 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / February 2007Why are tripod collars so hard to find?
I've looked at online stores, and on eBay, and I can't seem to find very many at all. Most are specific designed for particular lenses, and even then are almost non-existent. Nobody seems to make a generic one that I can find. I have a Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro Mark I lens that is somewhat heavy and I'd like to get a generic collar for tripod mounting, but I cannot find anything suitable. Anyone know of anything available? I have one that came with my 70-200 f2.8L IS, and even a replacement for that, if I were to need one for whatever reason, doesn't seem to be available. Why are they not more readily available? > I've looked at online stores, and on eBay, and I can't seem to find > very many at all. Most are specific designed for particular lenses, > and even then are almost non-existent. Nobody seems to make a generic > one that I can find. I have a Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro Mark I lens that Doesn't strike me as a size that would really benefit from a collar... the weight would shift so much to the body as to make it awkward. I have a 100 f/2.8 macro (Minolta) that is not at all large enough to consider a collar, exp. considering that my bodies are relatively heavy. But it you do need one ... G'luck.  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Alan Browne wrote: > > TheDave© wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > But it you do need one ... G'luck. I don't know if I'd say "need", but it is heavier than other lenses of comparable size, and I feel that it would put less stress on the mount if I did have one. > TheDave© wrote: > > > Alan Browne wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > comparable size, and I feel that it would put less stress on the mount > if I did have one. I should also add that I feel it would distribute the weight more evenly and reduce the potential for camera shake. >> TheDave© wrote: >>>> Alan Browne wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I should also add that I feel it would distribute the weight more > evenly and reduce the potential for camera shake. It would help. As I'm sure you know, macro work is sensitive to even the SLIGHTEST of head slips/movements when framing, and the torque on the head is significantly reduced by moving the connection point forward. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > Mark2 wrote: > > > I don't know if I'd say "need", but it is heavier than other [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the head is significantly reduced by moving the connection point > forward. Bingo! :-) >>>TheDave© wrote: >>>I don't know if I'd say "need", but it is heavier than other lenses >>>of comparable size, and I feel that it would put less stress on the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > SLIGHTEST of head slips/movements when framing, and the torque on the head > is significantly reduced by moving the connection point forward. I've found a geared head better for that aspect, but it is bloody slow if you're trying to get moving subjects. Not to belabour the point but my macro lens is not heavy enought that when used with a Maxxum 9 or 7D that the body weight outweighs the lens weight by at least 3:1. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Alan Browne wrote: >>> TheDave© wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > comparable size, and I feel that it would put less stress on the mount > if I did have one. Local machine shop? >> I don't know if I'd say "need", but it is heavier than other lenses of >> comparable size, and I feel that it would put less stress on the mount >> if I did have one. > > Local machine shop? Ouch. Way more expensive than buying the official collars I'd think. TheDave? wrote: > I've looked at online stores, and on eBay, and I can't seem to find > very many at all. Most are specific designed for particular lenses, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mounting, but I cannot find anything suitable. Anyone know of anything > available? They are available, but expensive. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&Q=&is=REG&O=productlis t&sku=194450 > Annika1980 wrote: > TheDave) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&Q=&is=REG&O= > productlist&sku=194450 I looked at B&H, but that one didn't come up in my search. You're right, that is expensive. I'll have to keep an eye out on the used market. Thanks. >> Annika1980 wrote: >> TheDave) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > right, that is expensive. I'll have to keep an eye out on the used > market. Thanks. It seems to me that, unless the lens weighs significantly more than the camera, one wouldn't need a separate mount for it....The camera should be capable of holding at least it's own weight by the mount.....For example, my F5 weighs about 2-12 pounds, so I don't even think about a lens tripod mount unless the lens weighs like 3 pounds or more. (and I don't have any lenses that weigh that much) Any lens that does weigh 3 pounds or more should have a built-in tripod mount...... >>> Annika1980 wrote: >>> TheDave) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Any lens that does weigh 3 pounds or more should have a built-in > tripod mount...... Since true macro shots show ANY movement of the set-up as a major subject shift withing the frame, framing becomes extremely difficult with even the slightest sag. It makes a significant difference because the torque on the contact point is reduced. Another reaon it helps if because when the attachment point is the camera, any adjustment of angle means a relatively HUGE swing of the front element. -With a collar, the movement is less severe, since the camera body AND the front element move (turn)...rather than just the front element. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> Annika1980 wrote: >>> TheDave) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Any lens that does weigh 3 pounds or more should have a built-in > tripod mount...... Since true macro shots show ANY movement of the set-up as a major subject shift withing the frame, framing becomes extremely difficult with even the slightest sag. It makes a significant difference because the torque on the contact point is reduced. Another reaon it helps if because when the attachment point is the camera, any adjustment of angle means a relatively HUGE swing of the front element. -With a collar, the movement is less severe, since the camera body AND the front element move (turn)...rather than just the front element. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson Probably for sound economic reasons. Aftermarket tripod collars would be a niche market, and the cost of making such an item wouldn't be amortised over a great number of sales. Kirk Enterprises used to make one for the first generation Nikkor 80-200/2.8 AF, but Nikon corrected the omission of the tripod collar in the next generation of this lens. The Kirk collar worked, but was something of a kludge. Doug > I've looked at online stores, and on eBay, and I can't seem to find > very many at all. Most are specific designed for particular lenses, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > for that, if I were to need one for whatever reason, doesn't seem to be > available. Why are they not more readily available? > Probably for sound economic reasons. Aftermarket tripod collars would be > a niche market, and the cost of making such an item wouldn't be amortised [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> for that, if I were to need one for whatever reason, doesn't seem to be >> available. Why are they not more readily available? Well, how about making a cradle out of hardwood, that could be bolted to the bottom of the camera with a 1/4-20 bolt at the back end, and had a "V" cut in it at the front end to cradle the lens? - Then, you could mount a tripod quick release plate in the middle of the bottom right at the balance point...... > Probably for sound economic reasons. Aftermarket tripod collars would be > a niche market, and the cost of making such an item wouldn't be amortised [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Doug Interestingly, I recently saw a Swedish-made aftermarket collar for the Canon 70-200 f/4L / 80-200 f/2.8L. A straight replacement for the Canon "Tripod mount A", in other words. Much cheaper than the Canon one, too. > Interestingly, I recently saw a Swedish-made aftermarket collar for the > Canon 70-200 f/4L / 80-200 f/2.8L. A straight replacement for the Canon > "Tripod mount A", in other words. Much cheaper than the Canon one, too. Can you please provide us with a link to where you saw these? I think many of us would be interested. I did a search but couldn't find anything. Menno TheDave? wrote: > I've looked at online stores, and on eBay, and I can't seem to find > very many at all. Most are specific designed for particular lenses, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > for that, if I were to need one for whatever reason, doesn't seem to be > available. Why are they not more readily available? Tripod collars are generally specifically made for lenses that have a provision for the rotating ring. A generic version you might want to look at is the Manfroto TELEPHOTO LENS SUPPORT / Cat. No: 3420 You can see a picture and description at http://www.bogenimaging.us/ I have one of these and it works well on some telephotos I have without collars. > bob.kirkpatrick@heapg.com wrote: > Tripod collars are generally specifically made for lenses that have a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I have one of these and it works well on some telephotos I have > without collars. This looks promising. It's about $61 at B&H. What are some of the pros and cons? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.