A/C Foot for Canon 100-400mm f/4.6-5.6L IS ii

[rpcrowe]

IMO, Canon SHOULD have supplied the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ii lens with a foot that is grooved to accept Arca Compatible clamps but, they didn't! So you are stuck with using an accessory A/C clamp or purchasing an aftermarket foot. KIRK industries supplies a aftermarket foot that sells for $80 USD from B&H. I purchased one of these. Really Right Stuff also sells an aftermarket A/C foot at somewhere around the same price.

China has now joined the market and is supplying an aftermarket foot for $23.99 USD.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lens-Collar-...EAAOSwQaJXS~~p

I like the finger grip on this foot but I am not sure that I would want to trust the security of a lens that cost almost two thousand dollars to a no-name Chinese manufacturer.

[george013]

IMO, Canon SHOULD have supplied the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ii lens with a foot that is grooved to accept Arca Compatible clamps but, they didn't! So you are stuck with using an accessory A/C clamp or purchasing an aftermarket foot. KIRK industries supplies a aftermarket foot that sells for $80 USD from B&H. I purchased one of these. Really Right Stuff also sells an aftermarket A/C foot at somewhere around the same price.

China has now joined the market and is supplying an aftermarket foot for $23.99 USD.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Lens-Collar-...EAAOSwQaJXS~~p

I like the finger grip on this foot but I am not sure that I would want to trust the security of a lens that cost almost two thousand dollars to a no-name Chinese manufacturer.

When I remembered well and being next day, I may congratulate you with your 77th birthday. You know what to ask.

George

[odds]

...an aftermarket foot for $23.99 USD.
...
I like the finger grip on this foot but I am not sure that I would want to trust the security...

Attractive price indeed! Bolts apparently used in the foot assembly and the bolt attaching it to the lens may be the weaker parts, but they may of course also be more than adequate.

I have become quite picky about "support mounts". The ebay Arca Swiss plate appears short to me, possibly for two reasons, but it is hard to judge from the images on ebay. If the lens barrel extends when zooming towards longer focal lengths, the center of gravity tends to move forward (I'm a nikonean who knows nothing about Canon gear). If so, you may want to shift the quick release plate backwards in the tripod Arca Swiss clamp to maintain weight balance. My experience is that his calls for a relatively long plate on my Nikkor 200-500.

Now and then I mount a flash (with extender) on the Arca Swiss foot, typically clamping an Arca Swiss flash mount to the foot in front of the tripod clamp. The mount keeps the flash above the lens barrel. The flash mount clamp calls for room in front of the tripod clamp, meaning a longer plate, and the weight of the flash gear shifts the center of gravity forward, also calling for a longer plate. Shifting the whole rig backwards in the tripod clamp to compensate for added weight may conflict with the flash clamp, and there you go... Clamping the flash on the top side of the lens foot plate (flash clamp upside-down) solves this, no conflict between tripod clamp and the flash mount clamp. But, this requires room for the flash mount clamp between the lens barrel and the lens foot plate. Finger grip/grooves on the top side of the plate as shown in the ebay images, may not be practical to someone like me.

[DanK]

Richard,

I own a 100-400 II, and following your recommendation, a Kirk replacement foot. That is a $2,000 lens that weighs 1.6 kg. Personally, I wouldn't trust it to a no-name support in order to save $76. If I were making the decision now, I would buy the Kirk again.

I have a no-name tripod ring for my 70-200 f/4, and while it has been fine, it has always made me nervous--particularly now that it is holding up not only that lens, but a 5DIII body. This thread prompted me finally to do it. I ordered the Canon ring just now, even though it is ridiculously expensive..

Dan


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[rpcrowe]

Dan,

I would also purchase the Kirk foot for my 100-400 Mk ii lens, if I were in the market for a new foot.

I use a Canon OEM Tripod ring for my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and a third party (Chinese) "el cheapo" ring for my 100mm f/2.8 (non-L) Macro lens. I don't worry about the security of the Chinese ring but, the OEM Canon ring is better made.

However, I use the tripod ring on my macro lens very infrequently. I have L brackets for my cameras which allows me to mount the rig on an A/C clamp. About the only time I use the tripod ring is when I am mounting the camera/lens to my focusing rail.



If I were using the ring more frequently, it might be worthwhile to get a ring that is a bit easier to use.

Both the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and the 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens are light enough in weight not to cause any problems when the camera is mounted to the tripod clamp with the "L" bracket...

[loosecanon]

I am happy with the tripod ring on my Canon 100-400. As a used dof Manfrotto gear which is well made but sensibly priced it is ideal. It fits well with the adjustible slide on my Manfrotto 393 head, or whatever head I choosse to use on the day.