Scott Larson
Veteran Member
They aren't strict for the WNBA games. I've been able to sneak my 1D + 135mmf2 into Arco every time the Seattle Storm has played there for the past two seasons. They've never even checked my bag!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
No white lenses at NBA game......
- Thread starter rjohnson
- Start date
Ted Wilson
Veteran Member
For WNBA games they would probably let you in without a ticket and a 300/2.8 on a 1D, just to fill the seats. LOL. ;-)
Ted W.
--
Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
genius, power and magic in it. - Goethe
http://www.tedwilsonphoto.com/
Ted W.
--
--
Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has
genius, power and magic in it. - Goethe
http://www.tedwilsonphoto.com/
Only the Maloofs can put it so poetically. I actually like shooting the monarchs better than the kings cos I can have the whole baseline to myself.
The reason you see so many black lenses at ARCO is that most newspapers here went Nikon when the D1 came out. Only one photog at the SacBee that I know of shoots Canon, Bryan Patrick. I know some of the other photogs complain that the whole staff should shoot the same equip but he's so good he can get whatever he wants, and that's canon. I remember seeing him at a rivercats game a few summers back and he was complaining the whole time about how bad the D1 was and that he couldn't wait until canon introduced their camera that would blow it away. A few months later he got his wish. We waited until the 1D before switching, which also coincided with Doug Christie landing on one of our photogs and shattering our EOS3 and 80-200, a good excuse to upgrade.
Another wierd thing I've seen at kings games is a manual focuser(a guy with an old manual focus camera) sitting on the baseline next to me. I'm not sure how they hand out those media passes. I don't go to kings games that often anymore, i prefer college and prep sports, but when I do I'm usually the only guy there with a white lens besides the Kings photog.
The reason you see so many black lenses at ARCO is that most newspapers here went Nikon when the D1 came out. Only one photog at the SacBee that I know of shoots Canon, Bryan Patrick. I know some of the other photogs complain that the whole staff should shoot the same equip but he's so good he can get whatever he wants, and that's canon. I remember seeing him at a rivercats game a few summers back and he was complaining the whole time about how bad the D1 was and that he couldn't wait until canon introduced their camera that would blow it away. A few months later he got his wish. We waited until the 1D before switching, which also coincided with Doug Christie landing on one of our photogs and shattering our EOS3 and 80-200, a good excuse to upgrade.
Another wierd thing I've seen at kings games is a manual focuser(a guy with an old manual focus camera) sitting on the baseline next to me. I'm not sure how they hand out those media passes. I don't go to kings games that often anymore, i prefer college and prep sports, but when I do I'm usually the only guy there with a white lens besides the Kings photog.
Scott Larson
Veteran Member
One of the best things about WNBA games is that you don't need a 300mm lens to get good shots from affordable seats!
It is sad that a mainstream brand like Canon has turned into a status symbol. In marketing parlance, there are two aspects of this phenomenon.
"Heavenly goods" refers to the big white lens that only a few can afford. "Token goods" refers to the affordable substitutes like short white lens. The ownership of token goods gives a sense of exclusiveness and competence to mediocre photographers.
Of course, there is a world of difference between a pro who shoots 50k/year, and those who photograph as a hobby. Personally, I don't care what you use. Your images speak for you. So, where is the technique and vision?
Kind REgards
--
Jim
Jeff Tabor
Forum Enthusiast
Well, I just shot the Grizzlies v Bulls game and it's the same here. There were about 6 still shooters and I only saw 2 Canon shooters. I use Nikon D1's against my will but they work ok. I can tell you that at the NFL games it's 10 to 1 or higher Canon over everthing else.
I guess you haven't compared the prices of Canon big white lenses against their Nikon counterparts. It's Nikon that charges the heavenly high prices-- and for lenses lacking VR while the Canons have IS. If you can't afford Canon white lenses, you won't be able to afford the Nikon versions either.
Your elitist labeling aside, I just like the fact that my short, affordable white lens (namely the extremely sharp, extremely affordable Canon 70-200/4L white lens) doesn't get burning hot when I've been using it out in the sun or have had it sitting in the car on a hot day for a while. Same, too, for my larger 100-400L IS lens. For me, the putty-white paint is simply a welcomed practical consideration that is appropriate for certain lenses with larger heat-absorbing surface areas. What's all this foolish talk about "sense of exclusiveness and competence?"
Traditionally, Nikon lens and cameras are very durable. There are guys still using 20 year cameras and lens. Indeed, popular MF lens trade for almost as much as used AF lenses. The key issue which you don't understand is "value". You keep comparing the numbers, but you don't understand how cameras are used.
Read M Reichman's latest defense of civilization at
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cognative.shtml
"I see a very disturbing trend developing on Net discussion boards. There has been a virtual hijacking — for lack of a better word — by the pixel peepers and the equipment junkies at the expense of those for whom cameras are tools to an end. That end is the production of photographs — ones that inform, ones that record a time and place, ones that express an emotion, and also of course, ones that satisfy technically."
Nikon, Minolta and Oly don't use white lens. Do these lenses get burning hot? Intelligent photographers insulate their equipment when they leave it in the car. If you are stupid enough to expose it to the sun, it will get hot.
Same, too, for my larger 100-400L IS
Which planet are you from? Canon has been pushing the "white lens" mystique in their advertising. And, you are one of the people who have been pushing the Canon low-noise sensors. The point that M Reichman raised is that photography is ultimately not about technical numbers. Photography is about the art of communication. Each person must find his own way. And, it is the results that matter.
You must have posted hundred upon humdreds of worthless comments on technical matters and numbers. I cannot believe that you are so dense.
--
Jim
Zidar162589
Veteran Member
--
'He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond
the pale of any acceptable human conduct.'
'He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond
the pale of any acceptable human conduct.'
- Apocalypse Now
Sorry, but Nikon, Minolta, and Oly do use "white" lenses. So does Pentax. Just goes to show how much (or little) you know. Obviously, there is a simple, undeniable thermal benefit to having large, massive objects be a more neutral color: black gets hot!
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, as they say:
Nikon white lenses (by the way, notice the poorly designed tripod collars that have been the source of so much complaint amongst Nikon telephoto users. Also notice that the Canon counterparts have much better designed tripod collars, offer IS, and are the same price or cheaper):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=242161&is=USA
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=234174&is=USA
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=234174&is=USA
Minolta white lenses:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=35143&is=USA
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=35174&is=USA
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=91185&is=USA
Oly white lenses:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=38800&is=REG
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=38810&is=REG
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=38815&is=REG
Pentax white lenses:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=40705&is=REG
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=142278&is=USA
As for Nikon durability, Nikon products are really no more durable than Canon products, Minolta products, Oly products, etc. The whole mystique of Nikon products is really just that-- a mystique. And it's obviously one that you've bought into whole heartedly. Each product has its good points and bad points. Nothing is ever perfect or 100%. As for "technical numbers", those are factors one should consider when spending your hard-earned money. Anyone who doesn't consider it is a fool, or has too much money. It's always nice to have the best or most favorable technical numbers as possible so that it leaves you free to pursue what really counts: the image. And the nice thing about technical numbers is that they are objective, whereas the love and worship of a brand mystique (eg. "I thought N-I-K-O-N spelled durability and quality" as you stated as blind mantra earlier) is whole subjective and often groundless or exagerated or rooted in pure marketing propaganda, to the exclusion of objectivity. To each his own, but I'll base my decisions on objective units of measure anyday. Then I'll take my equipment out and have an enjoyable day of photography with it.
By the way, your comment:
...is one heck of a silly comment. Maybe you're right. Telephoto users are so STUPID to be exposing their lenses to the sun! I guess we should only use our telephoto lenses on cloudy days or indoors. Or maybe we should get umbrella attachments for our lenses to shade them from the sun. Then we wouldn't be so stupid, huh?
You are stupid. You spend hours of hours arguing about silly technical points rather than taking pictures. You fit the profile about the pixel-peeper that M Reichman described.
BTW, I was refering to the point you made about lens getting hot if you leave it in the car. Photographers insulate their equipment and film. You are the only person I know of that doesn't know how to take care of your equipment.
It's true that Nikon has began to offer light grey lens. But, Nikon also offers it in black. So, heat reflectivity is not necessarily an issue. In any case, heat reflectivity is not an issue with your 70-200 f/4, because it only weighs 1.5lb. Your small lens doesn't have the bulk or mass of glass that the BIG lens has. So is there a need to paint it in white? It's just a status symbol.
--
Jim
Your last statement is only partially correct. Canon's lenses are white so that they can be easily differentiated from other manufacturers.
You seem a little pious.
Kyle
You seem a little pious.
Kyle
Sorry Kyle,
The white color is used to differentiate Canon L from Canon non-L lenses. It has become a form of social stratification. Nikon does the same but in a more discrete fashion. It uses a tiny gold band on the lens to signal ED glass.
--
Jim
... I am starting to talk technical drivel like you do. It's time to practice some photography. Too much time on the net, creates a technical idiot.
You can dig up a lot of technical info by surfing the WWW. But, you cannot do that with photography. In the end, those who can, do it. Those who cannot, talk about it.
--
Jim
You can dig up a lot of technical info by surfing the WWW. But, you cannot do that with photography. In the end, those who can, do it. Those who cannot, talk about it.
--
Jim
Ken Phillips
Veteran Member
I'd bet that the vast majority (by numbers) of Canon L lenses out there are BLACK. Only the big guns are white. (Black includes the extremely popular 24-70L and 28-70L!)
L lenses are differenciated by a RED LINE around the front of the lens.
And many of us 'abuse' our equipment, including leaving it to get damned hot, out of convenience. Nobody I know, however, would leave it unattended anywhere the sun could directly strike it ... that implies easy theft.
Ken
I don't believe in fate, but I do believe in f/8!
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm
L lenses are differenciated by a RED LINE around the front of the lens.
And many of us 'abuse' our equipment, including leaving it to get damned hot, out of convenience. Nobody I know, however, would leave it unattended anywhere the sun could directly strike it ... that implies easy theft.
Ken
--
I don't believe in fate, but I do believe in f/8!
http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm
Typical. When a person has no other place to go, he resorts to personal attacks and name calling. Sheesh. I'm not going to buy a Canon L telephoto lens (that happens to be white) just because it is white. I'm going to buy a Canon L lens (that happens to be white) because:
A) they are extremely sharp
B) they are extremely well built
C) they don't have ridiculous tripod collar placements like the Nikon telephto lenses do (read Bjorn Roslett's article on the subject here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/tripod_collar_rev00.html )
D) Canon doesn't overcharge for their telephotos like Nikon does
E) they have IS (well, most of them do) for the same price or less than the Nikons (somtimes hundreds of dollars less)
And yes, the neutral white color is a nice bonus. These are all practical considerations, having nothing to do with status as you so immaturely imply. I have no idea why you are so offended by Canon white lenses. And I have no idea why you feel the need to go around calling people "stupid" when they are just offering a rebuttal to your questionable assertions and broad-stroke characterizations of Canon L lens buyers. And by the way, heat absorption and the white lens color have nothing to do with the weight of the lens, but thanks for telling me that my 70-200/4L weighs 1.5lbs. As for you question "so is there a need to paint it white?", let me ask you: "so is there a need to paint it black?" Even if it is on the smaller end of telephoto lenses, the barrel body is still going to get hotter if painted black than if it were painted white. For purposes of temperature comfort alone, why not paint it white???
Instead of getting bent out of shape about why Canon paints their telephoto lenses white, why don't you ask why Nikon doesn't offer VR in their telephoto lenses. The Canon 300/4L IS USM (yes, in white), for example, was introduced way back in March 1997! And it is the same price (a mere $1100) as the Nikon 300/4 without VR. Almost 7 years later and Nikon users are still waiting for their version (in any color at all). And of course, there's also the Canon 600/4 IS USM, 500/4 IS USM, 400/4 IS USM, 400/2.8 IS USM, 300/2.8 IS USM. Yes, all with IS. Yes, all the same price or cheaper than the Nikon non-VR equivalent. And yes, all are white. But, alas, you seem more interested in making arguments about superficial aspects like the color of the lens paint!
A) they are extremely sharp
B) they are extremely well built
C) they don't have ridiculous tripod collar placements like the Nikon telephto lenses do (read Bjorn Roslett's article on the subject here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/tripod_collar_rev00.html )
D) Canon doesn't overcharge for their telephotos like Nikon does
E) they have IS (well, most of them do) for the same price or less than the Nikons (somtimes hundreds of dollars less)
And yes, the neutral white color is a nice bonus. These are all practical considerations, having nothing to do with status as you so immaturely imply. I have no idea why you are so offended by Canon white lenses. And I have no idea why you feel the need to go around calling people "stupid" when they are just offering a rebuttal to your questionable assertions and broad-stroke characterizations of Canon L lens buyers. And by the way, heat absorption and the white lens color have nothing to do with the weight of the lens, but thanks for telling me that my 70-200/4L weighs 1.5lbs. As for you question "so is there a need to paint it white?", let me ask you: "so is there a need to paint it black?" Even if it is on the smaller end of telephoto lenses, the barrel body is still going to get hotter if painted black than if it were painted white. For purposes of temperature comfort alone, why not paint it white???
Instead of getting bent out of shape about why Canon paints their telephoto lenses white, why don't you ask why Nikon doesn't offer VR in their telephoto lenses. The Canon 300/4L IS USM (yes, in white), for example, was introduced way back in March 1997! And it is the same price (a mere $1100) as the Nikon 300/4 without VR. Almost 7 years later and Nikon users are still waiting for their version (in any color at all). And of course, there's also the Canon 600/4 IS USM, 500/4 IS USM, 400/4 IS USM, 400/2.8 IS USM, 300/2.8 IS USM. Yes, all with IS. Yes, all the same price or cheaper than the Nikon non-VR equivalent. And yes, all are white. But, alas, you seem more interested in making arguments about superficial aspects like the color of the lens paint!
Ken,
So how come the 70-200 f/4 is white while the 135 f/2 is not? Does it have something to do with the fluoride?
I must admit that I was under the impression that most telephoto L lenses were white. However, if you think about it, the hand-held lens don't need a protective cover. Only the big lenses are left on their tripods in the sun. Thanks for the correction.
--
Jim
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum