To add a few more cents to above posts. Nikon have used the 4 screw securing of the base plate for tripod feet for well over 2 decades if not longer. The mounting / securing system is similar on the super telephotos.
These securing capscrews on my 400 f2.8E are ~2.5 mm UNF x 12 mm - in a stainless steel alloy; the the allenkey for a 3rd party AW tripod-foot kit from RRS says 2.5mm.
The strength against torque, shearing etc resides in the mounting lug, which is a snug fit into the female indent in the tripod collar. I've swopped out the original foot on my 400 f2.8E, and previously a 200 f2G and 300 f2.8G. With at least one lens, these original screws were so tight I heated each capscrew head with an electrican's soldering iron to soften the loktite (as it felt like the allenkey might strip out the head!).
It is good practice to always check this point on a heavy lens, and if in doubt undo the screws and retighten with the proverbial dab of Loktite. The QR foot on the 70-200 f2.8E is the same as fitting the 500 f5.6E PF. The more common problem with the latter is the foot loosens off the dovetail. My backup to tightening the locking bolt is to have a loop of strong fishing trace or nylon cord around the entire lens barrel.
Lastly, I hust rechecked the baseplate of my 70-200 f2.8E. Its strength resides in the integral lug ~9x18mm that 'clips' into its mating surface in the tripod collar. This has to handle shearing of close to +3kg of rig on a tripod (ie D6+TC2 III+zoom. NB only use a good quality JIS s'driver on these screws
On thing I want to add about adding the Hejnar (or another) screw in foot replacement is that it makes impossible for the screws to back out and come loose because the foot sits right up against said screws.
In this configuration, you'd have a better chance of pulling the screws out by pulling on the foot with a lot of force (not likely unless intentional) than the screws backing out. Again, because they're sitting against the foot.
I've rented 2 separate 70-200 2.8s lens in the past 3 month both of which had this issue. I tightened the screws and advised who I rented from to assess so that the next person doesn't have an issue.
I had the lens attached to a plate and then a tripod, it apparently did not like to be carried around for hours on a tripod either. Wasn't expecting all 4 screws to loosen.
RRS sold a replacement for the metal mount being held in by the four screws for the VR1 and VRII lenses because the Nikon mounts were considered a weak point. No knowledge of this issue but it wouldn’t be the first time that was a weak point for a Nikon 70-200. 🤷🏼♂️
Blakehfreeman wrote:
RRS sold a replacement for the metal mount being held in by the four screws for the VR1 and VRII lenses because the Nikon mounts were considered a weak point. No knowledge of this issue but it wouldn’t be the first time that was a weak point for a Nikon 70-200. 🤷🏼♂️
This is also why I insure all my equipment!
actually, it was the deformation of the original plate itself by a family members VR2 that brought about their reinforcing of said plate. the screws stayed in nicely though. i got one from them and there was a "subtle" difference in plate thickness and material. the FL version that came after nikon doubled down (looked pretty much like the RRS one) on the thickness of the plate and i use this lens a lot with no issue with the screws.
i believe production stopped awhile back due to a slowdown in sales.
I don't disagree at all... I'm curious what Nikon's response to the OP's issue was. Would this be a covered defect?... or would Nikon claim the issue was caused by a non OEM adapter being mounted to the plate... either way not a fun experience I'm sure.
sjms wrote:
actually, it was the deformation of the original plate itself by a family members VR2 that brought about their reinforcing of said plate. the screws stayed in nicely though. i got one from them and there was a "subtle" difference in plate thickness and material. the FL version that came after nikon doubled down (looked pretty much like the RRS one) on the thickness of the plate and i use this lens a lot with no issue with the screws.
i believe production stopped awhile back due to a slowdown in sales.
So do you detach long lenses from the camera when you're moving around with them? Because with a small lens you would typically carry it around by the camera itself. But with a large enough lens you could bend the mount on your camera if you did it that way. Of course, you could just always detach the lens from any support you might be using and then carry the package by the lens body itself, but of course, you wouldn't get as good a grip on the package that way and you would risk dropping it.
You could put it all in to a bag, and carry that way, but you're risking the shot one you have to put it in and out of a bag all day.
These types of absolute statements remind me of Apple telling users that they're holding their phone wrongly. Of course large lens camera combos are going to be carried by the lens foot. That's an obvious real world way that they're going to get used.
If it’s recommended that you use a foot for tripod work for certain lenses, that’s the manufacturer telling you that you’re risking damaging the mount by letting the weight of the lens hang down from the mount.
You’re crazy if you think that holding a lens that is significantly heavier than a body by the foot is bad for either the lens or the body.
Anecdotes are just that, but I’ve never heard of a lens failing because of holding by the foot.
Blakehfreeman wrote:
I don't disagree at all... I'm curious what Nikon's response to the OP's issue was. Would this be a covered defect?... or would Nikon claim the issue was caused by a non OEM adapter being mounted to the plate... either way not a fun experience I'm sure.
