2
\$\begingroup\$

I've been getting more into bird photography lately, and sometimes that involves tromping through some deep grasses, brambles, thick woods, etc. I'd like to protect my lens, and keep its resale value as high as possible. Additionally, it would be nice if the lens wasn't the bright beacon of white light that is a Canon L-series telephoto lens.

Has anyone used the LensCoat for the Canon 100-400? If so, how is it? The nature of this lens seems like it would make it a bit difficult to make a decent coat for it, and I'm curious how usable the lens is with a LensCoat (or something similar) on.

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ Are you looking for a product review, a discussion about the LensCoat, or what are favorite alternatives are? \$\endgroup\$
    – dpollitt
    Jan 29, 2012 at 20:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ None, really...just curious if anyone used them and how it was. \$\endgroup\$
    – jrista
    Jan 30, 2012 at 7:23

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4
\$\begingroup\$

The LensCoat isn't going to cover all the lens when it is zoomed out. Only the parts you see when it's retracted will be covered. I haven't personally used the LensCoat with the 100-400, but it's going to be very similar to the 300/4, that has the built-in hood. With the hood extended, a big section of the 300/4 is uncovered. I wouldn't buy a LensCoat for that type of lens again.

I really like the LensCoat on the 300/2.8 and 500/4, though. There, it functions exactly like you think it would, and covers most of the lens.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Know of any alternatives that might do a better job, or is it simply not worth bothering with such a lens? \$\endgroup\$
    – jrista
    Jan 30, 2012 at 7:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.