Jump to content

Improving the tripod collar of the 70-180mm micro Nikkor zoom


Robert_Lai

Recommended Posts

Those of you who follow Bjorn Rorslett's doings will know that he

rated this lens very low at first. After he made modifications to the

tripod collar of the lens by drilling and tapping to place extra bolts

into it to secure his Arca Swiss QR plate, the lens' performance

increased into the stellar

category.<p>http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html<p>Click the

"lenses" section on the left hand column.<p>I've not had the courage

to drill into my tripod collar foot as the lens is still under

warranty. However, taking a cue from his work, I have eliminated all

the rubber padding on my Bogen QR plate. This leaves some metal

ridges. The contact cement can be taken off with alcohol, and then

the surface roughened up. My machinist friend then used PC-7 which is

an industrial

epoxy containing aluminum, to fill in the troughs. This cures to a

concrete-like tough finish which is then milled flat. You cannot

believe the extra stability this gives the lens and camera, even

without Bjorn's extra bolts. Anyway, I thought that I'd share this

with you folks. If others have even better remedies to stabilize

their lenses with tripod collars, I'd be glad to learn.<p>PS, yes, I

did take photographs of the before and after, but I haven't finished

the roll yet. I'll post them when ready, if anyone is interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Bjorn's concern was that the footprint was too small to properly anchor a big camera like the F5. I have an F3 with MD-4 motor attached. I didn't really think that wobble was too much of a problem, but with the rubber pad removed from my quick release plate, the whole assembly feels quite solid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding those 25 mm stainless steel bolts with undefined diameter he seriously weakened the tripod-foot - from the mechanical point of view, this solution is really bad, the foot might brake unexpectedly! Sorry, to be this harsh, but the solutions presented on his site are typical for enginneering amateurs without experience, in his words: "a joke".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi I have this lens for about 1 and half years. When I shoot cats with flash(Metz) as main light souce I got very contrasty and vivid photos. I believe the flash duration should be around 1/1000sec. When I shoot long exposure (8 to 30sec) on a tripod I also got nice pics. But when I shoot trees on a tripod at shutter speed of 1/125sec(F801/N8008), the photo I got has very noticible trace of vertical shake(two image overlaping). I found this problem soon after I got the lens. But photos I got from this lens look so real so I still keep this lens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angel,

Björn's a professional photograher and simply does what works for him. He's been at it a while now and has invented all kinds of wierd and wonderful solutions to make his equipment perform in the way he wants them to. His tripod collar hasn't broken and he says it's far more solid and less prone to shake with the bolts inserted. That's it and that's that. Probably doesn't look that beautiful but he never bothers about the cosmetics of his equipment, just the quality of his images.

 

Bests, Duncan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duncan, I'm mechanical engineer by profession and please allow me to express my concerns why there's a serious risk of a foot-breakage. It might be that the foot looks in first place stiffer than before, but what about the effects of the working load and the bending moments over the time?

<br><br>

The problem here is that there's simply no significant amount of material left around the drilled holes. A standard recommendation in practical engineering for being on the safe side of the road, is to leave around a drilled hole a space equivalent to 2-3 times of the hole's section; e.g. you want to drill a 6 mm hole, then your material should have at least a diameter of 12mm-18mm. In this case, the screws look like being M5-M6 and the lowest section has not more than 2mm. In addition, the holes where drilled through the stress guiding radius of the foot. The result additional and superflous stress peaks in the part.

<br><br> In addition, every mechanical modification of a structure using cutting tools, such as drilling the holes themselves and cutting the threads for the screws, creates a significant amount of stress concentration in the part, and there is still no material left to "calm" the stress down. Thinking of the used material of the foot, it really doesn't let me sleep better as it is most likely aluminum cast. Cast materials that don't like stress or tensile strength at all. Therefore, I get stomach ache looking at a recommendation on how to "strengthen" the tripod mount of a big $$$ lens that in reality, is a very dubiously improvement effort. <br><br>

 

It's not a question of a good looking design, it's a question if it's going to wreck the lens and if it's worth to take the modification risk. Bjorn is payed for taking photographs and his equipment might pay off quickly. Therefore, he cannot risk to miss a $$$ bringing photograph because of the lens' shaking. But what works for him, doesn't mean that is not questionable at all.<br><br>

Of course, everybody can do what he likes best, but I'd definitely not recommend such a devaluating "improvement" with a high breakage risk. Maybe solutions such as removing rubber plates, increase the diameter of the mounting screw, mounting the camera and lens to a well manufactured solid beam bar, use a second tripod/monopod etc. are the more desirable solutions.<br><br>

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angel,

don't get me wrong, I'm not giving you a hard time. Like I said, Björn is a professional photographer and does what works for him.

I personally own the 70-180 and use it pretty much daily. I do not wish to devalue my equipment by drilling holes in it, so I bought a Really Right Stuff plate and find that good enough for what I use the lense for, which is indoors in a controlled environment.

Just my two cents:-)

 

Bests, Duncan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL Well, as controlled as it gets in my place:-) The problem is, of course, accentuated when you're out in nature, which is where Björn does much of his work....and believe me, when it blows in Norway it really blows!! I live "just down the road" from Björn (200kms) on a little island just off the coast of Gothenburg, Sweden. It's the same here. I used to make jokes that eveyone on the island has the same hairstyle: up and over to the right:-) LOL

 

Have a good one, Duncan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Angel that drilling the holes where Bjorn put them, right at the radius of the foot will weaken the entire structure. That's one of the reasons (amongst many) that I didn't drill my foot. Looking at my foot when it has been mounted on the milled plate, I can see that it does not sit quite flat. It definitely makes contact where the screw hole is, but some material there seems to make it sit not quite flat on the rest of the surface. I can see light around the undersurface of the edges of the foot. That suggests two things: 1) milling of the foot will make it perfectly flat, and/or 2) drilling and tapping for a 3/8 inch - 16 tripod screw will give a more substantial mount to the foot without the excess of placing extra bolts. It might also remove the offending material at the same time. The only downside is, I think that the foot has a stainless steel threaded insert for 1/4 inch - 20 so that the soft foot material does not get worn with threading. This will prevent the latter option unless I drill even bigger and put in a stainless steel insert for 3/8 inch - 16.<p>

Angel, what do you think? I'm basing this on your statements above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Robert,<br><br>

in my opinion a 3/8" thread should help. Nevertheless, if you consider this solution, you should watch out for the following:<br>

- make sure that the foot is thick enough, at least 1.5x diameter of the drill size(for 3/8" => min. s=15 mm)<br>

- use definitely a helicoil-insert (3/8"-16), a thread in the al-cast won't survive the screwing and unscrewing of the lens very often<br><br>

Another possibility is to get a 8 mm steel plate in the size of your tripod head, screw it with a hexagonal 1/4" flat screw to the lens and use this new base as thread for the tripod's head. This should perform similar. Advantage: you don't modify the lens. Nevertheless, I'm just thinking if it wouldn't be easier to change the quick-release system for one with metal QR plates (e.g. Arca Swiss) and use here the hexagonal 1/4" flat screw instead.<br><br>

 

Anyway, I just found a link of a nature photographer that IMHO did a quite good job stabilizing his very big teles. Here's the <A

href="http://www.wildlifepaparazzo.de/paparazzo/selbstgemacht/allgemein/objektivab.html">link</A>.<br><br>The page is in German but I think the photos speak for themselves. He manufactured a beam that supports the front and the end of the lens with two pairs of rolls and screws the tripod foot to it. Furthermore, he fixates a quick release plate to the beam.

<br><br>

Have fun! ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any comments on putting a RRS or Kirkphoto Arca Swiss style

quick release plate on the bottom of the lens tripod foot.

I was thinking of putting a mold release compound on the tripod

foot and on the threads of the Helical and screw but not on the

quick release plate then assembling it all with a metal filled

epoxy. The idea being that there would be no gaps between the

tripod foot and quick release plate. The quick release plate

would be clamped tight or provide a larger foot print when

attached to a standard tripod head. The mold release would allow removing the plate without damaging the lens (I hope).<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.kirkphoto.com/lenscollars.html" target="_new"><u>Where

Nikon Is Stupid Kirkphoto Finds A Way</u></a><br>

<br>

...But not for the AF 70~180/4.5~5.6D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following David's suggestion, I note that Kirk does offer a modified Arca-Swiss type QR plate for this specific lens:<p>

http://www.kirkphoto.com/newlensplate2.html<p>

This would seem to incorporate many of the changes that would be desireable in terms of better support for the foot. Has anyone tried this? I'm wondering whether I should switch over to the Arca Swiss type system now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...