Nikon 500mm/f5.6 PF Tripod Foot

As a matter of fact, the RRS LCF-21 I bought from RRS for my Z 70-200 S lens does not seem to have a perfect fit. There is a give between the lens and the foot and I would just have to tolerate it.

Oops, just checked, I actually have the Kirk version. I need to check out the RRS version instead.

Will be trying out the Kirk version.

Funny I just ordered the Kirk before I posted this message, then I checked the lens and realized that it has the Kirk foot on it; so I had to cancel the Kirk order. I should be trying the RRS version instead.

Funny I just ordered the Kirk before I posted this message, then I checked the lens and realized that it has the Kirk foot on it; so I had to cancel the Kirk order. I should be trying the RRS version instead.

So I questioned the loose replacement-foot when cancelling my Kirk order. I received a quick response from Jeff Kirk. It turns out that the problem lies in the lens, not the replacement foot - see illustration below (from Kirk).

Again, I am glad I participated in this Photo.Net conversation and ended with a solution to a I problem that I would probably tolerate unncessarily.

Bit of a Left Field idea....:cool:

For those that regularly remove the foot, don't you find the sharp and angular lump of the remaining 'ankle' a pain?

How about a flat blanking plate, that's flush with the collar, and fits with the 4 small JIS screws?

Anyone know if the collar locking knob can come right out?

If so, then that could be replaced by a very low profile version or even a grub screw.

Anyone know if the collar locking knob can come right out?

Not on this Kirk foot, and I am glad it does not because the last thing I need is for it to fall off somewhere on a trip and cannot be found.

How about a flat blanking plate, that's flush with the collar, and fits with the 4 small JIS screws? ... If so, then that could be replaced by a very low profile version or even a grub screw.

Don't think this is a good idea because the current foot's design with a space between the lens and foot makes it hand-holdable when it is not on the tripod. It acts as a convenient handle.

Don't think this is a good idea because the current foot's design with a space between the lens and foot makes it hand-holdable when it is not on the tripod. It acts as a convenient handle.

So why do Nikon make it removable?

Not on this Kirk foot,

Emphasis on Collar Locking Knob.... ie not Foot Locking Knob.

So why do Nikon make it removable?

For people like you? :D

PS Making it removable is a great convenience to 3rd party replacement foot designers such as Kirk and RRS and others in the fitting and testing process.

If you mean the flat piece that is screwed down by 4 Philip Head screws

No!

The HUGE knob that stops the whole collar rotating.

Emphasis on Collar Locking Knob.... ie not Foot Locking Knob.

If you mean the flat piece that is screwed down by 4 Philip Head screws, it looks like it can be removed. Hwvr, I have no interest in removing it and the #0 screwdriver has yet to arrive from Amazon.

Philip Head screws,

AFAIK, Nikon doesn't use Philips head screws. They use the rather antiquated JIS system....

PS Making it removable is a great convenience to 3rd party replacement foot designers such as Kirk and RRS and others in the fitting and testing process.

When did Nikon make it easier for anyone else?

The HUGE knob that stops the whole collar rotating.

Confused. That's what I initially thought you meant, then you mentioned something else. No, the knob does not come off; and I am glad it doesn't because it may come loose and fall off. In the old days, the RRS knob on the clamp could come loose and I did lose it. I have been wary since.

When did Nikon make it easier for anyone else?

Rhetorical. o_O

So why do Nikon make it removable?

Some of us prefer not having the foot attached when working hand-held. I personally find the foot very annoying when hand-holding especially when switching between horizontal and vertical orientations. However, others are used to resting the lens by placing the foot in their palm.

I think carrying or dangling the lens from the foot is unwise and can lead to dropping the lens either by the connection between foot and lens being loosened or the connection between foot and strap. I've heard multiple stories of both events occurring, with substantial damage to the camera body. Not to mention how easy it is to it something accidentally with it when it is not being watched.

I must be in the minority as I quite like the foot design of the 500 PF and 70-200 FL. Gone are the vibrations which were prolific when using the previous version 70-200/2.8 G II on tripod (especially when using a TC on the lens). The newer Z 70-200/2.8 S foot I have not yet seen. For dangling the lens from the foot, if it must be done, I guess a third party solution where the foot is screwed onto the lens barrel would be a good choice.

Some of us prefer not having the foot attached when working hand-held. I personally find the foot very annoying when hand-holding especially when switching between horizontal and vertical orientations. However, others are used to resting the lens by placing the foot in their palm.

True. I'd take the foot off, too, when the lens is intended to be handheld all the time.

I think carrying or dangling the lens from the foot is unwise and can lead to dropping the lens either by the connection between foot and lens being loosened or the connection between foot and strap. I've heard multiple stories of both events occurring, with substantial damage to the camera body. Not to mention how easy it is to it something accidentally with it when it is not being watched.

Right again. In fact this happened to me on a 70-200mm in the past. I have been extra careful since when I do handle it by the foot.

I must be in the minority as I quite like the foot design of the 500 PF and 70-200 FL. Gone are the vibrations which were prolific when using the previous version 70-200/2.8 G II on tripod (especially when using a TC on the lens). The newer Z 70-200/2.8 S foot I have not yet seen. For dangling the lens from the foot, if it must be done, I guess a third party solution where the foot is screwed onto the lens barrel would be a good choice.

I don't see a problem with the Nikon design and I believe most people replace it only for compatibility with the Arca Swiss style tripod clamp; at least that's the reason for me. I do remember that in the past, with the 80-400 lens and a few others, the 3rd party also provided additionally support. In fact, Kirk has something that provides additional support for the 70-200 S version now, but I don't see the need for it so far even with the TC mounted in my casual test shoots.

For dangling the lens from the foot, if it must be done, I guess a third party solution where the foot is screwed onto the lens barrel would be a good choice.

Agree. May be that's why Nikon provides that small removable flat plate fastened to the lens?

So I questioned the loose replacement-foot when cancelling my Kirk order. I received a quick response from Jeff Kirk. It turns out that the problem lies in the lens, not the replacement foot - see illustration below (from Kirk).

Just an update: The #0 Philip screwdrivers arrived and the Nikon base plate is tightened. All fixed. Funny they sent 3: #0, #00, and #000, slightly of a different size each but they all fit. So I apologized to Kirk for thinking the problem was their replacement foot. I always like their products, especially because they are typically a little lighter than that of RRS.