Great tripod collar for Nikkor 180 f/2.8?

[kenneth_logan]

I'm looking for a super-stable, heavy-duty yet moderately-priced

third-party tripod collar for my Nikkor 180 mm. f/2.8. This could be

very important for the serious concert-hall photography I'd like to

do, where I typically need shutter speeds of 1/50th to 1/80th

second, wide open aperture. I would be very appreciative of leads as

to brand/model/availability new and especially used (good to

excellent condition, appearance a secondary consideration).

[erik_loza]

What you're actually looking for is an 80-200mm lens, it sounds like. I believe

Burzynski makes a collar for the 180mm, but he has no dealer in the US market. Are

tripods permitted in such situations? if not, why not just stick with the 180mm and crank

the ISO up (or shoot faster film)?

[chris_leck]

The 180mm Nikkor doesn't have a collar (to the best of my knowledge). Is there an older version with a collar or do you want to add one? If you want to add a collar, why?

 

How do you use your tripod in the concert hall? Are you using an action head? Are you fairly far from the stage or do you go for close-ups with the 180?

 

I shoot music and dance myself -- usually handheld with midrange zooms and very close to the stage (my preference for a number of reasons). Occasionally I find myself further back. For this, I use a 70-200 VR. Lately I have incorporated a Wimberly sidekick for the 70-200, but don't have a lot of cockpit time with it yet.

 

I'm always curious as to what works for others.

[chris_leck]

Erik, in different performing venues, it's not uncommon to be under 1/100 sec. at f/2.8 and 1600 ISO. Fast primes can be helpful or necessary in low light, but I much prefer zooms for framing.

 

I have had permission (mandates?) to used a tripod in some cases, although I really prefer to shoot in close without tripod or monopod. I may revise that opinion somewhat after I get more experience with the Wimberly Sidekick. (The Sidekick requires a lens with collar and foot.)

[erik_loza]

Hmm.... It sounds like the 70-200mm VR would be ideal, then.

[loreneidahl]

The 180 does not have a collar.

 

However a member of my team modified his 180 by using something from Kirk. (had to have it custom machined after anyway I think) However I found it to be a total pain in the ASA due to the size of the lens vs benefit gained for the type of concert shooting that we do.

 

Typically we have to handhold our 70-200 2.8's when we are in the pit as no tripods are allowed during the types of gigs I shoot.

 

Our shutter speeds do go as low as you indicate however because our "subjects" are of the Rock Star type we seldom get non blurred images at the speed , so we try to get at least 1/125th by using higher iso and exp comp if needed. ( a blurred properly exposed image will not sell, a grainy image will - adds to the mood :) )

 

For shooting more slow moving concerts (piano recitals, speakers) I have used my 70-200 2.8 on a monopod with great results. While the 180 2.8 is sharper it is a fixed focal length which sometimes can limit you based on venue.

[loreneidahl]

The 70-200 is ideal - however it depends upon what motion you are trying to stop.

 

Subject motion or Camera motion. You may still need to crank up the ISO to get the action stopping shutter speed you need. ( assuming your subjects are active)

 

To stop some of my subject motion I need to go to 1/200th The VR does not help me here, however it does help in fixing my operator error issues.

[frank_skomial]

I use 85/1.4 in concert halls on DSLR with crop factor 1.5. No need for tripod, and flash not allowed. I use less of 70-200 VR, but it complements in many situations. Larger percentage of good pictures I get with 85/1.4 than with the 70-200 VR.

[yoni_perlmutter]

Isarfoto (Germany) has (or had) for sale a Burzynski lens collar for the

AFD 180/2.8.

 

There are lens collars for the AFD 105/2.8 M, the old push-pull AF 80-200/2.8

and collars for other lenses as well.

 

I've seen one Burzynski product in my life; it was of very high quality and it apparently did the job.

 

It seemed to me to be at least on par with Kirk or RRS products.

 

Hope this was useful.

[kelly_flanigan1]

So if you have a tripod, is the point to get the balance better with the collar than just using ones camera tripod socket?

[yoni_perlmutter]

Stability. Stability. Stability.

[ilkka_nissila]

Indeed, Burzynski makes one and I have their collar for the 300 mm f/4 AF-S which is excellent.

 

However, from a physics point of view the 180 mm can't effectively utilize a collar - the balance of the lens+camera combo would be around the bayonet which would mean that by introducing the collar, you actually de-stabilize the combination. The only advantage of the collar would be that you can perhaps easier use vertical orientation where the balance would be better.

 

So contact isarfoto if you want one. Obviously the 180 beats the crap out of the 70-200 in sharpness and contrast wide open if you use a tripod, while the 70-200 would be better if you can't use a tripod or if you need the zoom.

[kenneth_logan]

Q: How do you use your tripod in the concert hall? Are you using an action head? Are you fairly far from the stage or do you go for close-ups with the 180?

 

A: Iﾒve used a tripod in lots of different places in the hall. Often Iﾒm about 30 feet from the subject(s), sometimes approx. 10-20 feet. Common denominator: the need to stabilize a long, moderately-heavy lens.

 

Item: ﾅit's not uncommon to be under 1/100 sec. at f/2.8 and 1600 ISOﾅ

 

Response: Wow! I generally shoot 1/60th at f/2.8 and 250 ISO. I would hate to think what the noise on the D70 would be like at 1600 in this top-heavy, artificial light situation. Speed 1/60th second is very vibration-prone with a long lens.

 

Item: ﾅa member of my team modified his 180 by using something from Kirkﾅ

 

Response: Would love to know just what the Kirk product was.

 

Ilkka said: Indeed, Burzynski makes one and I have their collar for the 300 mm f/4 AF-S which is excellent.

ﾅfrom a physics point of view the 180 mm can't effectively utilize a collar - the balance of the lens+camera combo would be around the bayonet which would mean that by introducing the collar, you actually de-stabilize the combination.

 

Respose: Bjorn Rorslett (naturfotograf.com) shows apparently the same collar as Ilkka mentions, and mentions it as a potential long-term solution but does not comment specifically on how well it works. He seems to imply that it is a good one, else why would he have depicted it as a solution? (Elsewhere in this same article he strongly criticizes various other designs.) So, Ilkka, would you mind elaborating? You say that the 300 f/4 AF-S collar by Burzynski is excellent: What part of ﾓexcellentﾔ donﾒt I understand? (;--) Seriously, it looks to me in a picture as though the width of the collar is minimal, which makes me dubious. Iﾒd love to have my dubiosity definitively debunked.

 

Also, Ilkka, I donﾒt quite see how balance point being around the bayonet would produce destabilization, at least compared with this lens hanging off the front of a D70 which is mounted on a tripod. Would you elaborate for this physics-challenged photog?

 

Finally, my interim ﾓsolutionﾔ has been to cut a block of wood, with a rubber or rubber-like insertable top, and to jam that underneath the 180, between tripod top and lens bottom, pressing the lens somewhat upward and reducing its wobble. The wood block has a flat bottom, but somewhat wedged top, so that it can pushed into place with varying degrees of pressure exerted. Iﾒm not eager to stress the mount in camera or in lens, though. Testing is in processﾅ

[kenneth_logan]

My response immediately above has many question marks inserted where other characters had been. I had composed the original mostly in MSWord, then copied and pasted. So ignore many or most of the question marks.

[kelly_flanigan1]

If you are going to use a tripod anyway why not jsut use the camera's tripod socket? This is what I use with the 180mm F2.8 when taking long time exposures with the lens and camera piggybacked on a telescope used as a guide scope. For sports I just use the 180mm handheld; or use a tripod for stage stuff. Also one can just use a beanbag and rest the rig on the chair in front of you. The 180mm F2.8 has been used for along time by many without a makeshift tripod collar. Have you actuall shot any slow 1/50th to 1/80th second images using the cameras tripod like the rest of us do?

[kelly_flanigan1]

If you have a wimpy jello tripod then you can make a plate/block so the camera bolts to the plate, and a 1/4-20 screw bolts to the tripod thru the plate, at the CG/balance point of the rig. Some folks do this with makeshift movie camera-custom lens settups, to make panning easier, and lessen the chance of a tilt-over. Maybe I am missing soemthing about this question. I have used Nikon stuff since 1962.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Novoflex makes a "panning yoke" which is a great thing to go on and off tripood quickly, and use with a 180mm f2.8. I've used it with that, and a 135mm f2.0.

 

http://www.novoflex.com/english/html/fr_esz2.htm

 

It's just two lightly padded rods sticking up in a V from a pan base. Simple, but elegant. I wouldn't use it if I were shooting 3 second time exposures, but you're talking about trying to get a couple of stops boost in hand holding speed, and it's perfect for that.

[kenneth_logan]

Yes, Kelly, I'd estimate I've shot about 7,000 frames with this lens from 1/50th to 1/80th second in this hall on a tripod. Vibration generally is an issue with medium to long telephotos in this exposure-time range. I'm seeking far more consistent results (D70), and this goes far beyond issues of subject movement and slow shutter, I'm convinced.

[kelly_flanigan1]

If you have a camera shake issue, you might just have a poor too gummmy tripod pad. My ancient Tiltall tripod was like this, until I replaced it with a thin cork pad. With a 180mm F2.8 AIS ED lens; I am not sure what portion you would want to clamp. The chrome DOF ring only is held with 3 dinky trim screws. The large front lens block with the hood extended is alot more a robust area to grip, but this is well ahead of the CG of lens and body, but it might be better than using the camera's tripod socket. The CG combo is probably closer to the rubber focus ring, that rotates. If you have actual motion of your rig on a tripod, there should be some trend/data to the motion if due to shutter vibration. With engineering work I would place a #22 accelerometer, and do a transfer function of the rocking rig. In practice, maybe you could post an image showing the blur. In optics sometimes one photographs an artifical star, to check camera shake. This can be say a LED masked off at the equalvalent stage distance you shoot. Sometimes a shake like this can be reduced by just using a cable release and slow gentle firing.

[kelly_flanigan1]

If you clamp the rubber focus ring, the female helix thread is just below. If the clamp pressure is not uniform, the afitment of the thread may be tightend.

[kelly_flanigan1]

With a cantilevered heavy 180mm F2.8 on a tripod afixed camera, the first vibration mode is a rigid body. Here the rig is one solid slug, that rocks at the 1/4-20 bolt area, the instant center. The the micro motion blur should be vertical on the cameras image. You want a fine target that alerts X and Y motions. <BR><BR>To test your combo on its tripod, shoot a target At F2.8, vary the shutter speed. Adjust the light level to keep the f-stop the same. A repeated test might be tried say at F8 to F11, where the lens peaks somewhat. Dont vary to many things at once, you want to find your bogey with no added bias. <BR><BR>With a hand held test, or a flakey tripod situation, there will be scatter in the test results. Here once one finds the bogey you might want to try another tripod, or release method, or try the self timer as a control. <BR><BR>

[yoni_perlmutter]

I don't mean to widen this discussion to unusable dimensions but my

observations & experiences (with my equipment only, of course) lead

me to think that from 1/10 through 1/50 sec any lens larger than 105mm

will vibrate less with a more secure tripod mounting. This is what a lens

collar purportedly provides.

 

I had difficulty in getting good pics with the AFS 300/4 at this range of

shutter speeds. I got a Kirk collar, and while this fix was not

perfect, it greatly improved my pics at these shutter speeds by reducing

lens vibration.

 

All of this got me to thinking about my other longish

lenses; 105, 180, 80-200 - were these too also giving me degradaded

results at certain shutter speeds? The short answer is that these lenses

do produce diminished results in the shutter speed range from 1/15 to

1/60.

 

I never did get collars for these lenses and I use workarounds to avoid

poor results: beanbag on lens top, faster film for higher shutter speeds,

more generous use of flash, and so on.

 

The non-rigorous "testing" I did involved both a Hakuba CF and Bogen

3221. Attached to the Bogen was the Junior Geared Head, and an

Acratech Ball Head on the Hakuba. The lenses used were all those

mentioned above plus an AIS 50/1.4 for comparison. The cameras

used were an F3HP (with and w/o the MD-4), and F100 and an F-801.

All cameras are fitted with Kirk or RRS Arca-style plates and the 300/4

has the aforementioned Kirk collar. Everything was locked down tight.

 

All cameras/lens/tripod combinations exhibited similar vibration, with the longer (& heavier) lenses being the worst offenders. That probably

makes sense too. The camera/tripod combination which fared

slightly (observably so - but only slightly) better than the others was

the F3 on the Hakuba tripod. The addition of the MD-4 to this camera

seemed to make no difference.

 

I'm not sure what I did can be very useful to others. There are many

parameters involved and others have different equipment, experience,

technique and expertise. And expectations.

 

But the rainy Sunday I spent doing all of this stuff certainly indicates to

me that for my equipment and my proficiency level, putting a lens collar

on a longish lens probably won't take away anything from it's

performance.

[ilkka_nissila]

The purpose of the collar is to mount the rig at the center of mass of the lens-body combo. This obviously improves stability. This is why there is a problem using collars on short and medium teles - they're too light and short to benefit when a professional body is used.

 

I suppose the problem with the D70 + 180 is that the D70 body flexes and this causes minor problems with slow speeds. Replace the body with a better built one to fix the problem. If you still have problems with a more rigid camera body, that would mean a weak head or tripod. The D70 is mostly made of plastic and it flexes easily when mounted on a tripod. I haven't tried the D200 but at least the D2H(s) and D2X should give better results.

[yoni_perlmutter]

I have never used a lens collar on a short telephoto.

I therefore have no way to support or refute the case that this class of

lens does not benefit from wearing collars.

 

But, I do use short telephoto lenses and I can say with certainty

that images suffer at a given range of shutter speeds (on a tripod).

 

I'm sure it is the case that there are cameras superior to the F3

and tripods more rigid/sturdy/whatever than the 3221 and Hakuba.

I'm sure also that there are better heads than the Acratech and Geared.

 

On the other hand, using both of these tripods with extension of 2 leg

sections only should meet a decent "steadiness criterion" for the

cameras and lenses tried out. Photo equipment mounted on these

two tripods are well, well within their loading limitations.

 

I understand the physicality of the the centre of mass. When I "see" this

in my head as abstraction it makes perfect sense. But I would like to

hear from someone who has used a lens collar on a short telephoto

and ask for his experience with it.

 

Anyone out there?

[kelly_flanigan1]

The 10.5cm F2.5 Nikkor in LTM came from the factory with a tripod collar.