ShunCheung Posted August 30, 2019 Author Share Posted August 30, 2019 The RRS replacement foot uses the same mechanism as Nikon's stock foot, but maybe the RRS is better made. The Wimberley foot and Hejnar foot both depend on one screw that goes into the fixed tripod collar (fixed in the sense that the collar can rotate but cannot be removed from the lens barrel without taking the lens apart). As long as that screw holds up, you are good, but if that one screw breaks, this whole thing falls apart. Wimberley Wimberley Professional Photo Gear - Product DetailsHejnar: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR The problem is that the Wimberley "dove tail" is not that good a fit onto the Nikon 500mm PF collar. It has plenty of play and that intersection is short, unlike a QR plate for a 500mm/f4 or 600mm/f4 that is quite long and you can fit three screws onto it. The Wimberley foot comes with a tiny rolling pin and they instruct you to jam it into the little gap between the collar and the Wimberley foot. If you go to the above Wimberley link,they have a video showing you how to jam that little pin in the gap: With that, the foot becomes very tight onto the collar, but again only one screw holds it in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heimbrandt Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 Shun, I am glad your camera is working properly again and thanks for sharing information about the Wimberley foot. Perhaps Nikon replaces the rubber because it covers one/several screw(s) that they need to get to in order to work on the camera? Regarding the foot, I was surprised to see that Wimberely chose not to use the dovetail in the lens collar and add the screw as a locking mechanism and added security rather than as the only thing holding the foot in place. Albeit I am sure it works (for me, even the stock foot works on my 70-200E FL)), I am not that impressed by the tiny pin and toothpick. I would use blue Loctite on that screw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted August 31, 2019 Share Posted August 31, 2019 A double screw mechanism would seem like it would be a useful safeguard if the lens is to be carried from this point. I am glad to hear that the camera was successfully repaired and hopefully it will not show any ill effects from the experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2Oceans Posted September 1, 2019 Share Posted September 1, 2019 Shun, do you know if the Wimberley foot for the Nikon 500mm PF will also work on the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 G Vr II? I did not see one for the 70-200 on Wimberley 's web site. I noticed that Hejnar makes one that is longer for the 500mm PF. I tend to go with Wimberley most of the time but may try the Hejnar. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted September 1, 2019 Author Share Posted September 1, 2019 2Oceans, as I mentioned above, since mounting that Wimberley foot onto the 500 PF involves inserting that tiny pin that I can easily lose, I am not going to try mounting the Wimberley foot onto my 70-200mm/f2.8, but length of the foot base on the two lenses is different. The base on the 70-200 is a bit longer. Hopefully that is obvious in this image. I am showing the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II, which I bought in 2010, not the latest FL version. And I have the RRS foot on the 70-200. I would imagine that you can screw the Wimberley foot onto the 70-200, but I wonder whether there will be any play and it can twist. I have, however, put that RRS foot onto the 500 PF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Garrard Posted September 2, 2019 Share Posted September 2, 2019 Thanks, Shun. For some reason I'd imagined that the shell of these bodies was just laminated on rather than being a double layer - and the skeleton (at least of the D3 - I can't find a D5 skeleton image) extends up around the prism to the broken area. I'd assumed that a crack in the outer part must also mean a crack to the skeleton, especially with the viewfinder mechanism damaged. I'm glad that either I was wrong, or Nikon gave you a new shell anyway! And yes, my understanding is that one of the main "ways in" to the Nikon bodies is usually via screws hidden under the rubber grip, so anything involving a dismantling tends to replace the rubber. That rolling pin thing seems horrendous, as though it hasn't occurred to them that people might remove the foot in the field. I often have the camera on trips with me, and may or may not have the tripod on any given day - so as I'm rushing to leave the hotel in a morning I can choose whether to pull off the foot or have the extra bulk of having it attached. (I don't have a 500PF, but this is common for me with the 70-200, 300/4 or 200-500; I also often carry the lens in a carry-on bag on a plane and leave the foot/collar in a suitcase, because of bulk.) Having a screw is a good thing, although I prefer a D-ring as well so that I can remove it or check tightness in the field without messing with an Allen key (I like my QR plates to have D rings, but at least my Kirk L-plate has integrated storage for the Allen key) - but having random bits to lose in the field just seems like a recipe for trouble. I'm happy to check for tightness as a habit before use, but I can't use thread lock for the same reason - which brings me back to why I don't like tripod plates without anti-rotation grub screws (RRS levelling base, I'm looking at you). The Nikon foot may only be held on tentatively if the screw comes loose, but at least it's got some kind of safety latch. Still, if it stops you damaging the lens/body again, I hope this is an improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 The 500 PF and 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR use the same tripod foot. Now that I have my own copy of the lens, I feel compelled to comment. The two attachments aren't exactly the same; with the foot attachment for the 500 PF, Nikon has reached a new low of under-engineering. The lever action is very light and the lock release travel to disengage the lock so short that accidental release is almost a certainty. It's not if it'll happen, just when. Putting such a piece of junk under a $3600 lens is a disgrace. I have an RRS foot and a Sunwayfoto foot that fit the 70-200/2.8 and the 80-400 - their lever action is tighter and the lock release travel to disengage the lock longer - it takes more to release those by accident but if is, of course, still possible. Both feet fit under the 500 - but, as Shun pointed out above, the base of the 70-200 (and 80-400) is longer and the foot doesn't sit flush (too far back). I experimented with blocking the lock release lever of the original 500 PF foot but haven't found a satisfying solution; I'm ordering the Hejnar replacement foot as the rolling pin wedge solution Wimberley is offering isn't very confidence inspiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted October 18, 2019 Share Posted October 18, 2019 Maybe I'm odd (!) but I don't think I ever removed the foot from my 70-200mm VRII in the 5 years I had it, apart from the day I bought it just to see how it could be if I wanted to. Do some/many/most people pop it on and off frequently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 18, 2019 Author Share Posted October 18, 2019 I have sent e-mail to my contact inside Nikon, with links to this thread. Hopefully they'll improve that tripod foot in future production of the 500mm PF. Otherwise, it is an excellent lens and at least IMO, Nikon should have charged $5000+ for it, if the $7000 Canon 400mm/f4 DO is a price reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 Dieter, the FL version of the 70-200/2.8 does seem to have the same foot as the 500 PF. The earlier 70-200's had a slightly different foot and the attachment interface is modified as well. From my perspective the old one was much worse as it allowed the lens to vibrate on tripod whereas the new is much better in that respect; I have been very happy using the 500 PF on tripod. However, the lens falling off the foot is not good, of course. Mike, I take the foot off if I am hand-holding the lens. I only have it on when working with a tripod or monopod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 I take the foot off if I am hand-holding the lens Ah, OK. I just swizzel it round to the top when handholding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 I have an RRS foot and a Sunwayfoto foot that fit the 70-200/2.8 and the 80-400 I just realized that this is only true for the 80-400 after the original tripod collar is replaced with the RRS version. Which I only did so I could use the same foot as on the AF-S 300/4 (another example of poor Nikon tripod foot design) after having exchanged its original collar with an RRS one. the FL version of the 70-200/2.8 does seem to have the same foot as the 500 PF. Thanks Ilkka for the correction; I had not realized the difference (I don't have the FL version of the lens; I only owned the first version). I take the foot off if I am hand-holding the lens. I only have it on when working with a tripod or monopod. I purchased the Hejnar replacement foot for the 500 to have an attachment point for a (Peak Design) shoulder strap (on the rare occasion that I actually use one) and mostly so that I have a carrying handle to carry the camera/lens combo by (swiveled around to the top of the lens). I like it when tripod feet are removable - but not if the release mechanism invites accidents. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Doo Posted October 19, 2019 Share Posted October 19, 2019 I have sent e-mail to my contact inside Nikon, with links to this thread. Hopefully they'll improve that tripod foot in future production of the 500mm PF. Otherwise, it is an excellent lens and at least IMO, Nikon should have charged $5000+ for it, if the $7000 Canon 400mm/f4 DO is a price reference. Shun, you didn't tell them that did you? :eek::D I think they have charged plenty for their equipment. I am in a photo tour and I just counted how many have D850 + other Nikon cameras and lenses. Lots off $$ there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted October 23, 2019 Share Posted October 23, 2019 Just received my Hejnar replacement foot. Perfect fit (no rolling pin needed), no twist, no play. I like the lenght, perfect as a carrying handle :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 24, 2019 Author Share Posted October 24, 2019 That Hejnar foot looks good. I am glad that at least someone is taking advantage of the lesions I learned the hard way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_b.1 Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 I assume replacing the collar assembly with a different design is not an option. Then the three viable alternatives I can think of is: ...or a better strap : ROTABALL - PRO - SUN-SNIPER Englisch ...though, the older model is better : https://www.amazon.de/Sun-Sniper-Strap-The-ONE-Kameragurt-schwarz/dp/B002KD9BMS?ie=UTF8&tag=googdemozdesk-21&hvadid=337937298152&hvpos=2t2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=1632318030073030341&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1011829&hvtargid=dsa-19959388920&ref=pd_sl_9bldhgejnz_e&language=en_GB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dieter Schaefer Posted October 24, 2019 Share Posted October 24, 2019 lesions I learned the hard way I sure hope you only learned lessons but didn't suffer any lesions in the process:oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted August 20, 2021 Share Posted August 20, 2021 Zombie thread reawakening...;) Just checking, but are all of these 70-200mm VR/ii and Fl and the 500mm PF 'feet' interchangable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted August 20, 2021 Author Share Posted August 20, 2021 Zombie thread reawakening...;) Just checking, but are all of these 70-200mm VR/ii and Fl and the 500mm PF 'feet' interchangable? As far as I know, the tripod feet for the F-mount 70-200mm/f2.8 FL and the 500mm PF are identical, but I don't have that particular 70-200 lens for comparison. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Doo Posted August 21, 2021 Share Posted August 21, 2021 Just checking, but are all of these 70-200mm VR/ii and Fl and the 500mm PF 'feet' interchangable? RRS website shows a difference, one is LCF-10 and the other LCF-11. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted August 21, 2021 Share Posted August 21, 2021 Hummer, tricky. Difference doesn't necessarily mean not interchangeable. I want to modify/machine one for a special fitting. Clones labelled for the Fl and 500mm PF are more expensive than those for the earlier VR and VRii. However, some are labelled to fit all versions... and as I'm going to modify it, I don't mind as long as the weird dovetail fits. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted August 21, 2021 Share Posted August 21, 2021 https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07RGLQG26/ref=redir_mobile_desktop?_encoding=UTF8&adId=20048737557608&id=1804992267509179&psc=1&qualifier=1629541874&ref_=syn_sd_onsite_mobileweb_179&spPl=1&uh_it=da3d29de1aa4bf6a88b13ab7db04ffee_CT&widget=sd_onsite_mobileweb 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Doo Posted August 21, 2021 Share Posted August 21, 2021 Hummer, tricky. Difference doesn't necessarily mean not interchangeable. I want to modify/machine one for a special fitting. Clones labelled for the Fl and 500mm PF are more expensive than those for the earlier VR and VRii. However, some are labelled to fit all versions... and as I'm going to modify it, I don't mind as long as the weird dovetail fits. If you know how to do these things and have the proper tools, this is a good thing. As a matter of fact, the RRS LCF-21 I bought from RRS for my Z 70-200 S lens does not seem to have a perfect fit. There is a give between the lens and the foot and I would just have to tolerate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted August 21, 2021 Share Posted August 21, 2021 Z 70-200 S The Z version does seem to be a bit, but not much, different. That kinda very small difference isn't handy to those that have multiple 'new' feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Doo Posted August 21, 2021 Share Posted August 21, 2021 The Z version does seem to be a bit, but not much, different. That kinda very small difference isn't handy to those that have multiple 'new' feet. Will be trying out the Kirk version. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now