Lens foot for the 600mm IS II

[Pao Dolina]

With lens feet from Kirk, RRS, 4th Gen Design and others which one did you go for for your EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alabang/tags/ef600mmf4lisiiusm/) and why?

[Alan Lillich]

We bought the 4th Gen foot. I like the other 4th Gen long lens feet we have, more than the one Kirk we've had, we've never had an RRS foot. It is comfortable to carry and fits well to the stored hood. This 4th Gen foot is in two parts, they claim it is for adjustment to fit different body weights. Using the 2nd hole it can balance fine for a bare 1D-IV or 7D plus battery grip (medium weight on back), up to adding a 2x TC (most weight on back). It won't quite balance with a bare 7D (least weight on back) unless you remove the front stop screw. This on a Jobu Jr. head, where the plate grooves don't come too far in. On a Wimberley II the grooves come much closer to the center. That will balance a bare 7D with about 1/2 inch of the base plate exposed.

(I'm not too keen on the 4th Gen foot for the 70-200 f/2.8. It sticks out a little in back and hits the 1D vertical grip if you rotate it to the right. It will rotate to the left OK - I rotate it to the top for hand holding.)

[Pao Dolina]

Thank you Alan. Mighty kind of you to photo your foot. It gives me an idea on what can be done with the 600. So prior to this 4th Gen 600mm IS II foot you used a Kirk one? Am I correct?

[Alan Lillich]

On the 600 II we went from the stock foot to the 4th Gen. BTW if you are mostly concerned about weight, the stock foot is incredibly light. I was quite surprised when I removed it. We have 4th Gen feet on a Nikon 200-400 and Canon 800. I had Kirk versus RRS backwards, we have one RRS foot on a Canon 500 (version I) and no Kirk feet.

[Pao Dolina]

I see! I am concerned about a (1) lower profile foot that can be (2) comfortably used as a handle and yet still can (3) mounted to a arca-swiss mount and (4) screw into a monopod. It should have enough lens foot metal to balance a 1D body and extender.

Yes there are monopod heads but they add weight and expense.

I have the following:

Wimberly lens plates (http://www.tripodhead.com/products/lens-plates-main.cfm); I initially started with them because I feared a foot would void warranty and mess with IS but since upgraded to other foots when possible. I would have prefered to stick with the brand but Wimberly foots are too low to use as a comfortable handle. Plates are a hassle if you use a screw in monopod.
- 800/5.6 IS (http://www.tripodhead.com/images/P-50-Large-3.jpg)
- 300/2.8 IS (http://www.tripodhead.com/images/P-30-Large-3.jpg) foot and collar are single piece unlike the Series II.
- 200/2 IS (http://www.tripodhead.com/images/P-20-Large-3.jpg)
- 70-200/2.8 IS II (http://www.tripodhead.com/images/P-20-Large-3.jpg) from the 200/2 IS (http://www.tripodhead.com/images/P-20-Large-3.jpg)

Kirk foot (http://www.kirkphoto.com/quick-release-lens-plates.html); inexpensive, available anywhere and cheap. They're a tad tall.
- 500/4 IS (http://www.kirkphoto.com/Lens_Plate_for_500mm_f4_IS_replacing_Canon_foot.ht ml)
- 200/2 IS (http://www.kirkphoto.com/Lens_Plate_for_Canon_EF_200mm_f2_l_IS_USM.html)

RRS foot (http://reallyrightstuff.com/Items.aspx?code=LensFoot-All&key=cat); expensive, tall and only available from their CA-based store. I had to pay CA sales tax. It is marketed to work on the 500 IS II and 600 IS II as well.
- 400/2.8 IS II (http://reallyrightstuff.com/ProductDesc.aspx?code=LCF-53&type=0&eq=LCF-53-001&desc=LCF-53%3a-Foot-for-400%2f500%2f600mm-IS-II&key=ait)

4th Gen foot (http://stores.4gdphoto.com/-strse-Canon-Accessories/Categories.bok); Initially wary because my friend's 500/4 IS foot from them was too low to use as a handle but for the 800 it was perfect fit.
- 800/5.6 IS (http://stores.4gdphoto.com/-strse-22/CR-dsh-80%7EReplacenent-Lens-Foot/Detail.bok)

[Alan Lillich]

The 4th Gen foot satisfies 1, 2, and 3. The lens to foot gap is about 3 cm on the 600 II. I solve 4 by putting an Arca-Swiss clamp on the monopod, like the Kirk QRC-2. I agree that Wimberley feet are too low. We had one on a Nikon 200-400 and I hated it.

[Pao Dolina]

The 4th Gen foot satisfies 1, 2, and 3. The lens to foot gap is about 3 cm on the 600 II. I solve 4 by putting an Arca-Swiss clamp on the monopod, like the Kirk QRC-2. I agree that Wimberley feet are too low. We had one on a Nikon 200-400 and I hated it.

Wow! I did not notice that! No screw in hole for the monopod! Doesn't the "stem" where the plate attaches to have a hole for a screw in monopod?

[Alan Lillich]

Wow! I did not notice that! No screw in hole for the monopod! Doesn't the "stem" where the plate attaches to have a hole for a screw in monopod?

Learn something new every day! Since I use an Arca-Swiss clamp I didn't look closely at the hole until just now. It does have a standard 3/16-18 thread. But since the hole is slightly recessed you loose enough bite to worry me, unless you have an extra long stud. A Kirk QRC-2 plate is only $60 and very light, a trivial addition for a $12,800 and 8.6 lb lens.

[Pao Dolina]

Learn something new every day! Since I use an Arca-Swiss clamp I didn't look closely at the hole until just now. It does have a standard 3/16-18 thread. But since the hole is slightly recessed you loose enough bite to worry me, unless you have an extra long stud. A Kirk QRC-2 plate is only $60 and very light, a trivial addition for a $12,800 and 8.6 lb lens.

I guess I have to visit my pal and test this out. My avoidance of monopod heads and other convenience gadgets have something to do with the extra gear I bring along with me. I even gave up bringing a notebook or chargers because it's just more weight for me to lug around as I normally carry about 14kg of gear without clothes, toiletries, bags, notebook and head.

[van bogaert erik]

Learn something new every day! Since I use an Arca-Swiss clamp I didn't look closely at the hole until just now. It does have a standard 3/16-18 thread. But since the hole is slightly recessed you loose enough bite to worry me, .

i have a wimberly clamp mounted directly on the monopod , so no head , and on my lens a arca swiss style plate .

[David Stephens]

Is there a problem with the stock foot?

[Alan Lillich]

Is there a problem with the stock foot?

Two problems in my view, both related to being too tall. Neither is a deal breaker, but for me worth spending the extra $125. One that probably could affect anyone is that it gets in the way of packing for flying. The 4th Gen foot makes a difference in an international-sized carry-on bag when every cubic inch counts. The other is that it is too high for some tripod use. It is won't balance with the bottom mount mode of a Jobu Jr head. It is also awkward on a side mount head, putting the center of gravity off of the tripod center.

[Pao Dolina]

The Canon foot has no arca swiss thread. It can be screwed directly to a monopod. If I attach a lens foot plate I get the arca swiss thread but I cannot screw a monopod onto the foot or plate.

A replacement foot (1) has arca swiss thread, (2) can be screwed directly to a monopod, (3) makes the lens more compact and (4) makes the lens lighter. For the 200/2 IS and 300/2.8 IS II it adds more metal as a handle.

I was worried that replacing the foot would mess with IS and void warranty but this fear was unfounded.

No, I will not get a arca swiss clamp. Dont want it, don't need it. It adds cost and weight. I carry 14kg of gear and I do not want to carry 100g more weight. :)

[van bogaert erik]

For the 200/2 IS and 300/2.8 IS II it adds more metal as a handle.

I was worried that replacing the foot would mess with IS and void warranty but this fear was unfounded.

:)


What is the brand and model of foot that you have installed on the 300mm f2,8 IS II ?

Why do you think it can mess up the IS ??

the plate that i installed on the lens works good as a handle for me

[Pao Dolina]

To clarify it is an assumption that there is a foot for the 300 IS II. I dont have a 300 IS II so never looked for a replacement foot.

You can try the brands mentioned on this thread for appropriate foot for the 300.

I assumed that there is a sensor of some sort attached to the foot for use with the US. I was unfamiliar with the technology then.

Plate does not allow me to screw to the monopod.


What is the brand and model of foot that you have installed on the 300mm f2,8 IS II ?

Why do you think it can mess up the IS ??

the plate that i installed on the lens works good as a handle for me