NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Matthew Currie on March 25, 2016, 23:06:36
-
I was looking at my Nikkor 200-500 5.6 zoom, which as many know has a standard threaded tripod foot, and it looks rather as if one could mill the existing foot to fit an Arca Swiss type tripod mount (at least the older screw types I have), without compromising it much. It's rather a daunting thing to undertake, and of course you can always just put a tripod pad on it, but it occurred to me to ask if anyone here has tried it, and if so, how it worked.
-
I would not recommend this. The foot is barely acceptable as is.
-
Yes, it seems that the foot is a bit too thin for that. I think it is easier to just buy a replacement collar which already has the ARCA Swiss dovetail.
-
Many years ago, I milled the tripod foot of the 600/4 AIS to make a dovetail for Arca-Swiss clamps. However, that lens had a massive foot entirely unlike the modern long lenses.
-
I would not recommend this. The foot is barely acceptable as is.
I sort of suspected this, but the width is so close it's tempting.
-
Heeding the sage advice of the experts, I decided not to mess with it, and instead made a custom tripod pad.
My goal in all this has been to be able to leave a tripod pad on, and still to be able to attach the lens to a monopod or other device without taking the pad off, and also to have something that served reasonably well as a hand holding handle, all without having to screw the pad on with gorilla force. So the upshot is a custom pad with the top milled to fit the lens foot, round corners, and a couple of threaded holes. I have an old fashioned metal shaper whose bits can be custom ground, making it very easy to cut the tapered groove for an Arca mount. The extra length makes it possible to balance nicely with the light D3200. The actual balance point is nearer to the front threaded hole.
-
Very nice work Matthew - well done.
-
3rd party ones might be pricey but they are probably your best choice :o :o :o
its good that you did not grind your tripod foot. the metal used on those thing can be brittle.
-
3rd party ones might be pricey but they are probably your best choice :o :o :o
its good that you did not grind your tripod foot. the metal used on those thing can be brittle.
You may be right, but making it was more fun, and got me the tapped screw hole that none of the third party pads seem to have in the right place.
-
mathew, Mongo actually suggested that there was enough "meat" on the existing 200-500 foot to machine the profile into it in a write-up he did on this lens some months ago. In the end, Mongo decided that it was quicker an easier to buy a small extension to screw on the bottom of the exiting food. However, that does not mean that it could not be done or should not be done - Mongo thinks it probably can. Whilst Mongo agrees with Bjorn about the 300 F4 AFS foot, he does not agree with Bjorn about the foot on the 200-500 mm. It is a more substantial/adequate (albeit, not perfect ) foot for this lens. It is, however, starting to push the boundaries when using it with the lens fully extended in some situations.
The only reservation is that the existing foot tappers narrower towards the front (and maybe the back - cannot remember). This would mean that possibly only the centre of the machined foot might be enough/useful to "grip" on the corresponding tripod mount. With a screwed on third party rail, you get the benefit of the useable profile for it whole length.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJKhgw9WGt0
another modification done on the 200-500's foot :o :o :o this time, to add a strap.
i agree with Mr. Mongo, after seeing this movie there might be just enough material there to machine. i have mixed experience with machining porous metals like zinc or more tough ones like magnesium so i will not dare to try it with the foot.
machining the tools and dies in my grandpa's watch repair shop can be scary as the alloys can sometimes be too brittle to machine. this is mostly true for cast metal in my experience. aluminum based alloys are a different thing. they can get stuck on the burrs because they are too soft.
-
Put the 200-500 on a really stable tripod and the inability of its tripod mount to hold the lens properly will be evident. From that observation follows immediately that any operation on the tripod foot that will weaken it further is not very wise.
-
http://www.kirkphoto.com/Lens_Collar_for_Nikon_200-500mm_AF-S_f_5.6E_ED_VR.html
hey guys, look at this :o :o :o
THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT 8)
kirk is not really expensive compared to RRS.
-
Still, the curious and potentially unstable slanted foot design?
-
kirk says:
" The LS-2 lens support is highly recommended to be used in conjunction with the NC-200-500 collar. This will decrease all lens drop and play when the rotation knob is loosened and allow for smoother, more precise movement. "
in short:
"give us some more money and we will sell you the attachment" :o :o :o
i think that this is a nice solution. i have a kirk L-plate and its nice.
(http://www.kirkphoto.com/images/NC-200-500_with_LS-2.jpg)
this is how the whole thing looks.
a long time ago, i fixed solutions like this by adding a small piece of wood under the lens and the arca plate as support. it is not pretty but it worked
-
Propping up the lens by jamming something in between the lens shell and the tripod foot is old news. When I tested the 300/4 AFS way back in prehistoric times, I used the canister of an asthma inhaler as this is always with me.
I am more curious as to why the makers continue to consider the slanted foot design desirable. This design is in my experience inherently unstable unless a lot of mass is added to it. About the only lenses with a slanted foot that behaves well on a tripod are 200-400 mm f/4 Nikkor ED (non-IF), 180-600 mm f/8 Nikkor ED, and the 360-1200 mm f/11 Nikkor ED. I own all three of them and provided they are put on a really stable tripod, their slanted feet, massive on all of them, supports the lens well.
The 200/4 AF Micro-Nikkor also has a slanted design, however the foot in this case is very short and massive all the way.
-
the cantilever foot is the best option at the moment because the attachment point is closest to the mount which is the strongest point in both the lens and the body (don't take my word for it).
a really good solution is to buy one of those universal mounts. a chinese company made one some time ago and it is very good. it is low, inexpensive and customizable to fit a lot of long lenses. i have learned a lot and buying universal mounts is the way to go because it save you money in the long run :o :o :o
-
An inherently wobbling design is not "best".
-
at the moment, it cant be helped :o :o :o
(https://www.huntsphotoandvideo.com/images/Kirk/zoom/NCP80.jpg)
the one that i saw looked something like this but the front collar is sliding to accommodate length change. i was not interested in it so i did not take note. if i was into long lenses, i would probably get one. ::)
-
Ah, the "cradle" support. All the rage about 30-35 years ago when my interest into nature photography deepened. Quickly found their drawbacks outweighted the possible benefits so stopped using such contraptions many decades ago.
-
OK, thats what it called. the one i saw was well made. i regret not knowing the manufacturer. it might be Benro :o :o :o
-
short of making the modern day "feet" as robust and heavy as they were in some of the great older lens samples Bjorn has posted, it seems obvious that the mounting point of the foot to the lens has to be far less cantilevered and more central (weight-wise). Yes, there are little to no points on a lens nearer its belly which could support such an anchor point but, maybe lens housings could be designed with that in mind. The anchor point should of course, allow for good balance with a notional body of apprx. 800grams attached to the lens.
One useful factor is that lenses in general seem to be getting smaller and lighter. So, the need for all this potential redesigning of the "foot" should become less. Yet, here we are dissatisfied with some of the feet still being supplied with some modern lenses. You seem to get less of this problem with higher end lenses but not completely solved even there.
-
Mass in a lens is not necessarily bad. It is entirely possible to have a combination of long focal length and too low mass, as any user of a reflex mirror lens can attest.
-
Mass = inertia
Often a little more weight would make a product much more functional. The problem today is so many complain that camera equipment is too heavy. If that's what a maker hears that will guide the design.
Dave
---
[Now I'm thinking many tripod collars are designed for sports photographers over and above wild life photographers and others who will short as well as long exposure times. If only their were two models of tripod collar for a given lens.]
-
i think that this is a nice solution. i have a kirk L-plate and its nice.
Kirk Enterprises uses 6061-T6 aluminum alloy to make these products as do others who make Arca-Swiss style solutions. Do you know what Nikon uses to make their tripod collars?
Dave
I have a couple of close-up flash arms made by Kirk. I like their products.
-
Kirk Enterprises uses 6061-T6 aluminum alloy to make these products as do others who make Arca-Swiss style solutions. Do you know what Nikon uses to make their tripod collars?
Dave
All the genuine tripod collars of any brands appear to be die-cast.
-
yes, as mentioned by mr Akira, it is cast alloy. i am very wary of milling cast alloy (from experience fixing my grandpa's watch repair tools) because they can be either too brittle or too soft. depending on the alloy. :o :o :o
-
That's what I was thinking but I don't know that much about it.
Dave
-
Well, I'm glad I chickened out and decided just to make a dedicated pad, even though as it happens I had to do it a second time. I have a little Sirui tripod that I used to double check the fit, and the pad I made fit it perfectly, but when I went and tried it on the Kirk head it was about a millimeter too loose. Second time is the charm. Measure once, cut twice, isn't that how the old saying goes? 8)
-
I think the essential problem with the current tripod collar is that the ring of the collar is generally too narrow, which leads to the flimsy design of the foot.
-
All the genuine tripod collars of any brands appear to be die-cast.
I have also been searching for Arca-Swiss solution for my Nikkor 300 f2.8G VRII and found this, which works very well:
http://www.jobu-design.com/Replacement-Foot-for-Nikon-FL-lenses_p_140.html
These are machined from high quality 6061-T6 aluminum i.e. not a casting. It uses the original capscrews factory fitted by Nikon, but I have now fixed mine on with Loctite.
On a more general observation is that the original tripod collars on telep[hotos are often the achilles heel. It seems some of the Nikkor zoom telephotos require a more supportive and tighter tripod collar first and foremost, and then fit this Arca-Swiss integral foot or rather try and find a better designed 3rd party collar with integral Arca-Swiss foot.... In each case, the solution is lens-specific, and challenging where the tripod collar cannot be detached.
On an allied note, I finally executed the final solution on the piss-awful tripod collar/foot of my 70-180 Micro-Nikkor using a TY-60 Sirui Arca-Swiss plate (measures 60 x 49 mm). It is now permanently locked in with epoxy resin supporting 2 by 3mm stainless steel capscrews countersunk up through the tripod collar neck, and tapped 1mm shy of the lens body. This is a delicate operation and requires firm support and careful measurements - Rechecked! Then I drilled and tapped the new holes with a dremel on a strong, firmly mounted drill press. The Sirui plate is now secured very firmly at 3 points (2 x 3mm capscrews and 1 x 1/4" tripod bolt) locked down with epoxy and torqued as tight as I dared using my Allenkey sockets on 1/4" wrench.... This plan was inspired by Bjorn's wise advice earlier in 2016.
This thread: http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3328.0.html