70-200VR tripod mount

[mightypir]

<p>Is it ok to use the 70-200VR on a tripod/monopod directly? <br>

ie, take the removable foot off, and there is a threaded hole in the collar mount. I have found that this fits a regular manfrotto thread. The advantage of doing this to me is that the setup reduces the center of gravity and makes it easier to transport the lens (I can leave the removable foot safely at home).<br>

I cant see anything wrong in doing this but wanted to be sure...dont want to wreck my lens!!!<br>

thanks<br>

<br />FGA</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I think the manin issue is that if you strip out that thread, you're looking at a costly at-Nikon repair, as opposed to simply replacing the mounting foot. I've never found the foot to be a large or heavy object to carry, and I like being able to quickly dismount the lens without having to fumble with threading it on and off of something... which strikes me as one more opportunity to drop the lens (yikes!).</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>It looks like there is clearance for the rest of the lens, so it should work in theory. Make sure the tripod screw doesn't bottom out, as it could damage the lens.</p>

<p>That said, I don't think you should do this. Once you remove the shoe, the platform area is very small, so there is not much in terms of friction to keep the lens in place. The collar can't be easily replaced (unlike the foot) should you damage the threads. I think the balance is better with the foot in place too. I rest the foot in the palm of my hand for support when shooting by hand. If that bothers you, simply rotate the collar 90 degrees to one side.</p>

<p>The best solution is to purchase a Really Right Stuff foot, and convert your tripod to use Arca-Swiss type QR. That's fast and secure for the lens and cameras alike.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I have been using a Kirk replacement foot with AcraTech head and found this very nice. The RRS is probably just as good.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I use RRS's replacement foot and it works very well; it is a bit pricy though.</p>

<p>Another bonus is that Version 1 and 2 of that lens use exactly the same tripod collar foot. If you upgrade from Version 1 to 2, you can use the same foot.</p>

[mightypir]

<p>Ok. So I guess its back to the foot for me!!!<br>

Just for my information, why is there a mounting hole on the collar if it is not be used directly? And how real is the danger of stripping the thread? What do people with 80-200AFD/AFS do?</p>

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>What do people with 80-200AFD/AFS do?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The 80-200 does not have the same removable foot.</p>

<p>I can't speak to the size of the thread once the foot is off the 70-200; however, are you aware most Manfrotto's have a dual size thread which is spring loaded.</p>

<p>I 2nd the opinion that you should use as much contact/surface area when mounting heavy lenses on a platform..actually, it's not a opinion...just plain 'ol simple physics.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>reduces the center of gravity</p>

</blockquote>

<p>it also moves it - as is evidenced by the mounting hole in the foot and the one where it attaches to the lens being quite a ways apart. As Shun pointed out, the RRS stuff replacement food is a good solution if you happen to use the lens on a tripod with a compatible clamp.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The 80-200/2.8 AFS uses the same RRS foot as the 70-200/2.8 VR and 300/4 AFS. The 80-200/2.8 AFD may be different. The hole in the 70-200 ring is 1/4-20, using a Helicoil insert (which imparts a steel thread to the cast aluminum ring). The RRS foot is easily removed, if you feel more comfortable without it for hand-held use.</p>

<p>Some Manfrotto heads have a 3/8-16 hole with a collapsible insert (spring) with an internal 1/4-20 thread. This should not be confused with a fixed Helicoil insert or solid bushing.</p>