Thomas902 wrote:
"...Nikon feet are not Arca-Swiss compatible." ClarkJohnson yes this has been a major caveat for Nikkors up until the latest release i.e. Nikon AF-S 70-200 f/2.8E FL VR ED which finally sports a Arca-Swiss compatible Foot. No need to purchase a Kirk replacement here...
btw, that new Nikkor is also the first AF-S 70-200 f/2.8 that doesn't suffer from horrific focus breathing at portraiture distance... my AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G IF ED VR II is actually only a 135mm optic when set to 200mm from minimum focus distance out to ~ 15 feet...
Nikon finally got the news... Folks were weary of having to pony up another $250 for a Arca-Swiss foot...
And caved in to portrait shooters and produced a "True" 200mm optic for those commercial photographers.
trapper we are still waiting on WHY you broached your query... a.k.a. what Nikkor are you interested in?
Thanks!
"...Nikon feet are not Arca-Swiss compatible.... (
show quote)
When did Nikon start with an Arca Swiss compatible foot on the Nikon AF-S 70-200 f/2.8E FL VR ED? I had to put an RSS plate on mine.
Did you buy yours new?
NikonUSA seems to shows it with their standard foot.
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-70-200mm-f%252f2.8e-fl-ed-vr.html---
imagemeister wrote:
This "problem " crosses ALL lens makers - it is not only Nikon !
Yes, it does. When I got the Tamron 150-600mm G1, it was missing the foot. Hence the good deal I got. But, after some research the original foot stunk for balance. Turns out Tamron made an improved version (longer) for an additional cost. Bought the improved version, of course, and works great.
My Sigma 150-500mm balances fine. But the 150-600mm Sport did not. Bought a Wimberly foot because of the reviews. Works great now. But, why would you sell a lens with a foot that won't allow it to balance? Doesn't make sense to me.
To the OP, it's important to know which lens you have so that someone can point in the right direction to fix the issue.
I am looking at buying a used Nikon 80-400 to use with a ball head tripod. My son's beach house in NC backs onto the Inland Waterway and the wetlands between the house and the waterway teem with bird life. The back porch faces the Inland Waterway, providing a perfectly stable platform for photography. Yes, I know there are better lens but I also know that they are much higher priced and being retired I have financial restraints with which to contend.
Some of the 80-400s advertised do not include a foot which is why I made this inquiry as I might need to buy a lens that does not come with a foot.
Trapper1, we all live within financial constraints so I would like to provide an alternative to the nikkor 80-400 that will probably fit just as well. That is the Tamron 100-400. I would look for a used one for nikon’s mount and also look for the Tamron Tap-in console as it provides additional tuning capabilities.
HRBIEL wrote:
Trapper1, we all live within financial constraints so I would like to provide an alternative to the nikkor 80-400 that will probably fit just as well. That is the Tamron 100-400. I would look for a used one for nikon’s mount and also look for the Tamron Tap-in console as it provides additional tuning capabilities.
The Tamron is a good alternative ! - BUT, the tripod collar is optional at extra cost. The Tamron collar is expensive - but knock-offs are available.
.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.