Vello tripod collar Nikon 70-200 f4

I just bought one of the Vello tripod collars for my Nikon 70-200mm f4 lens. While it seems well built I have noticed a lot more flex or rocking of the lens if I put downward or upward pressure on my camera compared to when I just mount the camera directly onto the head. Is this typical for added on collars (that arent built-in like with my 80-200)? Other than that it seems to hold the lens securely when locked and I still like it for the convenience of switching between landscape and portrait orientation.

Putting pressure off-axis will cause more flexing, and tripod collar feet are often a bit less robust than a camera plate (they usually have a cantilevered component).

 

That said, leverage is all. Are you saying that if you mount the lens on the head with the body attached and press on the body, you get more of a flex than if you mount the body to the head and press on the body, or if you mount the body to the head and press on the lens? The nearer the head is to the centre of gravity of the lens/camera combination, the less trouble it's likely to be. The body is less far from the lens collar than the far end of the lens is from the body, so I'd expect the worst case to be mounting the body on the head and wobbling the lens. Even if the tripod collar is a little less than robust, mechanical leverage gives the advantage to mounting the lens to the head. Plus it'll put a lot less pressure on the lens mount (although the 70-200 f/4 isn't as chubby as an 80-200 - the mk1 version of which didn't come with a collar, and so I use it as guidance for the upper limit of what I'll hang off the mount).

 

Summary: If you poke the camera, your most solid arrangement will probably be the most direct connection between the tripod and the body. If you poke the lens, the most solid arrangement really should be having the lens mounted on the tripod. For vibration, it's the whole system that matters, so mounting the lens is usually better.

 

For what it's worth, I've never met a tripod head that's absolutely rock solid with even a moderate lens hanging off the front of the body, and I've played with several (including, say, the Arca Z series). There's just a lot of weight hanging off a relatively thin bit of metal, and something will always flex slightly. Don't get me wrong, it is slightly with a decent head, but it's not "no movement at all". I've never had the chance to play with a Burzynski, which seems to have a substantially thicker post than the average tripod head, and might be somewhat better. When I care about precise aiming I tend to use a gear head (Arca d4 in my case), not because it's more stable but because it's already taking the weight of the lens at the point I adjust it - so it's "pre-sagged", if you like.

The movement you describe is not typical of a good tripod collar. I use collars from Kirk for my Nikon 70-200mm f/4 AFS and my 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AFS. Properly mounted (balanced) on an A-S head, they don't move. It helps that the Kirk supports the lens at two different points.

 

You might want to see the comments by Bjørn Rørslett here. Bjørn has even used a discarded asthma inhaler to give a poor collar some added support.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Hector Javkin

Thanks Andrew. The way you described it makes a lot of sense. What happens is when I mount the lens on the head (using the Vello collar), there is more "play" or flexing up and down than when I just attach the body directly to the head, where there is virtually none. It's not wobbly, but it does move more if I push the camera up or down. Of course, I wouldn't be doing that when taking a shot, at least I hope not. But I guess I was just expecting it would be more solid using the collar than without. And it still may help minimize vibrations because of where the mount is positioned compared to mounting the camera directly to the head. I mainly got it for adjusting orientation without having to remount the camera, and of course it serves that purpose. It also raises the camera just a bit higher which doesn't hurt. I'll probably just keep it unless someone says the Nikon brand collar is absolutely rock solid, then it might be worth the extra price.

The movement you describe is not typical of a good tripod collar. I use collars from Kirk for my Nikon 70-200mm f/4 AFS and my 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AFS. Properly mounted (balanced) on an A-S head, they don't move. It helps that the Kirk supports the lens at two different points.

 

You might want to see the comments by Bjørn Rørslett here. Bjørn has even used a discarded asthma inhaler to give a poor collar some added support.

 

Thanks Hector. I'll check that link out.

Yes, if the lens is balanced it shouldn't be moving significantly when locked. My experience with "saggy balls" was an explicit test to see whether a Z1 was better able to keep my D800 with a 150mm Sigma dangling off the front pointing at a target as it was locked down, compared with a cheap Triopo. The answer was... not much - and also Arca quick-release flip clamps have shredded my nails on two occasions, which makes me dislike them. But that was a deliberately unbalanced configuration. My concern in my test scenario had as much to do with flex in the tripod legs and the neck of the tripod head as anything to do with the attachment mechanism, and certainly the ball wasn't slipping. (This forum is always tricky when it comes to technical descriptions...)

 

Rotating the lens in the mount is certainly more convenient. I do have an L plate on my camera for short lenses, but there's no doubt it's more awkward than the longer lens situation (and the workarounds are large).

 

Almost every collar I've seen (excluding 1200mm+ lenses) depends on a relatively thin, single point of contact with the lens, so a little flex is to be expected. If you're getting a lot, that's another matter - it's possible that a third-party foot is made to be even more flimsy than Nikon's have been. I'd certainly check whether the lens is locked down properly, especially after Shun's reports on the Nikon forum of his 200-500 dropping out of its collar. I'm sure the long lens supports from Kirk and RRS are better, although they're a bit expensive and unwieldy. I quite like the Haoge bracket that attaches to both the lens foot and the camera, to brace the bottom of the two, but they disappeared from the site from which I was going to buy one. The best rigidity comes from either running two tripods, or having a bar running down to the tripod leg and connecting to the camera (Manfrotto do one) - but in those cases, the problem is you can't actually aim the camera once it's set up...

 

If you're not asthmatic, an old APS film container may help, wedged into the foot. :-) Best of luck!

I just bought one of the Vello tripod collars for my Nikon 70-200mm f4 lens. While it seems well built I have noticed a lot more flex or rocking of the lens if I put downward or upward pressure on my camera compared to when I just mount the camera directly onto the head. Is this typical for added on collars (that arent built-in like with my 80-200)? Other than that it seems to hold the lens securely when locked and I still like it for the convenience of switching between landscape and portrait orientation.

 

Well, I feel kind of foolish now but I think I found the source of the problem and it was in the lens plate I was using. I was using a short generic Kirk plate that had came with my old BH3 head until I got a new one. I just received a longer Sunwayphoto plate that fits the tripod mount fully and it now seems to be much more solid. I didn't think that the plate would cause that much of an issue but I guess it does. Thanks everyone who took the time to respond to my initial concern.

A lens collar will never be as stiff as the baseplate of the camera, but its purpose is to balance the load and take weight from the lens mount. There will always be spring-back when you point the camera, which can make a 300 mm lens hard to point accurately. There shouldn't be any wobble, however, like the OEM collar on the otherwise excellent Nikon AFS 300/4. That problem went away with an RRS replacement collar, but spring-back remains.

 

The most convenient solution is to use a fluid head, cantilever head, or something like the Arca "Cube," with which you point the head, not the camera.

Mike a few other things:

• The collar holds the lens with a 3/4 inch band. So not a really good grip on the lens, especially with a heavy body.
   
  
• There is probably a bit of fabric inside the band, to provide friction and grip onto the lens. When/as it wears, you will get a looser grip on the lens.
  
• In ANY setup, the further the place where you press, from the mount, the more flex you will get. This is simply a mater of leverage. On a good system, you could be flexing the LEGS of the tripod when you press on the camera.
   
  
• If your AS clamp is a flip clamp, those are more fussy about fit to the plate/rail than the screw clamps, which you simply screw down till tight. Some flip clamps have an adjustment that you have to make to make them fit and clamp tight.