dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

No argument from me my friend. It is your lens and your choice to do as YOU please.

I think we all would be interested in seeing your photos on the macro forum.

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Yes it is sad. Many of us suffer from the very same thing from having served in Vietnam. Those serving today suffer from similar things. During WW1 and WW2 and Korea it was called Shell Shock. Unfortunately war does that to people. We see things that nobody on the planet should ever have to see even once. But many of us see it daily as you say you did. The other factor is what we see affects us more than it does others. Some things apparently bother you more than they would have me. Other things bother me more than they would other people. There is no telling what will bother any of us until we have seen the elephant and it lets us know our tolerance. We think we are building up a tolerance to such things but really only build up memories/nightmares. Many of us here share your very same experiences.

Many of us here share your thin skin. That is why I sometimes take a day or so to answer posts where I initially feel anger. The next day the anger has subsided and I am fine. I see the post as the poster intended it to be.

Welcome home my friend. For us those times are supposed to have ended 50 years ago. I came home in 1968 after two tours courtesy of the USMC and a Helicopter Squadron, HMM-265. Time for us to do our best to put it behind us and enjoy our grandkids, photography or whatever you like doing. We did what was right for America at the time. No need to keep doing it mentally. Time to let it go and enjoy life.

Dennis

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

I certainly did not reply just to be rude and I don't think I came across as being rude. I was genuinely curious because I had never heard of a lens of that focal length having a tripod collar and was wondering why it would need one.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

It ought to be obvious that if the lens was too heavy for the camera it is intended for, it would have a tripod collar. My heaviest lens with no collar is an 85 f/1.4 Zeiss Otus - at 1140g it puts no adverse strain on any Nikon body. Fuji cameras should be as strong. That said, I seldom shoot anything handheld and, since I do a lot of verticals, I wish all my lenses had rotating tripod collars. I find L-brackets to be a pain, and I don’t like having to flop the whole tripod head over for verticals. Even my Schneider PC-TS Super-Angulon 2.8/50 HM has a rotating tripod collar, but at 1400g it really needs it. Could have almost bought two Nikkors for the same price, but it was worth it to me for the collar.

digit-up Loc: Flushing, Michigan

Many folkers believe that nearly all MACRO LENSES should be used on a tri-pod. This one at 80 mm with in body stabilization, is quite a large/heavy bugger. For my Pentax cameras, I have a 100 mm MACRO that has no collar either, but it is very light and compact. I also have a 150mm MACRO for my Pentax, and it does have a collar. Size and weight aren’t the only perameters that I look at for which lens(macro-lens) I want to use on a tri-pod. I have a 35mm MACRO FOR MY PENTAX BODIES that I use on a tri-pod, but, because it’s so small and light. I certainly don’t need a collar to protect my camera body’s’ base. Makes sense to me, and since I’m the OWNER I make the decision as to what I want and to what I believe I NEED. End of story...................RJM

Leitz Loc: Solms

Thanks for the laughs!