Canon 70-200 f/4 L tripod collar

[Chris Ober]

I'm thinking about getting the 70-200 f/4 L (non-IS version) to replace the old f/2.8 I never should have sold. With the reduced weight, how useful is the optional tripod collar? Anyone try any of the third-party collars with it instead of the $140+ Canon wants?

[Alfred Forns]

Not very useful Chris When mounting on a tripod just attach the camera with an L plate

btw when you get the f 4.o you will not miss the 2.8 When I had Canon I sold my 2.8 and got the 4.0 First the non IS later replacing with the IS version It is one fine lens

[Walt Anderson]

Hi Chris,
I agree with Alfred. I put the money toward a good L bracket and have no regrets. If you own a 400mm 5.6 lens you can use the collar from that lens. You may need to add a small piece of scotch tape to adjust the tension. Enjoy the lens, very easy to carry and very sharp.
Walt Anderson
Visual Echoes Inc.

[Chris Ober]

Thanks guys. The lens is on the way and I'll skip the tripod collar. I don't have a 400mm so use the 300mm with the 1.4x instead.

[Robert Amoruso]

Chris,

I have it and you don't need a tripod collar.

[Vladimir Stoyanov]

I use it very well, without tripod collar.

[David Kennedy]

Thanks guys. The lens is on the way and I'll skip the tripod collar. I don't have a 400mm so use the 300mm with the 1.4x instead.

Chris,
I do use the tripod collar, but it's because with a teleconverter it feels better balanced. The tripod collar on 300mm f/4 is the same as the one for the 70-200mm f/4, and I, too, own both, so instead of buying an extra collar, I just swap them as needed.

I used to own the 70-200mm f/2.8 (non IS) and sold it to buy a Gitzo tripod and the 70-200mm f/4 (non IS). I have absolutely zero regrets. That old lens was heavy. **** sharp, but did I mention heavy? And the f/4 is just as--if not moreso--sharp.

[David Kennedy]

Wait, "DARN" is even blocked out?!