The issue I had was that there is no real place to put the Loctite. The small release lever is easy to push accidentally. Steve Perry had this happen to his lens, but another guy on DP review had his lens and camera hit the pavement while he was just standing talking without a hand on the lens foot.
I bought RRS and it was not convincingly better. The Hejnar foot simply bolts into the lens collar with no release lever. The dovetail is also longer( if you get the longer version) and it balances much better on my Wimberley head. I found this a good reason to spend to $50US. If the OEM foot works well then even better. You may still need a lens plate for a tripod mount. In my mind better to get both features in one device!
Whatever you choose, it is a really magnificent lens!
Iain
I finally received my lens, I ordered the Hejnar foot and I am glad I did. Considering the lens and all the work that was put into the actual lens itself, the foot really is a bit of a joke to say the least. It looks cheap and it doesn't surprise me it has issues. All the components of it lack any sort of quality feel at all.
For those that do decide to use the OEM foot, I would keep a very close eye on it, or better yet just replace it .
I got my new to me lens and the person I bought it from must have REALLY tightened it down. I couldn't get it loose by hand, so I didn't even try any more. If it's that tight it ain't going anywhere. I had plenty of plates to put on so I'm happy with mine.
Bsmooth wrote:
I finally received my lens, I ordered the Hejnar foot and I am glad I did. Considering the lens and all the work that was put into the actual lens itself, the foot really is a bit of a joke to say the least. It looks cheap and it doesn't surprise me it has issues. All the components of it lack any sort of quality feel at all.
For those that do decide to use the OEM foot, I would keep a very close eye on it, or better yet just replace it .
I completely disagree, as I have used the predecessors to this foot (in the 70-200/2.8 G II) and those feet gave a lot of vibration problems especially if using a TC with the lens. By contrast the foot of the 500 PF is excellent in that the lens hardly vibrates at all on tripod (using a proper tripod and head suitable for 500mm photography). Nikon have improved the stiffness and vibration resistance of their tripod feet considerably.
I have zero interest in the Hejnar foot since it requires a key to remove it and I take my foot off for hand-held shooting, as it gets in the way of quickly switching between vertical and horizontal and looks silly pointed up. For tripod use I mount the foot. Since I use the tripod foot for its designed purpose, to mount the lens on a tripod, instead of misusing it as a carrying handle, I don't have any problems with it coming off; it has never showed any signs of spontaneously coming off. (I am not saying that this isn't possible, it just hasn't been my experience. Perhaps some feet were faulty or out of tolerances.)
If I were to use the tripod foot as a carrying handle, or to hang it on a strap like some do, then I would get the Hejnar foot. However, I have heard many stories of people's kits falling on the ground from such contraptions due to no fault of the tripod feet; e.g. blackrapid straps where the screw comes off from the foot on its own. I would never choose to carry my camera and lens in this way because of the many reports of kit dropped in this manner.
Disagree If you will, but as a mechanical device its not made very well. I worked with Aerospace and medical grade equipment for over 30 years, and spent a considerable amount of time inspecting them as well.
It may do the job, but I wouldn't use it, and as I said before , wouldn't advise anyone else to either.
I'd like to see the tolerances used to manufacture it.
I guess in the end, If it works for you thats great, but I wouldn't put much faith in it.Then again I don't take mine on and off, its staying on there, even when I hand hold the lens.
