Bear Dale wrote:
Just bought this lens today, why does the foot need to be changed?
There is no reason it has to be changed.
If you plan to use it on tripod/monopod then you can either put a arca-swiss plate on it or an arca-swiss foot.
I find the stock foot too short to use comfortably as a handle so a plate or longer foot (Hejnar) is a solution.
There were a number of reports of the lens foot releasing accidentally while carrying the lens by the stock foot. When carrying it by the foot your finger tends to naturally rest on the release button so if the screw isn't fully tight it can release and drop the lens to the ground. The Hejnar foot doesn't use a release button and side screw...it instead uses a direct screw into the lens foot ring which eliminates the risk of hitting a release button.
However, in my experience, my screw for the lens foot is so secure and I've never found it to be coming loose whenever I check it. So I just can't see how this would ever happen in my case. I believe there are screws out there that don't tighten properly. I have to apply significant force to unscrew my foot screw after hand tightening it.
This was also reported for the screw that tightens and loosens the tripod-foot's ring...some had a screw that could never fully tighten to stop the ring from moving. Mine on the other hand was easy to tighten to have the ring not move. I believe at least one member on here had his into Nikon to fix that screw. Not sure if anyone has had Nikon fix the foot screw?
arbitrage wrote:
There is no reason it has to be changed.
If you plan to use it on tripod/monopod then you can either put a arca-swiss plate on it or an arca-swiss foot.
I find the stock foot too short to use comfortably as a handle so a plate or longer foot (Hejnar) is a solution.
There were a number of reports of the lens foot releasing accidentally while carrying the lens by the stock foot. When carrying it by the foot your finger tends to naturally rest on the release button so if the screw isn't fully tight it can release and drop the lens to the ground. The Hejnar foot doesn't use a release button and side screw...it instead uses a direct screw into the lens foot ring which eliminates the risk of hitting a release button.
However, in my experience, my screw for the lens foot is so secure and I've never found it to be coming loose whenever I check it. So I just can't see how this would ever happen in my case. I believe there are screws out there that don't tighten properly. I have to apply significant force to unscrew my foot screw after hand tightening it.
This was also reported for the screw that tightens and loosens the tripod-foot's ring...some had a screw that could never fully tighten to stop the ring from moving. Mine on the other hand was easy to tighten to have the ring not move. I believe at least one member on here had his into Nikon to fix that screw. Not sure if anyone has had Nikon fix the foot screw?...Show more →
Not one of these aftermarket manufacturers has made a foot for the 500 5.6 PF that is long enough (imo). That includes RRS, Kirk, Hejnar and ?
They all extend a short distance toward the lens’ objective element and no distance at all back toward the camera, making all of them too short imo. I don’t get it. It seems it’s common sense to extend the foot back toward the camera so two fingers can comfortably rest behind that vertical upright.
I also purchased the Hejnar Photo foot and bought it direct. I must say it was an extremely tight fit to the point that I thought I would not get it on my lens and would need to return it. I eventually tightened the little screws on the foot base then was able to get the foot to fit with a little work. The foot has been updated with the mounting section shifted towards the front a little. The front shift makes it easy to carry the lens. It also balances nicely on a gimble with the shift. See photo below for the improvement.
This image makes me think this one *might* be long enough. But where is the generosity for larger hands. Why not make it generously long in the first place?
Does this Hejnar have an Arca Swiss groove running its length?
Contact Hejnar. Chris has offered to mill me whatever shape I desire in the past and even send out samples to see how they work out. This was back when the 400DOII came out so not sure he will still offer this but he may still be willing to mill something longer for you.
If you go to the Hejnar website there looks to be two versions of this plate...one with more back extension although overall length is the same so the mounting block must just sit more forward on the new version and the plate isn't actually longer.
You can still clamp all the way to the back even though there isn't a top shelf over the slope.
Here is the Hejnar official site : https://www.hejnarphotostore.com/mobile/Category.aspx?id=190
There are altogether 3 versions, one for low profile H128, one for high profile H129, and one with the protruding end H129-500 which is also the latest version.
Yeah, I'm not sure which one I would get....I don't intend to ever mount it on a gimbal or any tripod (other than doing MFA where it doesn't need to balance). I do like the idea of a little back extension for my thumb to lock under while carrying it. But then I also like the longer extension for my entire hand with the h-129 version.
I've meant to order a Hejnar plate but still haven't done so as it is quite expensive once shipping is added in over to Canada. I was going to reduce the shipping by ordering it with a Sony 200-600 plate but got tired of waiting for his 200-600 plate and bought one elsewhere.
Having the same issue with shipping cost. It doubles the cost once it is added, and I also have another iShoot from China which is usable but still having the same screw loosening issue. Then I also added my modifications to the original foot while waiting for it to be shipped, which will allow me to attach any plate length I need. Finally, only need it for AFFT and the lens is meant to be used handheld without the need of tripod. So, decided not to add the Hejnar H129-500 for the time being.
It's very much individual, whether a tripod is needed. I find that I get better sharpness at slow speeds and higher focus keeper percentage at all speeds when using a tripod with fluid head compared to hand-held usage. I commonly use 1/250s because I want to use moderate ISO; I've managed a successful result at 1/100s of a swimming bird with tripod and fluid head, and I'm sure I could not get anything good hand-held in the same situation. For good results hand-held I need at least 1/500s, necessitating an increase in ISO and corresponding reduction in quality. Becuse the 500 is a slow lens (f/5.6; I am used to f/1.4 to f/2.8 lenses) in a forest I typically am around ISO 2000 during a bright day, ISO 6400 during a dim cloudy winter day or close to sunrise / sunset; I want the best quality I can get and the tripod increases my keeper percentage. With 20MP sensor, I get 90% sharp results of perched birds at 1/250s, with 45MP the twitchy birds can cause me to lose up to 50% of images if I want the whole bird sharp at that speed (usually some part of the bird is not sharp), so there is incentive to increase shutter speed but this goes against the desire for noise-free images. So I'm basically all the time dancing between sharpness and noise, in this shooting environment. The biggest advantage the tripod gives me with this lens is that the focus point is held exactly still, which means I basically get no focus misses, or fewer than 10% with the 500 PF without TC. With TC there are plenty of focus misses though, especially in backlight and for me it's probably not worth using the TC with this lens in any circumstances.
Other reasons than sharpness and focus to use the 500 PF on tripod include waiting for the subject. Sometimes I can spend 20 hours trying to get a specific result. I don't want to hold the lens pointed at the animal all this time. The tripod does that work for me. I find that if I let the lens rest and only lift it to my eye for the shot, the bird is often gone before I get the shot, spooked by the movement. I move my arms slowly with the lens on tripod and the animals accept me as a slow-moving harmless creature. With deer, the opposite seems to be the case, they don't give me the time to set up the tripod before they take a hike, whereas often I succeed when photographing hand-held. Having a tripod doesn't prevent me from hand-holding if that's what the situation calls for. But I like the tripod-based approach very much, it allows me to calmly observe nature and enjoy the moment, the sounds, and the feelings, and it allows me a higher success percentage and results in much less deleting bad shots in post.
One might ask why then not use a heavier lens if I am using a tripod anyway? Because a 500/4 or 600/4 costs 3x as much money than the 500 PF and weights 2-3x as much, of course the weight adds up, and I usually carry equipment for landscape and macro as well. My back is not so healthy as to voluntarily lug around a 600/4 through, paths, forests and hills to get to my shooting location. So if the back is not healthy, why not leave tripod at home? Because of the results. This is what works for me, i see others hand-holding their 600/4's which to me is absurd (without meaning to disrespect anyone, it's just something I would neither enjoy nor be able to succeed with).
Anyway, for me any 500mm lens is mostly a tripod lens. And for that purpose it's great that it's equipped with a tripod foot. I hand-hold it when the situation doesn't allow me to use a tripod.
bs kite wrote:
This image makes me think this one *might* be long enough. But where is the generosity for larger hands. Why not make it generously long in the first place?
I have this newer foot with the back extension. It's long enough to balance well on a gimbal with and without a TC (with an ungripped D500). I do not believe that I have larger hands, and the back extension really only allows room for a single finger or thumb, but it fits my hands nicely.
So the H129-100 would be the preferred choice then ?
I finally made the choice and ordered the lens, now I have to order the D500 to go along with it !
I must say Competitive and Eugene were great to deal with and very direct and concise. I'll probably order the D500 from B&H though because of the great 12 month financing.
Bear Dale wrote:
Mine seems to be able to lock up very tightly. I'm really not seeing the need for a third party foot?
Mine also locks up so tight that now after almost 1.5 years of ownership, I've never felt the knob loosen at all and I carry mine by the stock foot as a mini handle every time I use the lens.. So I can only assume that there are defective screws out there as I trust the reports from many reputable members. There are also reports of screws that don't fully lock the tripod ring (where as mine locks easily) so I think Nikon may have a few screws loose
I just purchased a 500 pf from here on B&S. He asked me about adding a foot but I declined. I'll wait and see, but if the screw just loosens up, what about a drop of blue loctite? That's what pops into my mind to try.
