Jump to content

70-200 F4 tripod collar


dangoldman

Recommended Posts

Im curious to know if there are any 3rd party tripod collars out there for the

70-200, i dont like the idea of spending 120$ for it. Also, how bad is it to

use the camera's tripod mount so long as i still support the lense? Should i

not use a tripod at all with a lense this short under most conditions?

 

thanks in advance for any help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p> It could be a marketing gimmick but I guess that Canon "thinks" you don't have to use a tripod collar on light lenses (e.g. under 1 Kg). I agree. I had the 70-200/4 and 200/2.8. Both have the about same length and weight and both come without a tripod collar. When the camera is attached to my <a href="http://www.adorama.com/BG682B.html?searchinfo=bogen%20682&item_no=2">Bogen 682 self standing monopod</a> it balances nicely without problems. </p>

<p>On longer and heavier lenses (e.g. 300/4 IS) things change dramatically and the weight distribution is much better with the (supplied...) tripod collar.</p>

 

 

 

<p>HTH.</p>

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are concerned about the lens being too heavy for the lens mount (on <i>any</i> Canon body), don't be. Whether the camera's mount is plastic or metal, they can all support the lens.<P>With the 70-200/4L, the tripod collar is most useful for quickly switching between tripod-mounted horizontal and vertical shooting.<P>How about a cheaper (by $30 or $40) <i>Canon</i> alternative? The Canon tripod rings A(W) and A(B) are absolutely identical in every way except for color and price. Ignore any BS advertising claims that the A(B) "works ONLY with the EF 200mm f/2.8L "II" lens".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bought the black tripod collar which is meant for the 200 mm/f2.8 but fits just fine on my 70-200 f/4 and is cheaper than the white one. I found it made a huge improvement, but then I did not have the sturdiest of tripods and ballhead (Velbon 343E--camera is 20D). Now I have a much better tripod and ballhead (Kirk BH-3) and I tend to agree with other folks comments, that you may not need it. So in my opinion, it depends on how good a ballhead you have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My neighbor, a commercial photographer, uses a tripod for his main lens, the Canon f/2.8 70-200mm IS, whenever possible, and otherwise relies on the IS. For him, every blown shot costs time and money, so its worth it to him. And he's working with a full-sized sensor.

 

So ultimately, you're the best person to answer your question: Do you find your keeper rate high enough at 200mm without support? If so, then you don't need it. Others might differ.

 

I'd like to have a collar with that long a lens on an APS sensor just in case, but like you $120 seems steep to me. There is a consolation -- I think its the same as the one on f/4 300mm L if you ever get one of those, and I think it comes as part of that lens' bundle. Now there -- I've given you an "objective" reason to get the 300mm, solving two problems with one move, at least according to my way of reckoning accounts :-)

 

One possibility is to look for a collar on eBay, although you might have to keep looking for several months to find one divorced from its lens.

 

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of good advice here -- hadn't heard about the Canon tripod rings before. But I do recall a real "handy" alternative I got from an old Pentax forum: Get a section of PVC pipe and cut "V"s in it to match your lens. Not nearly as elegant as tripod gear, but certainly solid and serviceable if you've got the gear to cut it. It could hold you over until you're able to see whether a full-blown tripod rig is what you want.

 

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After using my 70-200 F4 on a 350D for awhile, I bought a collar for it. The main

advantage is for shooting vertical, especially if you're not using a very robust ball head as

it eliminates creep and settling.

 

It was a nice add but isn't a critical piece of equipment. From a structural standpoint, it's a

non issue I think. The lens isn't very heavy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have added that my experience is based on using Arca type plates and clamps on

all my equipment. If you're using the standard tripod socket it may effect your experience

in that the camera / lens may want to twist when shooting vertical. This is where the collar

will help balance the rig, especially with a light body like the 350D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use the tripod collar all of the time in the field. As a nature photographer I hike or

backpack to my subjects, so I prefer to use as light a tripod as I can get away with to

lighten my pack weight; given my light tripod and my 350D body, I've found that the

tripod collar on the 70-200 f/4L to be invaluable. The weight of the collar is less than a

tripod of beefy-enough stature to obviate the need for a collar.

 

Clearly other circumstances often don't at all warrant a collar for a lens of this size. Just

wanted to share a circumstance where I found it pretty useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

There is a third party tripod collar for this lens on ebay (fits the 300 and some other lens also). Anyway, I would like a favour from some of you, if you don't mind. What is the diameter (if you have a caliper) or the circumference of this lens at the area you're suppose to mount the tripod collar? I may get the 3rd party one for "other" lens. I need measurements in mm.

 

Thanx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...