Lens Collars

[Donald]

The background to this is:
1) Geoff's post in another thread earlier today reminded me that the UK Government is due to restore Value Added Tax to its fomer amount (reduced earlier in the year in response to the financial crisis),
2) I need (want?) a Canon 70-200 f4 L IS USM

So, it's now or never! (I'll get beaten mercilessly, so think of me.)

But, of course, Canon don't include a lens collar.

So, the question is - is one really, really necessary? Lens will be on a 40D and all will be on top of a Manfrotto 055X ProB with a 486RC2 head.

I know I should have. But do I need to have? It just adds a lot to the cost.

[peterb533]

Hi Donald,

You will find that as the lens is quite long and heavy it will probably be quite unbalanced on the tripod. Also it means you quite easily switch between landscape and portrait without changing the tripod settings. Worth the extra in my opinion.

Peter

[kevinbythebeach]

I dont think so

The f.4 isnt as large and heavy as the 2.8

In fact ive read that the IS on the F.4 really is of that much benefit and is kind of a waste of money....

Ive got the the F4 on a 50D and use the camera tripod mount and it works fine as far as safety of the equiptment.....

If your low on euros id say get the F4 non IS and skip the ring....

use the extra money u save for personal defense classes so your spouse doesnt beat you up too much,,,

[Donald]

Peter, Kevin

Thanks for these comments. Hopefully some more folk will come in with their views.

I suppose one alternative is to go for one of the 'cheapies' from that well known auction site. Or is that sacrilegious, particularly if it carries the threat of a £1000 worth of L lens landing in a heap on the ground because the ring fails?

I just don't know enough (anything) about rings/collars to make any sort of informed judgement

[kevinbythebeach]

well if your dead set on getting a tripod ring I'd get a genuine canon one,,,Ive read other discussions about this in the past and read a few complaints about 3rd party rings snapping and owners damaging thier equiptment because of it,,,

[Jim B.]

Hi Donald,

I have the f/4 and don't have a collar.The lens weighs almost the same as your 40D.Give or take an ounce or two.A ring does make it nice if you want to shift to portrait.

[rpcrowe]

I have three tripod collars... One for my 70-200mm f/4L IS which I purchased separately from that lens and one each for my 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6 lenses. These last two lenses came with a tripod ring supplied. If I had owned one of the longer lenses before purchasing my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens, I would have used the ring from one of them.

Do I believe that a tripod ring is necessary for the f/4L (series) lenses; only if you want to shoot a vertical using that lens. The lame Manfrotto, and most other Ball Heads with non Arca Compatible Quick Release systems, require you to cantilever the camera over to the side when shooting a vertical.

The camera/lens is unbalanced in this configuration and the increased torque of the longer 70-200mm f/4 (series) lenses increase the propensity for the camera to twist on the tripod screw. This is a PIA and can be dangerous to the equipment.

The tripod ring allows you to switch from horizontal to vertical with the camera/lens remaining over the center of gravity of the tripod and head.

I use Arca compatible Q.R. systems on my tripod heads but, still use a tripod ring for the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens. I carry and use two cameras: 30D and 40d with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens on the 30D which is equipped with a Really Right Stuff L plate. The 40D is equipped with the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and tripod ring. I have a standard Arca compatible plate on that lens.

This seems to me to be the perfect (albeit fairly expensive) solution to the camera hanging over to the side in the vertical position and twisting on the tripod screw in that position.