EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM tripod collar

<p>Does anyone know the diameter of the tripod mounting area on this lens? I have a number of collars from my FD mount Telephotos and wondered if one might fit.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>I wanted to buy one, but it is not available with B&H. Where can I find this?</p>

<p>From The Digital Picture:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Tripod-Mount-Ring-A-II-Review.aspx">Canon Tripod Mount Ring A II (W)</a> (or the prior non-II A version), although relatively expensive, can be purchased as an accessory.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know this doesn't give the size, but might help you decide if an old ring will work.</p><div></div>

<p>The diameter is 65.3mm and the width is 18mm.</p>

<p>If I understand your question correctly, the Canon Tripod Mount Ring A (W)'s tripod footprint (where it contacts or is supported by the mounting surface) measures approximately 45mm long by 39mm wide (1755 square millimetres).</p>

<p>Thanks Robin Looks like we have a Winner the collar for my 400mm f4.5 nFD is the same diameter.</p>

<p>Sorry Peter I was looking for the Mount ring to lens fit dimensions. I can see looking at my question how it could have been interpreted as you did.</p>

<p>Congratulations on acquiring an EF 70-200/4 IS L, Mark. I think you will find its IQ to be comparable to the FD 80-200/4 L, and it's handholdable to ridiculously slow shutter speeds. I've obtained usable images from it handheld at 200mm and 1/15s!</p>

<p>As for the tripod collar, I do know that (apart from the colour difference), the collar for the EF 70-200/4, 200/2.8, and 300/4 are interchangeable. (Oh, I see that you've already solved the problem).</p>

<p>Actually Mark I haven't made any EF mount purchases. I'm still in the research stage.<br>

But after reading 4 detailed reviews on this lens it's clear its going to be the EF mount replacement for my 80-200mm f4.0L nFD and since I'm leaning very heavily towards going with a 1.6X system (since fixing the wide angle is so much cheaper then fixing the Telephoto end of FF). And this lens becomes a 112-320 on a 1.6X body I figure a tripod collar would be a must.<br>

And based on thier costs I see no reason to buy a white one when the balck one will fit.<br>

It does however lean on the decission on which of my two long FD lenses to keep the 400 f4.5 nFD or the 500mm f4.5L S.S.C.<br>

Oh crap I now read your post again and realise since the other lens I'm certain of is the 300mm f4.0L IS USM I guess I'd have a white collar for it LOL.</p>

<p>Wonder if the 400mm f4.5 nFD just got scared a little?</p>

<p>Mark (W), I can recommend the 70~200/4L IS unreservedly. It is a brilliant lens on either FF or 1.6-factor, and I find it light enough to form part of my routine carry-round kit. Unusually for a zoom lens, it works really well with the Extender 1.4x, and whilst 280/5.6 is not in general a substitute for 300/4 it's very handy to have that much reach available when you don't want to carry the big lens – and of course on a 1.6-factor body the angle of view is eqivalent to 392mm on FF. Don't underestimate the effectiveness of IS in making it readily useable hand-held – that's even true with the Extender 1.4× on a 1.6-factor body. Nevertheless, I agree with you that it's nice to have a tripod ring. For travel, I use a very ligtweight tripod (Gitzo GT1541T), and the secret of getting the most out of that is to ensure that the load is not off-centre.</p>

<p>Just a reminder that the tripod ring that comes with the 300/4L IS is the B(W) puzzle-type (although it may not be labelled as such) and this is a quite different fitting from the Type A ring needed for the 70~200/4L (either IS or non-IS). The 300/4L non-IS used the Type A ring. If at any point you bought the non-L non-IS 100/2.8USM macro, then you could use with it the tripod ring that comes with the 300/4L IS, but you would need the plastic spacer, not a retail item but available as a spare part.</p>

<p>At the UWA end of the spctrum, let me also recommend the EF-S 10~22 very strongly. It probably gives better image quality across a 1.6-factor frame than the 17~40 does on FF, and now that there are 1.6-factor sensors (on the 50D, 7D, and 550D/T2i) that can really exploit it, you have a lens+sensor combination that is at least very competitive with the 17~40 on a FF body, and better in some respects.</p>

<p>Mark I am a big fan of the 70-200 F4 IS. I have both the F4 IS and the 70-200 F2.8 non IS. Except for sports use I find the F4 the much more versatile lens due to its much lower weight and lack of bulk. From F4 onwards there is no noticible IQ difference between the two lenses. Like you I come from the FD world (although I have shot EOS for many years) but shoot EOS digital. While crop bodies are useful I find the viewfinders quite small and dark. My 7D is supposed to have the biggest and brightest of any AF-S body but it is smaller and darker than my 5DII and a lot smaller and darker than my "New F1s". I find that with the EOS digital system the 300 F4 can replace my FD 300 F2.8 for most uses as the higher ISO capabilities of digital mean that I have a lot less need for F2.8. The 300 F4 IS is a great lens and I like it a lot. On the 7D it gives the performance of the FD 500 F4. I have not tried putting the 300 F4 tripod ring on the 70-200 F4 IS but will try it when I get home. I find that the 70-200 F4 IS is small enough that I just use the camera body on the tripod when I shoot in this way. With the 300F4 and the 70-200 F2.8 you will need the tripod mount as the lens is bigger and heavier.</p>

<p>Just checked and the 300 F4 IS has type B W which is the old stlye and thus hard to remove. It also seem to big for the 70-200 F4 IS and is very close in size to the type B M on my 70-200 F2.8 (non IS)</p>