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 2015 · Tripod mount required for 70-200 f4?

  
 
Paul L.
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Tripod mount required for 70-200 f4?


I just got a used 70-200 f4, and I was wondering if you can get away with using it without the tripod mount.I wouldn't even ask if they weren't so expensive. Having it on a tripod won't be my primary usage - at this point I'd say tripod usage would be *rare* - and I don't plan on buying any more large lenses (I also own the 24-120).

Has anyone else tried this?



Aug 13, 2015 at 03:34 PM
WayneF
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Tripod mount required for 70-200 f4?


I don't have the 70-200 f/4, but it is lighter than the 24-70 which does not have a tripod foot.

70-200 f/4, 1.87 pounds, 7 inches long
24-70 f/2.8, 2.35 pounds, 6 inches long

I don't think it is about strain on the mount, but the lens mount would better balance it. For example, if the 24-70 is turned up on its side for a portrait view, it can be too heavy to not slip hanging on the side of a pan head tripod screw (speaking from experience, it can rotate around the screw, and sag down).

But a L bracket on the camera would mount it on top (instead of hanging over the side), and would prevent that slip.... which is the same idea as the lens mount... which mounts on top directly above the tripod head, standing on flat base, no tripod screw for the weight to rotate around and sag down.



Aug 13, 2015 at 05:09 PM
Paul L.
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Tripod mount required for 70-200 f4?


Yea, I think the main issue is that the length of the lens might put more stress on the mount than the 24-105 does. I was kind of surprised that the 24-105 is lighter, though, because the 70-200 feels so balanced.

Anyway, I guess I'll take it out tonight and see what happens.



Aug 13, 2015 at 08:44 PM
M635_Guy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Tripod mount required for 70-200 f4?


I got the RRS collar with removeable foot, which is nice and low-profile when you're not planning to put it on the tripod.

Beyond the ability to not worry about the mount, I think stability/IQ will be better when you're on a tripod.



Aug 13, 2015 at 09:12 PM
sjms
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Tripod mount required for 70-200 f4?


It is a real good idea

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/984497-REG/vello_tc_n1_tripod_collar_for.html

Edited on Aug 15, 2015 at 10:59 AM · View previous versions



Aug 14, 2015 at 10:11 PM
rico
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Tripod mount required for 70-200 f4?


Mount point is certainly not a problem. I just tried the lowly D3000, and the zoom is fully secure when waved around. Of course, the subminature camera grip is far from comfortable in this exercise. I would not trust the tripod socket, however, and that does argue for the RT-1 if you are using a plastic-fantastic model of camera. My 70-200/4 is always mounted to a D3X and the rig feels like the Rock of Gibraltar when attached via the camera's tripod socket. The Vello knock-off of the RT-1 is 30% of Nikon's price and very sturdy (should you need it).


Aug 15, 2015 at 02:06 AM
Charles Loy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Tripod mount required for 70-200 f4?


I say you don't need it, it does not stress the camera mount to use this lens without that tripod mount. I have a mount but have not used it much. If you use a tripod or mono-pod often, then it is more useful, but for occasional use on the pods I'd suggest it is not needed.
Just saying, I bought a cheapo from China for occasional use, it's very well made and perfect fit.



Aug 15, 2015 at 06:46 AM
MalbikEndar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Tripod mount required for 70-200 f4?


I have used it both ways. I like it better with the tripod mount but if you don't regularly use the mount you can probably do without. I did buy the Nikon mount which is beautifully made though pricey. I bought it partly because I will eventually get the new 300 mm f4 (if it every actually becomes available??)


Aug 15, 2015 at 09:15 AM
walts.photo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Tripod mount required for 70-200 f4?


Tried it with and without the Kirk mount on a D750. More vibration without the tripod mount and it took a bit longer to dampen out. Easy to see in magnified live view.






Aug 17, 2015 at 07:05 AM
elkhornsun
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Tripod mount required for 70-200 f4?


I have the 70-200mm f2.8 lens and there are only two situations where I use the collar with the tripod mount. One is when doing the autofocus fine tuning with a new camera. The other situation is when combining multiple images as when stitching a panoramic or creating a HDR or focus stacking image.


Aug 17, 2015 at 07:31 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Tripod mount required for 70-200 f4?


It's not absolutely required, but highly recommended. The ability to rotate from vertical to horizontal and level is well worthwhile compared to the usual swapping positions on the L bracket and moving the ballhead.

EBH



Aug 18, 2015 at 12:37 AM
Chris Dees
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Tripod mount required for 70-200 f4?


EB-1 wrote:
It's not absolutely required, but highly recommended. The ability to rotate from vertical to horizontal and level is well worthwhile compared to the usual swapping positions on the L bracket and moving the ballhead.

EBH


My take as well. I have the RRS and it fits the 300E too.



Aug 18, 2015 at 02:00 AM
gpelpel
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Tripod mount required for 70-200 f4?


I bought the 70-200 f/4 used and it came with a cheap chinese collar. First of all this lens is very sharp, I long hesitated downgrading from the f/2.8 versions I had used for years (all versions from the first D version to the most recent AF-S VRII. It is sharp and way lighter. Yet it works great with converters as well.
I find the collar very useful when shooting at low speed. It provides a better balance above the ball head. The collar fits my 300mm f/4 PF as well which is great. I almost bought the RRS version but didn't like the fact that its foot has a forward position. My chinese collar has a bolted plate that was easy to replace with an area-swiss type plate thus providing a very low profile foot (the 300mm hood just barely fit when reversed).
I highly recommend a tripod collar if you shoot landscape, close-up, or anything that requires slow shutter speeds. The 70-200mm f/4 may not be heavier than the 24-70 f/2.8 but it is longer. The beauty of the removable design is that it's very quick to remove from the lens for action shots or to use it on a different lens.



Aug 18, 2015 at 09:52 AM





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.