Why no collar included
Jan 31, 2019 09:46:59 #
MT Shooter wrote:
If it were "not necessary", then why include the proper groove needed for one????
Its for the same reason Canon never provides lens hoods with non-L lenses. They make obscene profit margins selling you these "unnecessary" accessories.
Its for the same reason Canon never provides lens hoods with non-L lenses. They make obscene profit margins selling you these "unnecessary" accessories.
Canon's 100 macro is another one that should come WITH the collar !!
Jan 31, 2019 09:55:31 #
Is Canon's 100 macro for FF or cropped sensor? Does Canon offer one for this lens? Nikon will sell you one for the 70-200 f4, as well as Adorama for over $400.
Jan 31, 2019 09:58:11 #
rstipe wrote:
Is Canon's 100 macro for FF or cropped sensor? Does Canon offer one for this lens? Nikon will sell you one for the 70-200 f4, as well as Adorama for over $400.
Both 100mm macros are full-frame EF f/2.8 lenses, one an L-series with IS, the other not.
Jan 31, 2019 10:20:31 #
Could it be that Canon AND Nikon are having their tripod rings & lens hoods manufactured in China & stamping them with THEIR logo & part number? Hmmmm? Surely, they wouldn't do that! AND DON'T CALL ME SHIRLEY!
Jan 31, 2019 10:21:57 #
rstipe wrote:
Is Canon's 100 macro for FF or cropped sensor? Does Canon offer one for this lens? Nikon will sell you one for the 70-200 f4, as well as Adorama for over $400.
Its full frame, (there are 2 versions of it), and Canon does offer a collar for the "L" version of that lens.
Jan 31, 2019 10:24:22 #
Jan 31, 2019 10:26:11 #
rstipe wrote:
What are they asking for that collar?
You know how to search the internet for answers to these basic questions, right?
Jan 31, 2019 10:31:50 #
Jan 31, 2019 10:59:55 #
imagemeister wrote:
Thanks so much!!!!
Jan 31, 2019 11:09:28 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
boberic wrote:
Find a uSed one from E-Bay about 5 bucks, but it is kinda cheap for Canon not to include one
A Canon tripod collar is not an inexpensive item and would likely raise the price of the Canon EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM II by around $100. And the weight of that lens is only 780 grams, around an ounce lighter than Canon's EF 24-70 f/2.8L IS or Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 ART prime, both of which have no need for tripod collars. It weighs 2 ounces less than my Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. In other words the 70-200 f/4 its a light lens. No tripod collar needed.
Jan 31, 2019 11:18:12 #
imagemeister wrote:
Canon's 100 macro is another one that should come WITH the collar !!
Canon's 100 macro is another one that should come WITH the collar !!
Why? Do you use a rail Larry? My 5DIII with a battery pack is significantly heavier (3.17 lbs). The 100 2.8L is a light lens (1.63 lbs). My L bracket works perfect here going from portrait to landscape.
Jan 31, 2019 12:52:23 #
Haydon wrote:
Why? Do you use a rail Larry? My 5DIII with a battery pack is significantly heavier (3.17 lbs). The 100 2.8L is a light lens (1.63 lbs). My L bracket works perfect here going from portrait to landscape.
It works perfect -IF- you have a very large(expensive) ball head or similar to be able to lock the off-center weight - although, the 5DII with pack helps with the balance - but not all of us have this heavy of a body 8-(
It is not just a matter of holding weight - it is a matter of maybe using a smaller less costly head that can lock easier using the better balance and stabilization of the collar especially for the higher magnifications it is likely to be subject to - that is why Canon makes it optional !
Yes, at 1:2 and higher, a rail becomes very worthwhile.
..
Jan 31, 2019 12:58:16 #
junglejim1949 wrote:
Are they saying it is unnecessary on the f4 model? If so why advertise it as a suggested add-on?
They may be, but it's your camera body. The issue is supporting that weight off the mounting flange on the camera body, that an the entire rig is unbalanced if used with a standard ball head under the camera and not the mid point balance of the lens.
Jan 31, 2019 13:53:33 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
They may be, but it's your camera body. The issue is supporting that weight off the mounting flange on the camera body, that an the entire rig is unbalanced if used with a standard ball head under the camera and not the mid point balance of the lens.
For a heavy telephoto lens I certainly agree, but the 70-200 f/4 is very light, relatively short, and weighs about the same, or even less, than a number of top quality prime lenses. I have this lens and there is no problem using it on a tripod with the ball head connected to the camera's tripod socket. Of course, if the clamping power of the ball head is insufficient it may sag a bit, but that's a problem with the tripod. On my Vanguard Alta carbon fiber tripod it's not an issue. Some of my other lenses, none of which were designed for use with a tripod collar are heavier, including my Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8 which is an ounce heavier and only 2 inches shorter.
Mark
Jan 31, 2019 17:27:56 #
mwsilvers wrote:
. I have this lens and there is no problem using it on a tripod with the ball head connected to the camera's tripod socket. Of course, if the clamping power of the ball head is insufficient it may sag a bit, but that's a problem with the tripod.
Mark
Mark
If it sags, it is a problem of balance and/or the ball head ....
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.