Modified Sony 70-200mm f/4 G Lens

[rpcrowe]

I love the Sony 70-200mm f/4 G OSS lens on my Sony APSC A6400 and A6300 and use it both hand held and on a tripod or monopod... This is the lens in its OEM configuration...



The lens is sharp and the OSS allows me to shoot at relatively slow shutter speeds. I have only two minor problems with the lens: The Sony OEM lens hood is gigantic and the Sony OEM tripod ring doesn't have Arca Compatible grooves.

I like to carry this lens in a holster case with the tripod ring removed. The OEM hood makes it difficult to load and unload into and out of a reasonably sized holster case. The Big hood also attracts more attention than I like to attract. Substituting an after-market screw in hood makes the lens more convenient for me and is less flashy and conspicuous...



The form factor of the lens is a lot smaller with the screw-in hood and the hood doesn't vignette at any focal length when shooting with the APSC camera (don't know about a full frame camera). This hood protects the lens from flare (using the APSC camera) every bit as well as the OEM hood. I can also use a 72mm circular polarizer and rotate that polarizer by just rotating the hood. Additionally, a 77mm lens cap fits in the front of the hood which allows me to attach and detach the lens cap a lot easier that with the OEM hood...



As far as physical safety, I have always used a screw in hood with my Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and once fell onto a concrete roadbed with the camera/lens hitting lens first. The hood was toast but, the lens came through the ordeal undamaged. This might have also happened if I had an OEM hood attached but, I don't know and don't want to find out. Suffice it to say that the five dollar hood protected my thousand dollar lens...

The next modification is the substitution of an after-market tripod ring for the Sony OEM ring...



The after market ring holds the camera/lens every bit as well as the OEM ring but it has one distinct advantage over the OEM ring. The base of my after-market ring has Arca-Compatible grooves...



The addition of these grooves allows me to mount the camera/lens on a tripod/monopod that is equipped with an Arca Compatible clamp, as are all of my tripods and monopods, without the addition of a separate A/C base plate between lens and clamp...



IMO, the Arca Compatible quick release system is the best on the market. I don't know why companies like Sony and Canon don't provide A/C grooves on their tripod ring bases. The cost of casting or milling such grooves would be negligible and the grooves would not prevent photographers from using other mounting clamps. The only company that offers such grooves in their OEM tripod rings is Tamron. Way to go Tamron!

[Manfred M]

Richard - simple answer to your question to why manufacturers do not machine in an Arca-Swiss compatible foot is cost.

Why should Canon (or any other camera manufacturer) add cost to their production process without any tangible benefit to them? Are you more likely to buy a Canon lens, which is already a premium product, when compared to a third party lens? I strongly suspect the answer is no. I know all kinds of photographers that use Manfrotto and Gitzo heads with their custom quick release plates; they would have to eat the cost of the modified foot that is of no benefit to them.

To turn the foot into an Arca-Swiss compatible mount, we are looking at at least three passes of the cutting head on a modern CNC Milling Centre, plus a deburring operation. That would likely add at least $40 to the selling price of the lens ($10 for each piece and the typical markup of 100% for the manufacturer (adds $20 to the cost as the wholesale cost) and another 100% for retail price (double the $20 = $40).

Tamron, on the other hand might see this as a benefit. People that buy Tamron lenses are unlikely to run around with Gitzo tripods would use a non-brand name tripod with a Arca-Swiss head. They are more likely to buy a lens that has this feature, so from a marketing standpoint this could give them an advantage over Canon, Tokina or Sigma, so the cost might be worth it to them.

[DanK]

Richard,

Like you, I bought an expensive arca-swiss compatible replacement foot for my 100-400, but for my 70-200, I just bought a plate and screwed it to the regular foot. Works fine and doesn't cost much.

Re the tripod ring: some years ago I read some troubling posts about cheap tripod rings breaking. I had a very cheap Chinese knock-off for my 70-200 but threw it out after that. However, for my 100mm macro, I had bought the same brand you show in your photo, an iShoot, and it seems to be high quality. I have used if for years, supporting the heavy and poorly balanced rig I use for bug macros, with no problems at all. However, one can't see what metal was actually cast.

Dan

[Manfred M]

However, one can't see what metal was actually cast.

Cheaper non-OEM stuff is likely die cast zinc as that is the easiest metal for that production process and requires lower cost equipment and tooling.

The higher end stuff, especially from the OEM manufacturers, will likely be either aluminum or magnesium. Magnesium is definitely used in higher end camera bodies but aluminum is less expensive and is used a lot in the lens mechanisms. The feet on my lenses feel like they are likely aluminum, based largely on the weight in my hands. There is an area of my Sigma lens foot where the paint has chipped and it definitely has the whitish metallic colour of oxidized aluminum. Unfortunately all three metals do have a gray / white colour and the easiest way to test is to take a file to it (something I don't recommend doing).

[rpcrowe]

Working with metal isn't exactly brain surgery. The Chinese have it down pretty well. In fact, the after market tripod ring that I have substituted for the OEM Sony version appears to be a lot higher quality than the Sony...

China seems to be coming out with a lot of Arca Compatible gear that is very well made and is dirt cheap. I have for many years purchased A/C "L" brackets from Really Right Stuff and from Kirk Enterprises which are excellent but pretty darn expensive.

I wondered why China had not come out with a knock off of the Kirk or RRS products. Well, they have... My last three "L" brackets that I purchased for my Sony APSC cameras were made in China. They are every bit as well made as the Kirk and RRS models but, cost a fraction of what the American made brackets cost...

Oh BTW: I use the after market ring for my Sony 70-200mm lens but, I use a dedicated A/C base for the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS lens which works just fine but, wasn't much less expensive than the entire dedicated ring for the Sony.

I used a non-dedicated RRS A/C plate for my Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS ii and it did not work as well as either a dedicated plate for that lens or a dedicated A/C replacement foot. I don't know exactly how to explain it but, the Canon foot seemed to be cast and the edges seemed to be slightly rounded rather than at exact 90 degree angles. I really had to tighten the clamp excessively in order to prevent the foot from moving.

Final thought... I would not all all be shocked to learn that some Japanese camera equipment companies subcontract some of their parts from China, while still certifying the units as made in Japan...

After all, there are American companies shipping U.S. grown chickens to China for processing and re-import into the USA. And because the poultry will be processed, it will not require country-of-origin labeling. Nor will consumers eating chicken noodle soup from a can or chicken nuggets in a fast-food restaurant know if the chicken came from Chinese processing plants. Believe it or not that's legal in the USA...