Lee Saxon wrote:
Why? That doesn't make much sense to me.
Because:
- If the Nikon one is adequate for the job, and can be had for $159 in some places, then why spend more
- Nikon typically over-charges for such stuff, thus if someone is charging around the same amount for a replacement version it should be much better in some way to justify the cost
So, I have yet to find anyone reporting that the Nikon version does not work well except for making not a very nice sound when rotating it and the price being steep (though if in fact it can be had for $159 maybe that's not so bad if it's a solid support for this lens).
I had spoken with RRS a couple months ago and they said that it wasn't in their plans to make a tripod collar for the 70-200/4. I just checked and they now are allowing preorders !!!
jhinkey wrote:
Because:
- If the Nikon one is adequate for the job, and can be had for $159 in some places, then why spend more
- Nikon typically over-charges for such stuff, thus if someone is charging around the same amount for a replacement version it should be much better in some way to justify the cost
So, I have yet to find anyone reporting that the Nikon version does not work well except for making not a very nice sound when rotating it and the price being steep (though if in fact it can be had for $159 maybe that's not so bad if it's a solid support for this lens)....Show more →
everyone has a different view. mine is if there is a considerably better design out there (and there is) and its within a margin for price along with the fact that there is none thats included with this lens i'll go with the one that is integrated with my attachment system. either way one goes the cost is approx within that margin the same use overall
one 1/4x20 thread for holding up a 200mm f/2? It's not even a handle either.
even the chinese can do better than that. Maybe nikon was trying to save 45 cents?
the 200mm f/4 macro lense has two threaded holes on its foot, and that lense weights about 5 pounds less.
tripod mounting is an after though for nikon.
The fact there is a large market for replacement mounting feet is proof nikon still doesn't know what they're doing.
The fact that the vast majority of camera and lens buyers don't even bother using tripods any more, and that of those that do, the vast majority don't bother with the overpriced fashion-accessory brands like Kirk/RRS, suggests otherwise...
The fact that the vast majority of camera and lens buyers don't even bother using tripods any more, and that of those that do, the vast majority don't bother with the overpriced fashion-accessory brands like Kirk/RRS, suggests otherwise...
Really??
Thats not so when I go out. When I go to this spot for Eagles, 95% of the people there have tripods and all the fancy stuff from Kirk, RRS and Wimberley.
molson wrote:
The fact that the vast majority of camera and lens buyers don't even bother using tripods any more, and that of those that do, the vast majority don't bother with the overpriced fashion-accessory brands like Kirk/RRS, suggests otherwise...
if you say so.
I guess RRS will have to move out of their new facility shortly to make up for the losses
If nikon made cars, you'd have to buy third party upgrade door handles as the crap they include with their expensive telephoto lenses are unsuitable for actual use.
Zebrabot wrote:
If nikon made cars, you'd have to buy third party upgrade door handles as the crap they include with their expensive telephoto lenses are unsuitable for actual use.
Hmmm . . . . My 70-200/2.8 AFS VRII tripod collar & foot works just fine for me as does my 80-200/2.8 AFS collar. As I recall my 80-200/2.8D was also just fine. Nikon certainly made/makes some not very good ones by many reports, but not ALL of them are crap . . . .
Zebrabot wrote:
If nikon made cars, you'd have to buy third party upgrade door handles as the crap they include with their expensive telephoto lenses are unsuitable for actual use.
that is as usual going overboard.
when you buy a car you general get the middle of the road tire for general use unless you are getting a more specialized machine. but then you are really paying for it too.
your term "bogus" is relative. there would be no discussion if there wasn't a 3rd party option available.
"spec out"- both Nikons and canons mount product is on about the same plane of manufacturing quality overall. same baseline methodology just a somewhat different approach in the mechanics.
Nikons design is usually more modular componentwise, canons more monolithic.
both designs do the job adequately even though you, as an individual, do not feel the same way. in the end you have a choice and its nice to have at least.
jhinkey wrote:
Wow, it better be way better than the Nikon for almost the Nikon price. Is anyone really dissatisfied with the Nikon tripod collar?
If I can get a better design with integrated AS mount from RRS for about the same price, why on earth would I buy the Nikon product instead? At any rate, I'm still not really sure this lens truly needs a collar.
A 70-200/4 does not need absolutely a collar for stability, but it makes the setup much more usable for portrait/landscape changes on a tripod. It's a lot quicker than removing the camera and switching positions on the L bracket.
