not where the lens is when you take pictures.

May 23, 2014permalink

Antony John

It would be nice but the organic anti-fungals are light sensitive and won't retain their efficacy long whilst other materials are organometallics and pretty toxic.
I doubt there's a long term solution other than keeping lenses 'dry'.
My old Olympus lenses suffered from nasty fungal growth in a high humidity environment.

May 24, 2014permalink

slncezgsi

I think the problem is to keep the humidity away from the internal parts - once its get in there (and stays there because of the climate) - it is nearly impossible to avoid fungus. I am just wondering wether exposure to hard UV light now and then could help without damaging the lens.

May 24, 2014permalink

Abu Mahendra

Try a good pinch of cloves and a few sticks of cinnamon wrapped in gauze.

May 24, 2014permalink

MichaelRose

Would it be possible to have your Lenses [Camera?] Irradiated at: 1) A Food-processing Plant, or
2) A Medical Equipment Plant
that sterilizes with Gamma-rays?

S/wouldn't that stop any Fungus growth in a Lens just like it does with Bacteria in Food or Medical Products?

You'd need to repeat the process every 6 Months or so to be effective.

HTH
I just now thought of this– I hope it's a good idea.

May 26, 2014permalink

Giklab

Guess what I found?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIlUwfhKAwA
(Marker at 0:45)

May 23, 2014*permalink

Karabanphoto com

and do not cry, and just silently do. Sure, maybe even better

May 24, 2014permalink

Rickard Hansson

Well, Nikon never claims in their video that they are alone with the technology.
What they do is they present it in a nice way.

May 24, 2014permalink

Karabanphoto com

You're right, but you do not understand what I hinted at above - I, like many, I'm sure, just hurt for what I Nikon since my childhood, he positions himself if not the "first", the "second" exactly - so we buy this photo equipment. They divide the market consisting of us with you. Why so-called "third" or "fourth", in this case, do their job better? Maybe it applies to all in this case? My message had a deeper meaning - what they did "finally" - certainly great. It's not about that. Speech that "someone" lazy, crushed under a huge part of the market. Maybe you just have not thought about it? Have a "big family"? Bring into the house is the best - for example iPhone, not just the leader. They have something to buy us again and again each time. A here we already bought "advance" - we are dependent on purchased equipment! This is not from the charging connector of the phone. This equipment accumulated over the years. As the equivalent of our choice. Therefore, these companies should be the best in everything. We - not the flock.

May 31, 2014permalink

Cameracist

So, just like Pentax SP coating? Used even on the cheapest of lenses like the 35mm F2.4?

May 23, 2014permalink

dosdan

Yes, as you've stated, SP is used even of low-cost recent Pentax lenses. I wonder if Nikkor is going to reserve their flourine lens coating only for their top-end glass?

Dan.

May 23, 2014permalink

drummercam

Pentax introduced flourine coatings a long time ago. From DP Review News, May 2009 -- "The front surface of these lenses is treated with PENTAX-original SP (Super Protect) coating, which applies a special fluorine compound to the lens surface through a vapor deposition process. This SP coating not only effectively repels dust, water and grease, but it also makes it easy to wipe off fingerprints and cosmetics." I have both dusty/rainy hiking and rafting experience with a Pentax SP-coated lens and have yet to touch the front element with a lens cloth.

Pentax recently added entirely new High-Definition coatings to its Limited lens series, and has another coating called aero-bright on some of its 645 lenses. I'm not sure that any maker tops Pentax for lens coatings.

May 23, 2014permalink

do we really care?

May 25, 2014permalink

Zvonimir Tosic

You do not care. DPR thinks FL is news when Nikon delivers it, but when we state Pentax has done it ages ago, then no one cares.

May 25, 2014permalink

"do we really care?"

Sure, I found that interesting.

May 25, 2014permalink

@ Zvonimir Tosic what is it about pentax fans ..

dpreview posted the video - which was a pretty cool video. canon has used the coating for the last 4+ years as well, and i don't see as many of them sniveling.

it's a new coating for nikkor lenses. what dpreview suggested / wrote was accurate.

May 25, 2014*permalink

Retzius

Canon actually puts this fluorine coating on its sensors to prevent gunk from sticking to the surface.

Nikon, this helps prevent dust and oil spot fiascos... something you might be aware of...

May 23, 2014permalink

Jogger

It'll be interesting if Nikon starts applying this coating for other lenses. It makes sense here because the filter diameter is huge and people will just use the filter drop in instead.

May 23, 2014permalink

i can't see why not.. canon's putting it on all their L lenses now.

May 25, 2014permalink

GodSpeaks

You ever heard of teflon, t-fal, etc? Also a fluorocarbon. It may have been a problem to get the flourine layer to adhere properly to the surface of the glass element(s) without adding unwanted transmission properties.

My primary interest would be for underwater lenses.

May 23, 2014permalink

Antony John

Actual it'll be a polyfluorocarbon which, as you mention, is used as a 'non-stick' coating on frying pans etc because very little will adhere to it.
Conversely it doesn't stick well to anything either so one wonders how long these coatings will last.

May 24, 2014permalink

Abu Mahendra

Right. Hasn't Canon had this for a few years now?

May 23, 2014permalink

Les Kamens

get off the name game doesn't matter who's first, just that we all get to use cool technology... could say the same about Nikon have higher iso first. so glad our canon friends can use that tech as well. But I guess the real question is nice for lens but how about extending that to our filters that are on the front lines.

May 23, 2014permalink

Abu Mahendra

Well, the headline reads "new" flourine coating. It's new to Nikon, but it ain't new.

May 23, 2014permalink

Fazal Majid

No, Canon has had calcium fluorite lens elements lens elements, which provide more dispersion compensation than ED glass, but are also much harder to work with, which is why only Zeiss and Canon used them in camera lenses, but it seems Nikon has finally joined the party with the 400mm f/2.8.

May 23, 2014*permalink

wetsleet

You're saying this lens has calcium fluorite lens elements? I missed that bit. I thought they were talking about a fluorine coat, not a fluorite lens.

May 23, 2014permalink

@Fazal Majid canon has used flourine coatings for the last 4+ years on lenses.

May 25, 2014permalink

Fazal Majid

@wetsleet
I was surprised as well, as Nikon used to trash-talk fluorite in favor of ED glass (sour grapes) but according to the data sheet it does:
http://www.canon.com/technology/s_labo/light/003/03.html

@rrcad
According to this, Canon uses magnesium fluoride coatings for some very high-end lenses, but they don't specify which:
http://www.canon.com/technology/s_labo/light/003/03.html

Dirt-repellent coatings are certainly not new - see Zeiss' LotuTec or Leica's AquaDura as applied to binoculars. Apparently what Nikon is claiming as innovative is a new technology for applying the coating, not the coating itself.

May 25, 2014permalink

the 8-15mm fisheye, the 70-300L, the 16-35/4L the 24-70 2.8 II the 300/400/500/600 II's all have Fluorine coatings - probably more do but that's what i know off the top of my head.

May 25, 2014permalink

Mark K

As far as know, this is a Canon patented technology. Since when this became a Nikon one?

May 23, 2014permalink

CIASpook

Cool stuff!!

May 23, 2014permalink

vbpress

GREAT ! Normally I spend all my time painting the front lens of my big glasses!
OK, It's a joke. I suppose that Fluorite is used to reduce the weight of the lenses. Probably is the time that Nikon restarting to talk about photography ...

Frank_BR,
you spoke the truth!!

May 23, 2014permalink

cube65

But, hos about dust and sand. Mostly it is a mix between fluid and dust, and the dust will scratch the glas if you just wipe it of, like in the video.

May 23, 2014permalink

stevo23

But is the point of the coating, or isn't it more about the light?

May 23, 2014permalink

Frank_BR

If fluorine is so good to repel drops of oil, why Nikon did not use it on the D600 sensor?

May 23, 2014permalink

fakuryu

Or probably that is what drove them to develop the coating in the first place :)

May 23, 2014permalink

AbrasiveReducer

With DPR's love of lists, could there be comment of the year? I think we have a contender.

May 23, 2014permalink

l_d_allan

Something I find interesting ... crud on the front element has less impact on the IQ than you could expect. IIRC, a blog article from Roger Cicala (LensRentals) had images with various amounts on the front element, and showed the resulting image. I think there was one with the front element seriously cracked.

I'm certainly not advocating being careless with your front element, but real fastidiousness with keeping it immaculate may be less than appropriate. It may be counter-productive to be wiping it too much.

Or not?

May 23, 2014permalink

GodSpeaks

Yeah, but get a big blob of water on the lens of your rugged/waterproof camera and you get a big blob out of focus in your photo.

This coating might be what is needed to repel water properly.

May 23, 2014permalink

nicolaiecostel

If you shoot at large apertures and you don't have the sun in or around the frame, you're safe with scratches or dus. If you shoot at closed apertures, f8 and higher, or especially if you have the sun in the shot, you can be sure that those blemishes will show.

May 23, 2014permalink

(unknown member)

As someone who's tried to get sea spray off of a multi-coated filter, taking countless lens tissues and eclipse fluid...

...and who's had to try to clean elephant snot (or whatever it is that comes out of an elephant's nose) when it snorts a foot or two from your ultra-wide angle lens, depositing disgusting slime on the front element of a 17-35mm zoom...

I here and now demand that Nikon create a retrofitting service so I can replace the front element of the half-dozen lenses that I use the most.

I shoot a lot in bad weather, worry about the image first and gear last, and swore off UV filters long ago other than when I know I'm going to be in a lens coating risky situation, like shooting in the surf. Whatever fluorine coating adds to the cost of the lens, I'll sign up for, because it would give me back hours of time every year.

I have a friend whose 2 year old recoated one of his lenses with crayons and Sharpie marker who'd probably sign up for the coating too.

May 23, 2014permalink

For lenses with front filter threads, there are the B+W UV MRC Nano UV filters; they're very easy to clean.

But I guess you swore off UV filters.

May 23, 2014permalink

Dude, with a track history like that I think you might need to revisit the anti-filter stance. Protect your front elements with B+W MRC Nano filters and they'll repel anything nature can throw at it (Nikon's fancy-pants "fluorine" thing is no better than some filter coatings already on the market).

May 23, 2014permalink

... oh, I see HowaboutRAW beat me to it.

May 23, 2014permalink

wetsleet

Elephant sneezing snot all over it - now that would have spiced up the video a bit!

May 23, 2014permalink

(unknown member)

My emergency filters are a combo of b&w and hoya hmc thin, but they only go on the camera when needed for a dodgy shoot. I shoot into the light a lot, and even those filters add a reflective artifact to an image that wouldn't have one without them.

May 23, 2014permalink

Ednaz:

The B+W MRC Nanos can deal with a lot of artifacts really well.

May 23, 2014permalink

I get no artefacts or flare of any kind with the B+W MRC and nano-coated filters, even shooting into the sun - and I've tested them plenty of times.

May 27, 2014permalink

backayonder

I am not going to buy another Nikon product until the company hand over the reigns and research to the posters at DP Review. It is obvious that Nikon have no idea what they are doing.

May 23, 2014permalink

hydrospanner

They'll never release another product after that...just sit around Nikon HQ all day bickering.

May 23, 2014permalink

AbrasiveReducer

If Nikon product development ever got into the hands of customers all hell would break loose!

May 23, 2014permalink

xfoto

Great so what's the eventual cost add to coming lenses, like 200$? :P

May 23, 2014permalink

This is very useful for morons that protect their costly lenses by filters and deteriorates the optical quality...

May 23, 2014permalink

0MitchAG

I love the opposition lol.

May 23, 2014permalink

Pallke,

It's a bit of myth that filters degrade optical quality. Using much better filters doesn't degrade optical performance.

May 23, 2014permalink

AbrasiveReducer

Hoya makes Nikon's and Canon's filters so they're fine. I'm sure Roger could do a test to show the effect of filters is negligible.

May 23, 2014permalink

Every piece of glass adding to the optical path of a lens will worsen the optical performance. Sorry, but thats physics.

Protect your lens with the hood. It's by far more effective and much cheaper.

May 23, 2014permalink

Palike:

Luckily good lenses don't exactly obey the "laws" of physics.

But anyhow I'm basing my suggestions or real world performance, from my very real experiences.

If anything good UV filers, by B+W for example, improve the performance of already good lenses--again based on real world experience again.

May 23, 2014*permalink

Zerixos

Even the very best glass has to obey the laws of physics. Every lens element added will take away quality. But we can't live without. In some cases we want to get rid of lets say, chromatic aberration so we ad another piece of glass. But it will not improve the quality of what you see. In the laws of physics a bigger aperture shoot give sharper images, but we all know due of the glass its does not. No, adding glass should not be done if not is necessary. Even the highest quality filters will take away even a little of sharpness. Pixelpeekers will notice.

May 24, 2014permalink

HowaboutRAV:

A filter will never improve the performance of a lens.
That's total nonsense, sorry.

A filter will worsen the optical performance. Believe it or not.

May 24, 2014permalink

Palike,

Sorry, but you're wrong with the "never" claims, and proves you don't know much about using filters.

Really obviously, under some conditions, both good polarizers and UV filters improve the results from already very good lenses.

No, every filter claiming to do X doesn't.

Here's something interesting about light, history books like to claim that James Clerk Maxwell proved that light is the same as electromagnetic radiation.

He did no such thing, in an aside he said: "Since both light and electromagnetic radiation travel at the same speed, they're likely the same thing."

That's far from proving anything. So this thing about the laws of physics is kind of more than really limited. And when one checks the sources such claims are often wrong.

May 24, 2014permalink

Zerixos

No, UV and Polarized filters do not improve quality. They are used to get different results. Light is a electromagnetic wave (radiation) and a photon (energy particles). Being a photon and passing through different density's will always, have a negative effect. This can be corrected by putting different lenses together but in the end it will not be as sharp as it should be. The different nm in light will shift slightly passing trough even the best glass.
UV filters will take out the light under 380nm. Polarized filters will take out light that has a different speed and direction. Being reflected on surfaces like glass and water.
So sometimes it is good to use filters, because it gives different results, but not better results in terms of quality.

May 26, 2014permalink

Zerixos:

I see you didn't bother to read what I wrote about James Clerk Maxwell. The physics "of what is" is much more complex than you think.

Indeed better filters often do improve performance--including things like clarity and sharpness. No, not in every situation.

And these kinds of improved results are pretty easy to see.

Beyond the philosophy of "what is": Leica, Zeiss, Olympus, Nikon, etc all put coatings on their lenses to improve optical performance, not just ease of cleaning, and these coatings are effectively on lens filters, so you can't have it both ways. Nor is it at all likely that only lens makers know how to make the right cofilters for their own lenses.

May 26, 2014*permalink

@HowaboutRAV:

A filter in the digital age is nonsense.

The only exceptions here are polarizers or ND-filter. Very special filters you rarely use. They don't improve the performance, they change the pictorial outcome.

Skylight filter or UV-filter are more than fluidly, they are superfluously. It doesn't matter if you see light as a wave or as a photon.

May 26, 2014permalink

Pallke:

Some times, really often, those changed outcomes are improvements. Coatings (aka on-lens filters) vastly improve outcomes.

Sorry, digital processing after the fact really can't reproduce the effects of a decent UV filter.

If light were that easy to work with, then the results from Canikon lenses could easily be processed to look like photos taken with decent Leica or Zeiss lenses. Whereas it's not even possible to process a photo taken with an excellent Zeiss look like a photo taken with an excellent Leica.

May 26, 2014permalink

@HowaboutRAV:

***sigh***
Buy as many filters as you want and be happy with your "improved" performance.

Maybe it would be a good idea if you combine 5 or more filters. According to your statements the optical performance will get better and better.
And who knows, maybe from 10 filters on the performance will be outstandig...

If it will make you happy, it's fine.
Have a good time.

May 26, 2014permalink

Pallke:

Boring.

Don't need to combine, just need my experience.

May 26, 2014permalink

@HowaboutRAW:

As I said, the main thing is that you'll be happy with a filter ;-)

May 26, 2014permalink

Pallke:

Right, I like the results, and they're better--often. (With only one filter.)

May 26, 2014permalink

Fine.

I like the results without any filter.
They are better every time.

Happy filter buying ;-)

May 27, 2014permalink

Pallke:

The problem is the claims of every time. And the fact that the lens coating is a filter added to improve the glass' optical performance.

I more than suspect you've not used good filters, nor likely particularly good lenses.

May 27, 2014permalink

0MitchAG

If the filter (UV, whatever) was so beneficial, the lens designer would have probably coated the lens for those reasons already.

May 27, 2014permalink

0MitchAG:

First there are of course optically better lenses and then optically not so great lenses. Both have coatings to filter the light, but clearly (well not sometimes) the best filtercoats aren't used on each and every lens.

As for filters someone mounts, lens makers can't account for every situation the lens will be used in. Different atmospheres inherently alter light, and therefore filters can offer great improvement.

May 27, 2014permalink

And again:

I like the results without any filter.

They are better every time.
Really. Every time.

May 27, 2014permalink

0MitchAG: You would think so, wouldn't you? But that is not always the case. I shoot with Micro Four Thirds lenses, and one of the major manufacturers (Panasonic) does not coat its lenses to remove purple flare. A lot of people are using filters on the Panasonics to remove the flare, even using complicated mods on the 7-14, which doesn't normally take filters.

Also, I recently did a sharpness test with one of my Olympus lenses (the 75-300 II) and it was SHARPER with a B+W MCR Nano UV filter attached than it was with the filter removed!

May 27, 2014permalink

Pallke: For a guy who said he was going to sign off several posts ago, you sure do a lot of talking. Theoretically, there is some merit to what you say. In practice, there isn't.

May 27, 2014permalink

@ NZ Scott:
Where did I say that I will sign off ;-)

May 27, 2014permalink

Pallke:

I don't believe that you've used filters extensively.

As to what you may or may not like, that's really up to you, but pretending that a lens' coating is absolutely the only filter that could possibly add anything positive to image quality more than suggests you shouldn't be taken seriously.

I too took: "If it will make you happy, it's fine.
Have a good time." to be a sign off.

May 27, 2014permalink

vroy

This is very useful for morons that wouldn't protect their costly lenses by filters.

May 23, 2014permalink

Ken Phillips

I've never used a filter unless I needed it to alter what was hitting the film or sensor. I have damaged exactly one lens (out of hundreds!) in 40+ years, and that I did by tossing it! Filters not necessary for an image capture may do nothing, may hurt the image, but they cannot help the image.
Otherwise, which filter would you recommend for my Canon 600mm F4L? I think it needs to be 170mm or so in diameter.

May 23, 2014permalink

AngryCorgi

I'm with Ken. Long ago, when I first bought an SLR, I had a concern about protection of the lenses...then after actual use I realized it wasn't as big of a deal as some make it out to be. I've also bought old Nikon Ai lenses that have had scratches on the front and it doesn't affect IQ at all.

But back when I didn't know what the hell I was doing, I probably thought people not using a UV filter or some such to protect their investment was a moron.

May 23, 2014permalink

I use UV filters on my expensive glass, but not on my kit lenses. A few months ago, a filter saved the front element of a $600 lens. So that's pretty much justified all the coin I've ever spent on filters, and then some. The best thing about filters is that they keep the coatings on your front element pristine - worth it when the time comes to sell.

May 23, 2014*permalink

Durri

Nanotechnology:http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i4J6uC22Hwo

May 23, 2014permalink

Hobbyfotograaf

Canon has "a newly developed Fluorine coating that keeps soiling, smears and fingerprints to a minimum" on the 8-15 f4 L Fisheye.
I just bought one, but i am not going to try it out it with water, mud, paint, markers...

May 23, 2014permalink

Could you tempted to try used engine oil, as seen in the video?

These coatings have been used on high-end binoculars for a few years. They’re excellent in rain.

May 23, 2014permalink

Lux Painter

Darn, I used to write down the location of a photo on the lens with a permanent marker. Well, at least, now I can save a plate when I like to have a salad with oil and vinegar dressing out in the field.

But on a serious note, the only test I would be interesting in would be salt water spray.

May 23, 2014permalink

gustabod

brilliant!

May 23, 2014permalink

Kevin Sutton

I'm a chemist by training and this doesn't make much sense to me. Fluorine is a gas so do they mean that fluorine gas has been passed over the glass to make a fluoride-glass in situ? I'm assuming that the fluoride-glass is the hydrophobic material they are talking about??? Cheers Kevin

May 23, 2014permalink

D1N0

They are probably using teflon (polytetrafluoroethylene), but that doesn't sound good for lenses.

May 23, 2014permalink

ProfHankD

Yeah, "fluorine" obviously can't be more than a few atoms in the molecular formula of the coating, but the photographic industry has been touting fluoride glass for decades. I'm guessing this is really a heavy-metal fluoride glass, although those generally are known for their LACK of durability and resistance to water... so maybe Nikon has some secret sauce?

Impressive video anyway....

May 23, 2014*permalink

Timbukto

Japanese marketing, to make a big deal about the least used feature on the least bought lenses. Yes lets make silly videos of how soy sauce just rolls off our 12k lenses, but no marketing material for why iTards should stop taking pics with tablets.

May 23, 2014permalink

saralecaire

Might seem silly if you're just a casual shooter, but outdoor and nature photographers will appreciate the hassle free cleaning this coating provides. I don't think it's silly if it aids the craft.

May 23, 2014permalink

agentul

some wild animals and birds have been throwing soy sauce at photographers lately. the rest are going to stick with the usual "products" for now.

May 23, 2014permalink

backayonder

Panda's ?

May 23, 2014permalink

“Nikon’s 800mm F5.6 FL ED VR and 400mm F2.8 FL ED VR lenses earn the 'FL' in their names from the coating of fluorine applied to the lens elements.”

Not so. The FL actually stands for fluorite, the glass substitute used to reduce the weight of these lenses.

May 23, 2014permalink

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/glossary.htm#fl

Nikon makes that pretty clear that they're talking about a coating, but you're right, FL means a lens, not the coating according to this:

May 23, 2014permalink

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/singlefocal/Telephoto/af-s_400mmf_28e_fl_ed_vr/index.htm

Thanks for the link. I verified it in the Nikkor lens brochure.

Nikon makes it clear it’s talking about the coating in that video, but nowhere in that video is “FL” mentioned.

The other thing wrong with DPReview’s description is that the 800 mm doesn’t have the new coating. The new 400 mm is the first – and so far only – Nikkor with the new coating.

May 23, 2014*permalink

Steve Wilson

Yes, you are correct. You can also verify this by looking at the new 400mm f/2.8 lens at http://imaging.nikon.com. Below the lens image are a bunch of icons. The FL icon links to the Fluorite lens description and there is a separate icon called "fluorine coat" that links to the coating.

May 23, 2014permalink

Cideway

So just like Pentax's SP coating that they have been using since '07

May 23, 2014permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2008/01/23/pentaxlenses

Yes, we all recognise the unquestioned superiority of Pentax.

May 23, 2014permalink

Rick Stirling

Yeah, it wasn't nearly as important when Pentax first introduced the technology some 6 years ago. ;-)

May 23, 2014*permalink

hydrospanner

A good Pentax owner never misses an opportunity to whine about their brand...and where no opportunity exists, they'll make one.

May 23, 2014permalink

If your Pentax is so great, they should be marketing it better. Stop yapping in unrelated threads. You just sound whiney, honestly.

May 23, 2014permalink

mauritsvw

It seems almost every camera maker except Nikon has been using fluorine coatings for years! I wonder which old technology they will discover next?

May 23, 2014permalink