p.1 #1 · Supporting big whites with a camera strap.
I wrote to PD to ask if they have any anchors with longer tethers because the lugs on some lenses are so thick that the anchors are so close to the lens it's hard to get the strap to clip on.
PD responded:
"I am sorry but we don't have anything longer than that. We always recommend folks attach our plates and anchor mounts onto the camera body as that will be the best way to use our products. Lens bayonets are actually very strong and are designed to hold upwards of 200lbs. The collars and feet that are on many larger lenses are designed to be used more so for balancing on a tripod than “strength" -- this is why they are also referred to as Tripod Collars or Tripod Foot. -- many of us at Peak have this lens and we attach the strap to the body and not the lens itself."
How do you feel about this statement? I am leery of hanging a 600mm f/4 on an R5 and then using a sling strap only attached to the body. This means the lens is only supported by the bayonet mount on the body.
Thoughts?
ps: cross posting this to the M43 forum as the question originally arose about the Zuiko 150-400 f/4.5 w 1.25TC on an OM-1 body.
p.1 #4 · Supporting big whites with a camera strap.
Nope, I wouldn't hang any great white off a body with the strap attached to the body and not the lens itself. As Jim pointed out above, our lenses have lugs built into them for a reason. I only use the camera strap lugs with my 100-500 or lighter lenses.
p.1 #5 · Supporting big whites with a camera strap.
It's clearly not a good idea to hang a large lens off of the camera. Even a slight deformation of the lens mount/body mount can shift the plane of focus and cause other issues. Use the lens strap lugs or the lens foot as they are designed to handle the loads.
p.1 #6 · Supporting big whites with a camera strap.
Their response is nonsense. Photographers everywhere have been carrying long lenses over their shoulders mounted to tripods, monopods, and gimbals for decades. If the tripod collars were as weak as they imply, this practice would have quickly proven to be unpopular and rare.
I would have no qualms about carrying any Canon lens via a strap mounted to its tripod collar, as long as the tripod collar were securely tightened down.
Putting that much weight and stress on the lens mount is also ridiculous. Have no idea where they came up with that idea.
Edit: apparently I was in a bit of a mood when I wrote this, haha. But while my language might be a little over the top, I still feel that their advice is unsound. There is a reason that Canon and Nikon put strap lugs on their super telephoto lenses. It's to take the weight off of the lens mount when carrying the mounted combination.
p.1 #7 · Supporting big whites with a camera strap.
garyvot wrote:
(...) as long as the tripod collar were securely tightened down. (...)
all points more than valid - also somewhat surprised that PD recommends using camera lugs with large lens - and I mean big whites
yeah, the tripod collar - no, it won't fail or collapse, but that knob can come out loose, or simply one forgot to properly check or tighten after use
That said I use too a strap with QR on the lens collar foot - with additional plate, and have a small strap going from the lens lugs to the strap itself
p.1 #8 · Supporting big whites with a camera strap.
I've carried 500/4 and 600/4 lenses over the shoulder for decades and the collars are more than strong enough. If the tripod collar knob is fully loose the camera will rotate to the balance point and that is it. The main risk is not tightening the A-S lens foot, but that is a human error and mainly mitigated with the tiny safety stop hex screws. I never carried a big tele with lug straps just because it is not my style.
p.1 #9 · Supporting big whites with a camera strap.
I'm with garyvot, PD is out of their minds to suggest carrying a big white lens via the mounted camera. Both the camera and the lens mount are plated brass, a softer metal, and the bayonet on the lens gets quite thin. I have carried big lenses attached to a monopod over my should for for more than 35 years. I also inspect the attachements (anything can fail). At the front of the tripod foot on Canon lenses you can attach a strap or use the attachment points on the side of the lens. The tripod collar is a solid attachment point.
p.1 #10 · Supporting big whites with a camera strap.
In the RF 400/2.8 and 600/4 manual, Canon issues a warning:
"Where the lens is mounted on a camera, make
sure to properly support the lens. If you hold only
the camera, the lens may fall off the camera and
cause a malfunction or injury.
OO Be sure to attach the included strap to the lens
when carrying a camera around with the lens
mounted on it. Using the strap for the camera may
allow the lens to fall off the camera and cause a
malfunction or injury."
It's very obvious that the lens has to be supported and not hung from the camera. Other manufacturers' similar lenses have similar warnings.
p.1 #14 · Supporting big whites with a camera strap.
Peak Design responded:
Lens bayonets are actually very strong and are designed to hold upwards of 200lbs.
I find it hard to believe the lens mount was designed to hold a 91kg lens. I suspect they are confusing force with weight, and really meant an 890N force, but their use of imperial units means you can’t really be sure. (Pound and pound-force are distinct, and lbf would unambiguously denote force, but lb is often written instead. The odd multiplier is because the imperial unit assumes gravity on a particular planet.) This corresponds to an acceleration of around 220m/s^2 for a 4kg lens. While we don’t swing lenses around to Mach 0.6 in 1s, the mount needs to withstand instantaneous shocks from, e.g., being in a vehicle going over a bump. And of course, many people will have seen pictures of rigs that have been dropped and the mount torn off – there’s your deceleration.
p.1 #15 · Supporting big whites with a camera strap.
Bacalhau wrote:
That said I use too a strap with QR on the lens collar foot - with additional plate, and have a small strap going from the lens lugs to the strap itself
What kind of strap do you use for the small strap going from the lens lugs to the strap itself? Can you show a photo?
p.1 #18 · Supporting big whites with a camera strap.
lighthound wrote:
Nope, I wouldn't hang any great white off a body with the strap attached to the body and not the lens itself. As Jim pointed out above, our lenses have lugs built into them for a reason. I only use the camera strap lugs with my 100-500 or lighter lenses.
Agree, though with my 100-500 I use an anchor attached to the foot of the collar and a single strap with a safety tethered to the camera body, whereas with my big white primes, I use straps attached to the lens lugs affixed to a larger harness system. Whether one chooses an Opteka, Black Rapid, a Cotton Carrier, or any of the myriad of lens/camera mount systems, it is prudent to figure out what works best for the user and type of shooting.
p.1 #19 · Supporting big whites with a camera strap.
I've shot for years with a 200mm f/1.8, 300mm f/2.8, and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS mounted on 5D & 1D bodies and only had a strap connected to the camera. I've never had any issues with the lens mount on the camera breaking or camera straps breaking. A lot of running around covering events and weddings as well as some portrait sessions, and I never had any issues or even worried about it.
I know those aren't the "big big whiltes", but they are still pretty heavy lenses at 2500-3000 grams. In the big big white territory with the 400mm+ primes, I could see that being a worry.
p.1 #20 · Supporting big whites with a camera strap.
scott_scheetz wrote:
I've shot for years with a 200mm f/1.8, 300mm f/2.8, and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 OS mounted on 5D & 1D bodies and only had a strap connected to the camera. I've never had any issues with the lens mount on the camera breaking or camera straps breaking. A lot of running around covering events and weddings as well as some portrait sessions, and I never had any issues or even worried about it.
I know those aren't the "big big whiltes", but they are still pretty heavy lenses at 2500-3000 grams. In the big big white territory with the 400mm+ primes, I could see that being a worry....Show more →
The RF400 2.8 and 600 4 are 3kg (and the EF 400 and 600 V3). The 500 f4 IS L II is 3.2kg.
So, depending on your perspective, I think it's fair to say your lenses are as heavy as big whites, or close enough.
The earlier versions of the big whites get to over 6kg and for those, maybe a little extra consideration of their weight would be wise.
