Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200

  
 
vieri
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200


Hello everyone,

while the 70-200 f/4 is a great lens, Nikon decided to get stingy and not ship it with a tripod collar, much needed if you plan to use it on a tripod; the good part of this is that you can get whichever collar you like for it

http://medias.photodeck.com/29e71070-c97a-11e2-a0fa-1186a6c87268/_DP3M_0113_xlarge.jpg

I chose to get the Kirk NC-70-200, and I just published a review of it on my blog HERE. Bottom line, it works great!

Hope you enjoy the read, best

Vieri



May 31, 2013 at 03:30 AM
molson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200


If you're going to add that much bulk and weight to the 70-200 f4, why not just buy the f2.8 version?


May 31, 2013 at 09:04 AM
jhinkey
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200


My Nikon RT-1 collar for the 70-200/4 works great too. Really it seems that the advantage of third party collars for the 70-200/4 is the quick release foot available as the stability of the RT-1 seems quite adequate to me.


May 31, 2013 at 09:18 AM
rodmcwha
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200


Molson---obviously, you are commenting without any personal experience! (Maybe not enough coffee, this morning?) The kirk collar weighs so little that you hardly notice it has been added. Compared to my 70-200- 2.8 (with foot removed) it is still significantly lighter!


May 31, 2013 at 09:20 AM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200


molson wrote:
If you're going to add that much bulk and weight to the 70-200 f4, why not just buy the f2.8 version?


It's really not that much weight compared to the f/2.8 with the similar collar.

EBH



May 31, 2013 at 09:21 AM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200


jhinkey wrote:
My Nikon RT-1 collar for the 70-200/4 works great too. Really it seems that the advantage of third party collars for the 70-200/4 is the quick release foot available as the stability of the RT-1 seems quite adequate to me.


Correct. I'd prefer the A-S-footed collar to not have the extra support just to be a bit smaller, especially when removed.

EBH



May 31, 2013 at 09:23 AM
molson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200


rodmcwha wrote:
Molson---obviously, you are commenting without any personal experience! (Maybe not enough coffee, this morning?) The kirk collar weighs so little that you hardly notice it has been added. Compared to my 70-200- 2.8 (with foot removed) it is still significantly lighter!



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.



May 31, 2013 at 10:14 AM
LizzieShepherd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 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.


Agreed it is annoying that Kirk don't put a weight on the site but I emailed them and they claim it's only 5 oz - it certainly looks a lot lighter than the RRS one and a lot less bulky.

Glad to hear it's a good bracket - would be very interested to hear confirmation of that weight if Vieri or Rod can comment? Many thanks, Lizzie



May 31, 2013 at 04:57 PM
M635_Guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200


I got my RRS collar/foot recently. I like it fine other than the knob sticks out. I love the fact that the foot is removable.


May 31, 2013 at 08:49 PM
sjms
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200


Just for reference on the "stinginess" factor. the other lensmaker with the off white paint on it does business the same way with the collar for its equivalent lens too.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457678-USA/Canon_1258B002AA_EF_70_200mm_f_4L_IS.html



Jun 01, 2013 at 07:22 AM
rodmcwha
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200


I'll weigh it when I get home, later today/


Jun 01, 2013 at 09:32 AM
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.



Jun 01, 2013 at 09:48 AM
LizzieShepherd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200


rodmcwha wrote:
I'll weigh it when I get home, later today/

thanks - that would be great!



Jun 01, 2013 at 01:48 PM
corndog
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200


molson wrote:
If you're going to add that much bulk and weight to the 70-200 f4, why not just buy the f2.8 version?


I didn't realize the f/2.8 version was only $159 more than the f/4 version. That's good to know because I may be in the market later in the year. It makes you wonder why Nikon even bothers to make the f/4 version and why anyone would buy it. It's a strange world out there.



Jun 01, 2013 at 01:56 PM
LizzieShepherd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200


corndog wrote:
I didn't realize the f/2.8 version was only $159 more than the f/4 version. That's good to know because I may be in the market later in the year. It makes you wonder why Nikon even bothers to make the f/4 version and why anyone would buy it. It's a strange world out there.

Not everyone wants the extra weight and bulk - and here in the UK the price difference is somewhat larger too. I had the Canon 70-200 2.8 and loved it but I did not like carrying it on long walks.



Jun 01, 2013 at 03:34 PM
binary visions
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200


corndog wrote:
I didn't realize the f/2.8 version was only $159 more than the f/4 version. That's good to know because I may be in the market later in the year. It makes you wonder why Nikon even bothers to make the f/4 version and why anyone would buy it. It's a strange world out there.


Uh. What?

The 2.8 version is $1000 more expensive than the f/4 version.

Edit: never mind. I missed the sarcasm



Jun 01, 2013 at 05:35 PM
M635_Guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · A lens collar for the 70-200 f/4: the Kirk NC-70-200


I didn't want the weight/bulk and sold my 80-200 - f/2.8 was nice to have, but I don't miss the weight at all.


Jun 01, 2013 at 08:50 PM





FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.