Replacement collar for AF VR Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8.

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by alex_lofquist, Dec 28, 2005.

  1. I am considering the Kirk LP 45 collar at $75 and the RRS LCF 10 at
    $100. Does anyone have experience with either of these compared to
    the collar supplied with the lens?
     
  2. I have the RRS LCF-10 on my 70-200. As with all RRS products, it is well-designed, beautifully finished, does what is supposed to do, and is an improvement over Nikon's mount. And if you use (or plan to use in the future) the RRS flash bracket, the LCF-10 has the advantage of accepting the bracket without any additional hardware.
     
  3. Anything by Kirk = money well spent.
     
  4. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    It is not really a replacement collar, which is not removable on the 70-200 VR. Intead, it is a replacement collar "foot" integrated into an Arca-Swiss type quick release (QR) plate. I have the RRS version and I am happy with it, but all Kirk and RRS QR plates are expensive.
     
  5. The collar on Nikkor 70-200 / 2.8 VR is good and you do not need replacement. Even if it was posisble to remove it, which is not, why would you want to ruin the good thing.

    The tripod shoe is a bit tiny for the size of the lens, but it holds firm on a good tripod.

    If you are getting unsatisfactory reslults with original collar, the reason may be somewhere else?

    In my experience the original lens and collar/shoe, when on sturdy tripod, brings very sharp pictures, and I do not see need to improve it. But my quality threshold may be lower than yours.
     
  6. Frank,

    The RRS foot allows you to use an Arca-Swiss QR clamp. I suppose you could screw an RRS plate to the existing foot, but the RRS version is less bulky, and is machined rather than cast for precision. Hardly "ruining a good thing" IMO.
     
  7. Edward, I was talking about the collar. If you remove the non-removeable collar, you would most likely ruin the lens.

    So, replacing only the foot does not bring much gain in stability or firmness of the mount.

    The taller Kirk foot may only be necessary to fit the lens on some Arca Swiss, or other ball heads that may require more space for mounting or adjusting. Otherwise the foot is not necessary as the original foot works great with Manfrotto, or other ball heads that do not require extra space between the lens barrel and the tripod head.
     
  8. The collar is non-removable. Replacing it would be asking for trouble.

    However, if you replace the foot with something that has a dovetail built in, obviously that adds to the stability of the rig because you avoid one connector interface - the one between the foot and the quick-release plate. This is a practical thing and helps a lot in the field.
     
  9. I have the Kirk LP-45 foot. Build quality is fine, similar to the Nikon but with a better (easier to grip and tighten) knob. The dovetail is integrated, so it does indeed save both weight and bulk compared to the Nikon-supplied foot, and as mentioned above also saves one connecting point.

    I didn't consider the RRS version, but am quite satisfied with the Kirk. While I didn't think the Nikon foot was bad at all on this lens, the integrated dovetail and superior knob of the Kirk is certainly worth the $75 bill to me.
     

Share This Page