tripod /lens question...

[alanrusso]

Hi... this sounds like such a newbie question that I'm almost embarrassed to

ask.. but this seems like a pretty friendly forum :)

 

Last year I upgraded my camera to a Canon 5D, and I'm about to get my first L

lens to go along with it - the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. According to the spec on

the lens, it weighs a hefty 3.5 pounds with the tripod collar. The 5D weighs

around 1.8lbs. (2.6lbs with the 580EX mounted).

 

When using a tripod with this set up, is it preferable to attach to the lens, or

the camera body?

 

I'm sure the attachment points were designed with the stresses of pro-lenses in

mind - but I can't help but wonder about all that glass cantilevering off the

front of the camera body. Logically it seems that attaching to the camera puts

the stress of all 3.5lbs lens on the lens mount, while attaching to the lens

reduces this to the lesser weight of the unsupported camera/flash.

 

How strong is the tripod mounting ring that attaches to the lens?

What's the best practice?

Am I over analyzing every little detail of my yet-to-arrive new toy? :)

 

Thanks!

Alan

[aaron_lam]

It's better to mount to the lens for balance and control. I am sure it does put a bit of weight on the camera mount but I have never heard of a camera mount being ripped out of the body because of the weight. But I wouldn't store the lens mounted to the camera and the camera body attached to a tripod.

 

You can carry the body with the lens attached no problem. You'll find it easier to handle on a tripod with it mounted to the lens.

[aaron_lam]

I don't think the weight of a lens would damage the lens mount... but I would play it safe if possible... that is what I am trying to say.

[colinsouthern]

"this sounds like such a newbie question that I'm almost embarrassed to ask.. but this seems like a pretty friendly forum"

 

Well normally they're beat the cr*p out of you, but since you're a 5D man, and an L-coholic to boot - you'll be welcomed with open arms :)

 

With lenses like that it's more a case of "mounting the camera on the lens" than it is "Mounting the lens on the camera".

 

Having said that, the mounts are very strong (I can grab the lens and lift the camera AND tripod), but you'll get sharper pics if you mount the lens rather than the camera (for that lens anyway).

 

If you want to ultimately make your life easier, get a tripod head that supports the Arca Swiss mount - get the bracket for your camera and lens - and you're set for life (best ones available from really right stuff) http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/home.html

 

Cheers,

 

Colin

[robin_sibson1]

It's definitely better to mount the lens rather than the camera on the tripod with a lens that big and heavy - even more so with the 100~400 that I use. The Arca-Swiss-style dovetail plates and clamps are the standard way to do that these days, but be aware that RRS lever clamps depart from the Arca-Swiss standard and may not lock securely onto plates from other makers such as Wimberley and Kirk - and actually Kirk make some of the best-tailored plates. No problem with the screw clamps. You might like to look at the Acratech GV2 ballhead, which is light but very strong, beautifully engineered, and - uniquely - is designed to act as a lightweight gimbal head (certainly good for the 70~200/2.8) as well as a conventional ballhead.

[jeff_conrad]

Mount the lens to the tripod. You'll minimize the stress, get much better

balance, and have instant rotation between landscape and portrait with no

change in lens position—the last feature will save you many tedious

adjustments of tripod position for near/far compositions and macro work.

<p>

Like Colin and Robin, I recommend the Arca-Swiss-style mounting system.

Long term, the mounting system is a fairly substantial investment: you'll

want a mounting plate for every body and lens with a tripod collar, so you

want a system you can stick with. RRS, Acratech, and several other heads

are excellent. I have an older Acratech and Arca-Swiss B2; were I buying

today, I'd probably go with RRS. Consider an L-bracket on the body to get

the same balance and easy change from horizontal to vertical compositions

with lenses without tripod collars.

[ed_okie]

Overall balance is the key reason to lens-mounting, vs. camera mounting. Seemingly a token item... but it's a huge advantage out in the field. And more stable in terms of camera vibration. Ability to rotate, vertical to horizontal, you have no idea how invaluable this is until you've experienced it! Bottom line: don't even think about camera-mounting.

As others have intimated, the quick-clamp brackets, Arca, RRS, etc. are a godsend. Context needs application when addressing cost: "good stuff" is a lifetime investment, applies in particular to tripods and heads. I happen to use RRS equipment, a Gitzo tripod. Superb stuff. RRS's service and product availability is top notch, too.

One key suggestion I might add: instead of the 70-200 f2.8, get the f/4 version which is a superb instrument, and far lighter, more easily handled, plus is less expensive.

Put the price difference into a noteworthy tripod and head. $1,000 will get you started. It'll last a lifetime. Cheaper in the long run.

[bob_osullivan]

Alan:

 

By now you get the idea. If a lens has a mount, you need to use it. Both because of the center of gravity (better pictures) and less stress on camera lens mount. Think about it, when the 5D with lens is hanging from your neck the pressure is evenly distributed around the lens mount because it's all pointing down. On the tripod, you are levering it one direction at the bottom of the lens mount.

 

As for tripods, anohter option I like is the Bogen Manfrotto line with thier quick releases. I would also consider a nice MonoPod for times when shutter speed isn't a major concern but you want to take a load off the weight issue.

 

For a mono pod, you can just mount the lens directly and loosen the lens mount screw to tilt the camear for portait/landscape. On a tripod you'd probalby want a ball head with two controls so you can set the anlge with one control and use the other for pannning.

 

I would suggest you buy a tripod and head that suport at least 2 times if not three times the weight of your rig, for stability. Your combo sounds like 5 or 6 pounds. So, an 11 -17 lb outfit would be good. If you go with the bare minimum you will get tipod shake and the ball head screw will have to be tightened very hard to keep it still.

[DickArnold]

I have had a 70-200 2.8L lens for about twelve years. Believe me when you put the camera and the lens together it is self-evident that the physics are much better using the lens mount.

[mark u]

It's really all about handling. A 70-200 f/2.8 isn't going to put a very serious strain on the camera mount (certainly compared with say a 600mm f/4, which the mount is plenty strong enough to take hanging off it). However, if the majority of the weight of the camera and lens is forward of the tripod mounting point then it is going to make adjusting the camera position much more tricky, aside from creating some risk that if the legs aren't widely enough splayed, the whole rig could tip forward.

 

With a gimbal head the lens and camera can be so finely balanced that they can be pointed with the lightest touch. Good balance greatly improves handling on a tripod - and that comes from supporting under the centre of gravity of the lens and camera.

[tim_s6]

"Be careful of mounting physically long lenses to the tripod rather than fastening the camera body to the tripod. What causes the major amount of vibration and thus picture unsharpness during exposure? Not the lens! It's the camera body's mirror and shutter action." Herbert Keppler