M635_Guy Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200 | |
molson wrote:
Unfortunately, Kirk does not disclose the weight of their collar/foot/brace assembly, but as it appears much larger than the RRS collar and foot, I assumed it weighs about the same (or more) than the RRS version. The RRS version adds 12.7 ounces to the lens... which makes up more than half of the difference in weight between the two lenses.
On the other hand, the Nikon RT-1 is equally solid and sturdy, doesn't mark or damage the lens like the Kirk contraption likely will, and only weighs 6.7 ounces with an RRS B-82 plate attached.
I haven't weighed my RRS collar, but I'd be surprised if it weighs nearly 13 ounces. Add to that the fact that the foot (the heaviest part) is removable, so it stays home when I won't need it. When I do need it, it still saves me space in my bag since the foot goes in a pocket.
I am a little surprised the Kirk foot doesn't have some sort of rubber gasket between the lens and the cradle they have.
If you don't care about the removable foot thing, I'd buy the Kirk collar every day vs. the Nikon collar: No A/S for those who use it (I don't really expect Nikon to do that, but...), no removable foot, no additional stabilization and it is more expensive. I'd guess the Kirk is more solidly built, but doubt that is of practical value. Kirk is made in the USA, which doesn't hurt my feelings either. Looks like it would be a little lower-profile in the bag, too.
|