dkemphoto

Be aware however that Pro 9 is not compatible with Windows 10, according to DxO. I downloaded and installed it and all seemed ok. But the next day, it would not launch. I emailed DxO and that was their reply. Strange thing though, I also installed it on my laptop, which has Win 10, and it seems to be ok on that. DK.

I think the key word here, Dan, is "need". As I said, Personally, I wouldn't consider not using it. The balance of the lens/camera body on a tripod is far easier to deal with IMO, and the ability to rotate the camera around the lens axis is very handy. Absolutely essential?, No. Personally, I am not interested in using L-Brackets. I suppose it's personal taste. I will admit that the extra weight it applies to the combination is undesirable. Over the years this subject has popped up several times, and there would seem to be several opinions about it. I've stated mine, and also a warning, or should I say, an advisory, that one should not necessarily take these third party cheap collars at face value. An initial testing as to its strength is in order. Obviously the Canon is a better unit ( or should be we assume ) however a "cheap" one has and continues to serve me very well. D.

I will chime in here and add that I too have a third party "cheapy". I've had one mounted on my 70-200 f4 IS for about 6 years (could be longer). Cost me the handsome sum of $12 at the time. I wouldn't be without it. As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't entertain the idea of not using one when also using a tripod. It provides such great balance and the ability to quickly rotate the lens & camera body combination is, to me, very, very handy. However! . . . I will caution this: I have absolutely no doubt that the Canon branded version is made better and probably is made of a higher quality of metal alloys. One would assume so anyway. So in buying one of these third party inexpensive ones, it is wise to put it through some reasonable testing to be sure that the alloys it is made from won't fall apart at the first time of stressing it. I would expand on this subject by pointing out that, for the 70-200 f4 lens, and all others that have one certain characteristic about the lens body, it indeed, shouldn't be hard for them to make a cheap version. The characteristic I refer to is the fact that, at the place on the lens body where the collar must wrap around and be tightened, the lens barrel at that point must be perfectly parallel. This may sound like an obvious statement. I mention it because another lens that Canon produces, the 100mm f2.8 macro, doesn't! For some very odd reason it would seem, that lens, at that point has a slight taper to it, making the use of a collar, unless specifically designed for it, pretty well impossible to use when sourced from one of these cheap brands, Be aware, for that lens, you are more or less stuck with paying the high price from Canon in order to get one that works properly. The newer 100mm f2.8 IS version doesn't suffer from that hideous design, and I would assume that the inexpensive ones being offered for it from China probably work quite well, the same stress tests being suggested. D.