70-200 f/4 Tripod Collar?

BenA2

I'm happy to say I'm the prowd new owner of a 70-200 f/4L. But, now I'm faced with a dilema.

I own a pretty flimsy little aluminum tripod. The legs are kind of short, so I often have to extend the head above the top of the legs (sorry my terminology is week here) on it's extention to get it up to eye level. I know this is basically a no-no, but it has served me quite well with a 350D with what was my heaviest lens, the EF-S 17-85.

Now I've gone and stuck a much heavier and longer tele lens on it and I'm very worried about stability at 200mm. So, I ran some tests on the tripod last night to see how it works. All tests were shot with MLU engaged using the 2s timer.

With the legs fully extended, but without extending the head, I got pretty good results at shutter speeds from 1/500s - 1/20s. Any slower and it started to get a bit dicey, but still acceptable to about 1/2s. With the head extended, the results were unusable.

In the short-term, I can live with the situation by never extending the head when using this lens. In the long run, I'd like something better. In particular, I want to be able to get more height on the tripod.

My first question is, will a lens collar help me out much here? Unfortunately, the collar for this lens costs about $180 on the Canon website and I can't find it anywhere else. Does anyone have another potential source?

The second question is, is a collar a complete waist of money? Might that same amount of money be spent on a tripod to get even better results? Or, in the end, will I need both a new tripod and the lens collar to get sharp results at about a 5'4" camera height at all shutter speeds?

Thanks for any advice you can offer,
Ben

P.S. My primary use for this lens is low-light telephoto landscapes, so being able to shoot at 1-2s shutter speeds is a must.

Scott_Quier

My first thought would be that using the lens collar will take quite a bit of stress off the tirpod screw mount on the bottom of the camera. In addition, I belive the better balance obtained when using the collar will result in a more stable platform.

While you're spending the $$ on the collar (I did convince of the need, didn't I) you might also think about investing in a good quality tripod. A quality tripod will last a decade or more, so the amortized cost (taken on a per year basis) is almost trivial. Of course, that all assumes you have the $$s now to actually buy the thing.

BenA2

Scott_Quier wrote:

My first thought would be that using the lens collar will take quite a bit of stress off the tirpod screw mount on the bottom of the camera. In addition, I belive the better balance obtained when using the collar will result in a more stable platform.

While you're spending the $$ on the collar (I did convince of the need, didn't I) you might also think about investing in a good quality tripod. A quality tripod will last a decade or more, so the amortized cost (taken on a per year basis) is almost trivial. Of course, that all assumes you have the $$s now to actually buy the thing.

Yeah, I really don't have the money to buy either. So, I'm trying to figure out which will give me the more bank for the buck if I can scrape enough together for one.

Thanks,
Ben

Khaos

Save and get both. A quality tripod makes a huge difference. However, I thought the L telephotos all came with lens collars?

Save, save, save, and then buy a good tripod with a good ballhead. Think of it as a permanent purchase. I tried the cheap route first and regretted it. I bought the ballhead used and saved myself almost $100. You can get some decent deals on used equipment.

ziggy53

BenA2 wrote:

... Unfortunately, the collar for this lens costs about $180 on the Canon website and I can't find it anywhere else. Does anyone have another potential source?...

For the "official" collar/ring, at $120USD:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=186247&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

Someone wrote that a black collar for the 200mm, f2.8, would also fit the 70-200mm, f4. I cannot confirm this, but it costs about $30USD less ($90USD), so it might be worth checking out (I surely would).

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=211436&is=REG&addedTroughType=search
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=610664&postcount=7
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=618298&postcount=1
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=619765&postcount=10

ziggy53

ziggy53

Ben,

One thing to try ...

If I understand you correctly, you are unhappy with the tripod's ability to be rigid when the tripod "column" is fully extended.

Try this,

Use an automotive hose clamp of the same diameter as the tripod column. Extend the column to full height and attach the hose clamp around the column, just above the crank mechanism. Tighten the hose clamp so that the column doesn't go down anymore, but use the crank to try to move the column down. What you are doing is tensioning against the hose clamp. Lock the crank with the height locking screw and check to see if you have increased rigidity, you should.

Now test to see if it's rigid enough. This might get you by for a while.

ziggy53

TylerW

The tripod collar should help tremendously in this affair. I don't know about a 350d, but with the 70-200mm f/4L on a 10/20/30D, the lens collar lets the camera sit perfectly on the center of gravity - you can set the foot of the collar on a table and neither the lens nor the camera body will also be touching the table. the 350d weighs considerably less which throws the cog forward, but it should still help matters considerably.

I've read before that the black tripod collar that Ziggy was mentioning is compatible - I think it was on Fred Miranda, but I can't be sure. If I find it, I'll post the link back up.

Of course, a sturdier tripod will also help in a wider degree of applications, but if your heartset on using this combination of camera/lens on a tripod, I'd get the collar first. Otherwise that's a lot of stress to be putting on the tripod mount on your camera body, and that would be a really annoying repair to have to make.

BenA2

Khaos wrote:

Save and get both. A quality tripod makes a huge difference. However, I thought the L telephotos all came with lens collars?

Save, save, save, and then buy a good tripod with a good ballhead. Think of it as a permanent purchase. I tried the cheap route first and regretted it. I bought the ballhead used and saved myself almost $100. You can get some decent deals on used equipment.

Unfortunately, no, the 70-200 f/4L does not come with a collar. I think because it's probably the lightest telephoto L.

I don't disagree with you. In time, I'll definitely get both. But, with limited resources, one has to make a decision about one or the other for the short term. I was looking for advice on which would give me the more bang for the buck today. No reason to hold onto my money to get both and miss out on great pictures when one will get me 75% of the way there.

Thanks,
Ben

BenA2

ziggy53 wrote:

For the "official" collar/ring, at $120USD:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=186247&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

Someone wrote that a black collar for the 200mm, f2.8, would also fit the 70-200mm, f4. I cannot confirm this, but it costs about $30USD less ($90USD), so it might be worth checking out (I surely would).

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=211436&is=REG&addedTroughType=search
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=610664&postcount=7
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=618298&postcount=1
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=619765&postcount=10

ziggy53

Thanks a bunch Ziggy! This is excellent info. Based on your and TylerW's recommendation, I think I'll be going for the collar right now. $120 is much easier to swallow than $180. And, I think I might look into the cheaper black collar too.

Thanks,
Ben

Chase

Buy a SLIK able 300dx tripod. Mine cost me about 70 dollars. It is solid as a rock and very well built. The only downsides are that it only has a pan tilt head (a very sturdy one at least) and it is pretty heavy. It is worth its rock-like stability though.

BenA2

Thanks to Ziggy's recommendation, I picked up Canon's black collar for the 200 f/2.8L from B&H for $90. I can now confirm the following:

1) The 200 f/2.8L collar does indeed fit the 70-200 f/4L, and for significantly less $ than the white collar.

2) With the 70-200 f/4L onboard the Rebel XT, the combined COG does balance over the mounting bracket of the collar. So, this should prove to be much more stable on the tripod head.

I haven't yet tested to see if this actually results in improved sharpness on my flimsy tripod, but I will soon.

Thanks everyone for your input.

Ben

Jeffro

BenA2 wrote:

Thanks to Ziggy's recommendation, I picked up Canon's black collar for the 200 f/2.8L from B&H for $90.

Oh no! You passed on the quality of the L-series collar! Heaven forbid!

Makes you wonder what justifies the extra $29 for the white collar

TylerW

Jeffro wrote:

Oh no! You passed on the quality of the L-series collar! Heaven forbid!

Makes you wonder what justifies the extra $29 for the white collar

Ever see a girl in white pants and black panties? Not very classy is it?

But who gives a toss about being classy? Give me the cheap stuff that works.

ziggy53

TylerW wrote:

Ever see a girl in white pants and black panties? ... Give me the cheap stuff that works.

"Cheap stuff that works?" Are we still talkin' panties?

ziggy53