Milling the 200-500 tripod foot

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[richardHaw]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

An inherently wobbling design is not "best".

[richardHaw]

at the moment, it cant be helped



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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[richardHaw]

OK, thats what it called. the one i saw was well made. i regret not knowing the manufacturer. it might be Benro

[Mongo]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[David H. Hartman]

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.]

[David H. Hartman]

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.

[Akira]

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.

[richardHaw]

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.

[David H. Hartman]

That's what I was thinking but I don't know that much about it.

Dave

[Matthew Currie]

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?   

[Akira]

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.