Has the 300/4 AF-S tripod bracket improved yet ?

<p>Just got brand new Nikkor 300/4 AF-S lens, and the tripod mount seems to be the same looking as the old one that was criticized badly. </p>

<p>However, the current bracket is no longer made of thin metal sheet. Someone in other post expressed opinion that the tripod mount was improved over the bad version. <br>

<br>

Anyone can comment of the latest lens bracket?</p>

<p>Nothing will beat the dual point support bracket like Burzynski and Kirk.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/555384-REG/Kirk_NC_300_NC_300_Replacement_Lens_Collar.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/555384-REG/Kirk_NC_300_NC_300_Replacement_Lens_Collar.html</a><br>

</p>

<p>I never heard that the collar was made of sheet metal . <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_tele.html">Bjørn Rørslett said that the newer casting was somewhat improved</a>, which indicates that both versions are cast, but the better one is still not adequate. He suggests returning the lens to Nikon with a complaint about the collar as a warranty issue.</p>

<p>I use the Kirk collar.</p>

<p>I bought the Kirk collar for my 300 f/4 (old mount) and have never looked back. The fact that it is also Acra Swiss compatible was the cherry on top. Combined with a 1.4 or 1.7 TC the focal length necessitates a steady platform (what's up with no VR Nikon?!?!) so the investment you make in the Kirk will be well rewarded.</p>

<p>The original looks the same as ever. I recommend (and use) the Burzynski collar available from <a href="http://www.isarfoto.de">www.isarfoto.de</a>. It takes much less space than the RRS and Kirk collars do and unlike them, the Burzynski collar doesn't in any way interfere with hand-holding the lens. You don't have to rotate it to the other side or take it off.</p>

<p>The original collars are designed to dampen blows when using the lens on a monopod. When you move the pod and put it back down, it is difficult to avoid these kinds of impacts, and experience has led Nikon to take precautions to minimize damage to the lens. That's where the flexible collar comes in. This can be a problem when working with slow shutter speeds on tripod - I got the Burzynski collar as I sometimes use the 300mm to do close-ups of ice in the winter and for that it is really needed.</p>

<p>I bought mine new 2 years ago, and it's not a very good collar, so if mine has the fix, it's not good enough.<br>

Since I do not work on a tripod that much, I did not (yet) want to spend the extra for a replacement collar; I have a plastic cork slammed between the lens and the collar. It works reasonably well as an ultra-cheap solution.</p>

<p>Thank you for your opinions.<br>

My lens appears to be very sharp. I will certainly enjoy it.<br>

I will get one of the 2 pro collars. Not sure which one yet.<br>

If Burzynski is easier for hand handled shots, this would be a plus, but it is a close call.</p>

<p>I think you deserve to know my reasoning for the selection...</p>

<p>Looking at RRS, Burzynski, and Kirk, for me Kirk would be the best.</p>

<p>RRS would be good to go with additional compatible equipment from RRS,and that is additional cost. The RRS bracket alone is not an option.</p>

<p>The Burzynski is small and close to the lens, but the single point touch of the front screw or nut, seems less firm than fully developed Kirk's front brace part. </p>

<p>If I am getting a collar to make significant improvement over the original, I would go for the best support, and the Kirk would behaps be the best, even though less convenient for hand hand shots. Purchase of expensive bracket is to use it on a tripod/monopod. For hand hald shooting I do not need to purchase a bracket at all.</p>

<p>So, the best for me is Kirk<br>

Thanks,<br>

Frank</p>