70-200 f4 3rd party tripod collar, anyone using one?

<p>The 70-200 f4 or f4 IS is on my wish list, maybe Santa will get me one. I'd like to know if anyone is using 3rd party (made in China) tripod collars? On eBay there is a collar for every lens that uses one. It's hard to believe that a $25 collar is as good as Canon's. Am I wrong?</p>

You're right. My girlfriend has a Chinese collar for her 70-300, the quality of the collar is nowhere near that of the original

Canon or Sigma ones.

<p>I got one which was almost as good as Canon's, and then I got another for another lens which was definitely a step below....I had to line the inner ring of the collar for the fit I needed. If you're going to be a heavy user and really stress the collar, get the Canon. If you're only going to use it casually and infrequently, get the knock off.</p>

<p>Bite the bullet and get the genuine Canon version - there is NO comparison!</p>

<p>Mark,</p>

<p>I have a collar for sale, if you'd like one. I have the genuine Canon version for the 70-200 f4IS, but I never use it. Let me know if you're interested.</p>

<p>Will you really need and use the collar? If so, then get the Canon collar.</p>

<p>The EF 70-200mm f/4L IS is one of my main lenses and it's light that I don't think you need a collar at all. I do 99.9% of my shooting hand held and the other .1% I just attach the body/lens to the tripod using the quick release plate on the camera body.</p>

<p>It's a light lens.</p>

<p>Mark, I'm going to buck the trend to say I have a third party collar and find it every bit the equal of the Canon! I bought it second-hand from a highly reputable dealer over here in the UK, so unfortunately I can't direct you to the maker. Mine is well-made, the ring is lined (so it won't mark the lens), it fits well, it's a colour match. it's robust...and I paid more than $25 for it - but significantly less than I would have needed to spend to buy a similar item with the word "Canon" marked on it :-) <br>

Tony Buckwell</p>

<p>I had one from China that was total junque. I think some of them are better now. The Canon one is way overpriced but of course it is the best. Good luck!</p>

I have a $50 Vello tripod collar from B&H. Don't know if it's the equal of the Canon but it is fine for my needs. Sturdy, works,

appears to be a quality product, highly rated. For professional or heavy duty use, maybe you get the Canon, but I doubt

you'll need it.

I will chime in here and add that I too have a third party "cheapy". I've had one mounted on my 70-200 f4 IS for about 6

years (could be longer). Cost me the handsome sum of $12 at the time. I wouldn't be without it. As far as I'm concerned,

I wouldn't entertain the idea of not using one when also using a tripod. It provides such great balance and the ability to

quickly rotate the lens & camera body combination is, to me, very, very handy.

However! . . . I will caution this: I have absolutely no doubt that the Canon branded version is made better and probably

is made of a higher quality of metal alloys. One would assume so anyway. So in buying one of these third party

inexpensive ones, it is wise to put it through some reasonable testing to be sure that the alloys it is made from won't fall

apart at the first time of stressing it.

I would expand on this subject by pointing out that, for the 70-200 f4 lens, and all others that have one certain

characteristic about the lens body, it indeed, shouldn't be hard for them to make a cheap version. The characteristic I refer

to is the fact that, at the place on the lens body where the collar must wrap around and be tightened, the lens barrel at

that point must be perfectly parallel. This may sound like an obvious statement. I mention it because another lens that

Canon produces, the 100mm f2.8 macro, doesn't! For some very odd reason it would seem, that lens, at that point has a

slight taper to it, making the use of a collar, unless specifically designed for it, pretty well impossible to use when sourced

from one of these cheap brands, Be aware, for that lens, you are more or less stuck with paying the high price from

Canon in order to get one that works properly. The newer 100mm f2.8 IS version doesn't suffer from that hideous design,

and I would assume that the inexpensive ones being offered for it from China probably work quite well, the same stress

tests being suggested.

D.

<p>I wonder if you really need a collar on the f/4 lens. I've had two of those lenses, and I never felt that I needed it.</p>

<p>dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder if you really need a collar on the f/4 lens. I've had two of those lenses, and I never felt that I needed it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I already said it earlier in the thread, but Dan said it better and I agree with Dan.</p>

I think the key word here, Dan, is "need".

As I said, Personally, I wouldn't consider not using it. The balance of the lens/camera body on a tripod is far easier to deal

with IMO, and the ability to rotate the camera around the lens axis is very handy. Absolutely essential?, No.

Personally, I am not interested in using L-Brackets.

I suppose it's personal taste. I will admit that the extra weight it applies to the combination is undesirable.

Over the years this subject has popped up several times, and there would seem to be several opinions about it.

I've stated mine, and also a warning, or should I say, an advisory, that one should not necessarily take these third party

cheap collars at face value. An initial testing as to its strength is in order. Obviously the Canon is a better unit ( or should

be we assume ) however a "cheap" one has and continues to serve me very well.

D.

<p>Mark, I'll come back to "second" the opinion of the last three correspondents. The prime benefit of this lens is its comparative light weight and like Dan I previously used the f4 70-200 lens for several years without a collar with no problem whatsoever. Quite frankly I wouldn't have bothered with a collar (particularly considering the price of the Canon unit!) unless I'd been offered the one I now have which represented good build quality at a reasonable price. The collar does offer better balance of lens and body, but I have to say I only find this of any real advantage when using a monopod or for close up work on a tripod (with an extension tube). <br>

Tony Buckwell</p>