Reading mode: Light Dark

Another WHITE lens?!??!?!

Go to last post
Right, and therefore Canon by default lets everyone who sees black lenses know who shoots Nikon. Sure are a lot of big black lenses at sporting events these days.
Osiris30 said:
It's all about branding. How often do you watch a sporting event and see 'white lens' and go 'Canon shooter'. I do it all the time. And it's a great advertising/marketting policy that costs them $0.
John Ricard said:
I can't understand why Canon doesn't offer their larger lenses in Black. The White looks horrible to my eyes. Surely I can't be the only photographer in the world who shoots indoors 90% of the time and therefore doesn't need the heat protection offered by a White lens.

The funny thing is, whenever I mention to a Canon shooter that the White lenses are ugly they say,"Oh, I don't care how the lens looks. I just want a lens that works properly." (or something to that effect). Still, I'll bet if Canon offered the lens it Black it would outsell the White version -despite the Canon shooters' supposed indifference to the color of the lens.
--
'On Set With John Ricard' free video podcast available on iTunes.

Also visit:
http://www.johnricardblog.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Wrong. When anyone sees a black lens they think "maybe its Canon..or maybe Nikon..or maybe Pentax ..or maybe Sony...or maybe..."
uphillslide said:
Right, and therefore Canon by default lets everyone who sees black lenses know who shoots Nikon.
Osiris30 said:
It's all about branding. How often do you watch a sporting event and see 'white lens' and go 'Canon shooter'. I do it all the time. And it's a great advertising/marketting policy that costs them $0.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
carlk said:
If Canon could sell more lenses by making them black or even pink they would.
Click to expand...
I think a 'Hello Kitty' 70-200 f/2.8 L version lens would sell great :)

1) it DOES keep it much cooler out doors.
2) it DOES look 'cooler' to the general public (good and bad)

It helps define Canon, so they wont stop it. It helps emphasize 'expensive' and 'professional' too. I get more stares when I have the 70-200 f/4 on my little XT...i'll have the kit lens and i'll be just another touristy teenager who's using Dad's camera or something (or so they think). Throw the 70-200 f/4 in and i suddenly become the professional. It's not the length, because you see lots of soccer mums and dads with cheap zoom lenses (black).

Oh well. I've grown to accept it. At first I hated the idea, and thought of buying a 70-300 IS instead, simply because of the color. After i bought the cheap L, I tried to make a cover for it. I gave up, because it was a hassle...anyways, the only way color holds me back is that i feel less inclined to use it as a walk around lens in a city for candid photos (or candid in general), and i'll not bring it out if i know someone is looking to steal some camera gear.

cheers.

--
http://flickr.com/photos/ascirc
(Kelly Denker...call me KD if you want)
 
It's just marketing (and ok, maybe just a bit of help in hot sunshine). I believe if Canon had opted for some other colour at this price point, we'd be happily associating that colour with "luxury", "professional" "expensive" and all that as we do with the white now. Of course, it shouldn't matter but it often does.

It's hard to imagine a line of luxury lenses in some shade of red, green or blue but it's not impossible - just difficult - now we're used to seeing white. (for some reason, I could easily imagine Zeiss with line of lenses in a certain dark shade of annodised electric or steel blue as I tend to associate that with high-precision tooling or measuring equipment).

Where I live in Asia, white is well established as the colour of choice for luxury cars like the Mercedes, BMW and the like. Hardly anyone would choose a car like this is red or racing green if they could help it. The white Merc or BMW is THE sign of affluence and conspicuous consumption so it probably isn't a coincidence that an Asian camera manufacturer paints their most expensive lenses white. I'm pretty sure any of the others would have done so if Canon hadn't beaten them to it.

Just my ten cents.

Trevor
 
John Ricard said:
As for color and design, I will say it yet again. Look at Apple computers. They have never designed a functional, but ugly computer.
Click to expand...
You apparently don't remember the Apple II, or the original Macintosh...
John Ricard said:
I imagine that the perfume makers and liquor makers spend more time working on design of the bottle than on the liquid inside the bottle, because they too understand that people care what products look like. Somehow, it strikes me odd that PHOTOGRAPHERS who spend all day trying to make things look nice using fancy cameras, lenses and photoshop tricks, don't seem to care how their lenses look. It just strikes me as odd. That's all.
Click to expand...
Why does it strike you as odd? No doubt liquor and perfume makers spend time on the design of a bottle (though I highly doubt it's anywhere near as much as on the contents), but that's because many people will buy it based on appearance in the store without knowing what's inside (much like Macs, incidentally). Nobody (sane) does that with a lens. I care first about what kind of pictures my lenses produce, and second about their size, weight, build, etc. I couldn't care less about what they look like; after all, I hardly ever look at them. Although I admit if they only came in fluorescent pink, I might start to care.
 
John Ricard said:
... I'll bet if Canon offered the lens it Black it would outsell the White version -despite the Canon shooters' supposed indifference to the color of the lens.
Click to expand...
That's me exactly - not really bothered, but if I had a straight choice I'd go for black.
 
It's interesting you bring up the marketing aspect as I'm quite sure one of the reasons Canons' white lenses are staying white is exactly down to marketing.

You go to a major sporting event and see rows and rows of white lenses all saying to the world "PRO USING CANON, PRO USING CANON" - that's far more effective at selling camera bodies & lenses than any advert.
John Ricard said:
No need to be sorry. However, if you look at perfume bottles, Apple computers and iPhones and expensive cars, you will note that the design and color of these items is considered to be very important by the makers and the consumers. The iPhone works great. But it looks really nice too. That is important to a lot of people.

And you'd think photographers -who spend all day trying to make things LOOK a certain way, would be among those who care how things look.

--
'On Set With John Ricard' free video podcast available on iTunes.

Also visit:
http://www.johnricardblog.com
Click to expand...
--

 
In Africa it is just the opposite: a luxury vehicle must be black, even in 45 degrees celsius sunshine!!!!

I shoot Nikon and have had the adhesive inside my 200-400 come loose after waiting at a waterhole for a few hours with the lens in the sun. Could not touch the lens, it was so hot. Now I use a lens cover or a damp towel when it gets seriously hot.

BTW, I have a 'tropical grey' Nikon 300 lens which also gets hot in the sun........
sacentre said:
It's just marketing (and ok, maybe just a bit of help in hot sunshine). I believe if Canon had opted for some other colour at this price point, we'd be happily associating that colour with "luxury", "professional" "expensive" and all that as we do with the white now. Of course, it shouldn't matter but it often does.

It's hard to imagine a line of luxury lenses in some shade of red, green or blue but it's not impossible - just difficult - now we're used to seeing white. (for some reason, I could easily imagine Zeiss with line of lenses in a certain dark shade of annodised electric or steel blue as I tend to associate that with high-precision tooling or measuring equipment).

Where I live in Asia, white is well established as the colour of choice for luxury cars like the Mercedes, BMW and the like. Hardly anyone would choose a car like this is red or racing green if they could help it. The white Merc or BMW is THE sign of affluence and conspicuous consumption so it probably isn't a coincidence that an Asian camera manufacturer paints their most expensive lenses white. I'm pretty sure any of the others would have done so if Canon hadn't beaten them to it.

Just my ten cents.

Trevor
Click to expand...
--
http://kennekam.blogspot.com/
http://www.pbase.com/kennekam
 
Agent00687 said:
Agent00687 said:
John Ricard wrote:

Somehow, it strikes me odd that PHOTOGRAPHERS who spend all day trying to make things look nice using fancy cameras, lenses and photoshop tricks, don't seem to care how their lenses look.
Click to expand...
what you fail to understand is that the majority of Canon white-lens owners actually do like the white colour. This is where your basic premise fails.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Most of the people who are in this hobby/profession/pasttime for the pictures don't care what the lens looks like from the side... just how it looks from the end that goes up against the camera.

Of the people who do care, my guess is that more like the white lens (either because of the heat factor, the people let me go places because they think/know "I'm a pro" factor, or they just like white better) than the black anyway.
 
you say another white lense

I say another whinner
 
Mike_13 said:
you say another white lense

I say another whinner
Click to expand...
I can't decide whether that's "winner" spelt with an h like "white" (nice pun) or "whiner" referring to those who complain about the colour of their lenses. Or a clever convolution of both ;-)
 
Without Canon white lenses, how will the trolls and Fanboys be able to keep score at sporting events?

Seriously, despite all of the hype about heat etc, I suspect this is more of a branding thing for Canon.
 
How do you think this post would be recieved on the Nikon SLR Lens Talk forum if posted by an Canon user like myself?

Another BLACK Lens?!?!?!?!?
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0912/09121003nikkor300vrii.asp

I can't understand why Nikon doesn't offer their larger lenses in White. The Black looks horrible to my eyes. Surely I can't be the only photographer in the world who shoots outdoors 90% of the time and therefore needs the heat protection offered by a White lens.

The funny thing is, whenever I mention to a Nikon shooter that the Black lenses are ugly they say, "Oh, I don't care how the lens looks. I just want a lens that works properly." (or something to that effect). Still, I'll bet if Nikon offered the lens in White it would outsell the Black version - despite the Nikon shooters' supposed indifference to the color of the lens.

;)
 
Steve Balcombe said:
John Ricard said:
... I'll bet if Canon offered the lens it Black it would outsell the White version -despite the Canon shooters' supposed indifference to the color of the lens.
Click to expand...
That's me exactly - not really bothered, but if I had a straight choice I'd go for black.
Click to expand...
Same here..

I'm after good (Canon) mid-tele lens for about a year... and if there would exist 70-200IS f4 lens in black (50~180 would be even better), I would allready own it. As one might noticed, I don't really "need" it, so I'm not in hurry... but would like to have one.

Now, Canon might think, white is "pro" (or whatever)... but because of that, they sold at least one lens less. Does Canon care?.. I don't care if Canon (don't) care.

Btw. I'm not convinced about white prevents overheating -after all, there exist similar lenses in black.

IMO, as OP mentioned: design (and color is part of it) is important factor when buying. Of course, if there's no choice (and you need that lens), you can do nothing but say"what's important is what's inside".

Btw. I'm very satisfied with my camera.. but if that camera only existed in white, I wouldn't buy it for sure.

Just my opinion, of course.
Bogdan
 
John Ricard wrote:

Still, I'll bet if Canon offered the lens it Black it would outsell the White version -despite the Canon shooters' supposed indifference to the color of the lens.
John Ricard said:
--
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt that the color of the lens has had any appreciable effect on the sales of any of the Canon teles and long zooms. If you haven't bought one solely based on the color, you both let aesthetics affect your decision and are in the great minority.

I have two white lenses, and, believe me, the color had no effect on my decision to buy them.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Nikon's secret sauce...
2 3
Replies
51
Views
8K
Tord S Eriksson
Tord S Eriksson
L
"New" Tamron 18-300 f/3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD (APS-C)
Replies
12
Views
10K
sirhawkeye64
S
Scottelly
Why no $10,000 lens in L mount?
2
Replies
20
Views
42K
WilyKit
WilyKit
G
What do you think "Kit Lens" means?
Replies
19
Views
14K
Bill Ferris
Bill Ferris
D
What lens should i get alongside an D3s?
2
Replies
27
Views
26K
Parry Johnson
Parry Johnson

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top