Anyone have the Kirk foot for 100-4002?

[slclick]

I'm in the market for an arca swiss foot replacement for my new 100-400 mkii. The Kirk has the best price point of the three major players, Kirk, RRS, 4th Gen) I was wondering if anyone had any real life experience. It's for a 5D3 if that matters.

Thanks

 

[YuengLinger]

I'm in the market for an arca swiss foot replacement for my new 100-400 mkii. The Kirk has the best price point of the three major players, Kirk, RRS, 4th Gen) I was wondering if anyone had any real life experience. It's for a 5D3 if that matters.

Thanks

I went with the RRS just because I use a BH-55, and it's fine, but now, seeing some bird photographers in my area going with Wimberly that are longer than the foot itself (for better balance, so the body can be set back a little), I wonder...

If the plate is going on the lens, I don't see why the body should matter.

 

[Old Sarge]

If I remember correctly, (and feel free to correct me...I forget a lot nowadays) the Kirk was the first replacement foot made for that lens and I got it right after receiving the lens (I'm not usually that early an adopter but I was going on a vacation about the time the lens came out). It has served me well and I would recommend it. I have purchased things from RRS and found them to be of the highest possible workmanship and quality and their price reflects that. I know nothing about the other manufacturer you mentioned.

 

[slclick]

I'm in the market for an arca swiss foot replacement for my new 100-400 mkii. The Kirk has the best price point of the three major players, Kirk, RRS, 4th Gen) I was wondering if anyone had any real life experience. It's for a 5D3 if that matters.

Thanks

I went with the RRS just because I use a BH-55, and it's fine, but now, seeing some bird photographers in my area going with Wimberly that are longer than the foot itself (for better balance, so the body can be set back a little), I wonder...

If the plate is going on the lens, I don't see why the body should matter.

The body matters because if it was an integrated grip body than perhaps the amount of space from one mfg or another would vary with regards to room for hands and such as some feet replacements and plates have more setback than others. YMMV but I thought there would be some who could see it as being an issue.

 

[YuengLinger]

Sorry, I was thinking lens plate.

The RRS foot looks good, and I would imagine it is a little more stable than the plate I have attached to the Canon foot.

Is it really worth getting a replacement foot? The Canon seems to have a little flex--is that maybe important for the integrity of where it connects to the lens? Built-in flex?

 

[slclick]

Sorry, I was thinking lens plate.

The RRS foot looks good, and I would imagine it is a little more stable than the plate I have attached to the Canon foot.

Is it really worth getting a replacement foot? The Canon seems to have a little flex--is that maybe important for the integrity of where it connects to the lens? Built-in flex?

Well since the arca swiss plate part is a must, I'd rather have a replacement foot than another layer and set of attachment points via a plate.

 

[bluenoser1993]

Sorry, I was thinking lens plate.

The RRS foot looks good, and I would imagine it is a little more stable than the plate I have attached to the Canon foot.

Is it really worth getting a replacement foot? The Canon seems to have a little flex--is that maybe important for the integrity of where it connects to the lens? Built-in flex?

I have been wanting to purchase one of the replacements, but have been putting it off. Secondary to the performance aspects, it's annoying that the lens doesn't fit in the case with an arca plate added to the canon foot included. I didn't have this problem when the same plate was added to my 70-200 2.8 IS II. Now it requires removing the foot every time I put the lens away since it's easier than the screws for the plate. I'm pretty tired of it, but waiting on the Canadian exchange rate to improve before ordering one.

 

[YuengLinger]

Sorry, I was thinking lens plate.

The RRS foot looks good, and I would imagine it is a little more stable than the plate I have attached to the Canon foot.

Is it really worth getting a replacement foot? The Canon seems to have a little flex--is that maybe important for the integrity of where it connects to the lens? Built-in flex?

I have been wanting to purchase one of the replacements, but have been putting it off. Secondary to the performance aspects, it's annoying that the lens doesn't fit in the case with an arca plate added to the canon foot included. I didn't have this problem when the same plate was added to my 70-200 2.8 IS II. Now it requires removing the foot every time I put the lens away since it's easier than the screws for the plate. I'm pretty tired of it, but waiting on the Canadian exchange rate to improve before ordering one.

I am using the RRS plate that fit my old 400mm f/5.6. It fits my 100-400mm well enough, and it does not cause a problem with the Canon lens case. Sure, a little snug, but not enough to strain the zippers.

Does the RRS replacement foot also fit in the lens case? Anybody know?

 

[slclick]

I've read the Kirk fits the closest to the lens. I ordered the Kirk. Plus it's the least expensive... but that didn't drive my decision, what is $15 on a $1749 lens?

 

[BeenThere]

Why doesn't Canon just put a compatible foot on the original design? It could still have the 1/4" screw hole if anyone is still using that. Is there a patent issue?

 

[slclick]

Why doesn't Canon just put a compatible foot on the original design? It could still have the 1/4" screw hole if anyone is still using that. Is there a patent issue?

It would be sweet if Canon would adopt Tamron's new Arca Swiss foot as they have on the G2. It sure would piss off the 3rd party guys though.

 

[monsieur_elegante]

I'm in the market for an arca swiss foot replacement for my new 100-400 mkii. The Kirk has the best price point of the three major players, Kirk, RRS, 4th Gen) I was wondering if anyone had any real life experience. It's for a 5D3 if that matters.

Thanks

I recently got the Kirk replacement foot for the 100-400 II -- also because of the price point. It's great quality, as you might expect, but it does have these downsides that may or may not be important for you:
1. it has a low profile (as in the foot is close to the body) -- upside is lower center of gravity, compactness (fits in all my bags and the Canon-provided 100-400 II lens case without any problem); downside is if you have larger hands, it's very hard (if not impossible) to use this foot as a handle for carrying your lens around on the move.
2. the rear end of the foot sticks out close to the body. not a big deal unless you plan to mount this on a side-mounting gimbal (which I do) -- basically with this foot, you can't ever have it to the right side, and therefore cannot mount with a side-mounting gimbal - like the Sidekick - to the right hand side, because the foot will block your hand from holding the camera grip. Likewise, if you have a battery grip (or an integrated body like the 1dx), you'll need to make sure to rotate the foot out of the way before you can put your hand on the grip.

 

[YuengLinger]

I'm in the market for an arca swiss foot replacement for my new 100-400 mkii. The Kirk has the best price point of the three major players, Kirk, RRS, 4th Gen) I was wondering if anyone had any real life experience. It's for a 5D3 if that matters.

Thanks

I recently got the Kirk replacement foot for the 100-400 II -- also because of the price point. It's great quality, as you might expect, but it does have these downsides that may or may not be important for you:
1. it has a low profile (as in the foot is close to the body) -- upside is lower center of gravity, compactness (fits in all my bags and the Canon-provided 100-400 II lens case without any problem); downside is if you have larger hands, it's very hard (if not impossible) to use this foot as a handle for carrying your lens around on the move.
2. the rear end of the foot sticks out close to the body. not a big deal unless you plan to mount this on a side-mounting gimbal (which I do) -- basically with this foot, you can't ever have it to the right side, and therefore cannot mount with a side-mounting gimbal - like the Sidekick - to the right hand side, because the foot will block your hand from holding the camera grip. Likewise, if you have a battery grip (or an integrated body like the 1dx), you'll need to make sure to rotate the foot out of the way before you can put your hand on the grip.

Prompted by this thread, I took a hard look at how my RRS plate from my old 400mm 5.6 fits the foot of the 100-400mm II. So snug, so tight up against the little lip to prevent twisting, that I see no reason to switch. And, as mentioned, still fits in the Canon lens case.

 

[slclick]

I'm in the market for an arca swiss foot replacement for my new 100-400 mkii. The Kirk has the best price point of the three major players, Kirk, RRS, 4th Gen) I was wondering if anyone had any real life experience. It's for a 5D3 if that matters.

Thanks

I recently got the Kirk replacement foot for the 100-400 II -- also because of the price point. It's great quality, as you might expect, but it does have these downsides that may or may not be important for you:
1. it has a low profile (as in the foot is close to the body) -- upside is lower center of gravity, compactness (fits in all my bags and the Canon-provided 100-400 II lens case without any problem); downside is if you have larger hands, it's very hard (if not impossible) to use this foot as a handle for carrying your lens around on the move.
2. the rear end of the foot sticks out close to the body. not a big deal unless you plan to mount this on a side-mounting gimbal (which I do) -- basically with this foot, you can't ever have it to the right side, and therefore cannot mount with a side-mounting gimbal - like the Sidekick - to the right hand side, because the foot will block your hand from holding the camera grip. Likewise, if you have a battery grip (or an integrated body like the 1dx), you'll need to make sure to rotate the foot out of the way before you can put your hand on the grip.

Prompted by this thread, I took a hard look at how my RRS plate from my old 400mm 5.6 fits the foot of the 100-400mm II. So snug, so tight up against the little lip to prevent twisting, that I see no reason to switch. And, as mentioned, still fits in the Canon lens case.

Is it the B82 or the L84?

 

[YuengLinger]

I'm in the market for an arca swiss foot replacement for my new 100-400 mkii. The Kirk has the best price point of the three major players, Kirk, RRS, 4th Gen) I was wondering if anyone had any real life experience. It's for a 5D3 if that matters.

Thanks

I recently got the Kirk replacement foot for the 100-400 II -- also because of the price point. It's great quality, as you might expect, but it does have these downsides that may or may not be important for you:
1. it has a low profile (as in the foot is close to the body) -- upside is lower center of gravity, compactness (fits in all my bags and the Canon-provided 100-400 II lens case without any problem); downside is if you have larger hands, it's very hard (if not impossible) to use this foot as a handle for carrying your lens around on the move.
2. the rear end of the foot sticks out close to the body. not a big deal unless you plan to mount this on a side-mounting gimbal (which I do) -- basically with this foot, you can't ever have it to the right side, and therefore cannot mount with a side-mounting gimbal - like the Sidekick - to the right hand side, because the foot will block your hand from holding the camera grip. Likewise, if you have a battery grip (or an integrated body like the 1dx), you'll need to make sure to rotate the foot out of the way before you can put your hand on the grip.

Prompted by this thread, I took a hard look at how my RRS plate from my old 400mm 5.6 fits the foot of the 100-400mm II. So snug, so tight up against the little lip to prevent twisting, that I see no reason to switch. And, as mentioned, still fits in the Canon lens case.

Is it the B82 or the L84?

B82 J

 

[JPAZ]

+1 on the Kirk replacement foot. It works well with my Markins heads and my RRS head. For me, I can grasp it with my finger size and it does fit in the Canon lens case. For that matter, the relatively snug fit makes putting the 100-400 m2 with this replacement foot into any of my bags a breeze. I can see where a bigger space between the foot and the lens might help the arc of swing before contacting the tripod base when using a gimbal, but this has not been an issue for me.

 

[bluenoser1993]

Sorry, I was thinking lens plate.

The RRS foot looks good, and I would imagine it is a little more stable than the plate I have attached to the Canon foot.

Is it really worth getting a replacement foot? The Canon seems to have a little flex--is that maybe important for the integrity of where it connects to the lens? Built-in flex?

After reading this I hopeful and decided to try the plate attached in the case again. From the pictures you can see it isn't close to being able to zipper, disappointed. It made me think I received the wrong case, but it is LZ1326, the same as listed on B&H. Strange.
I have been wanting to purchase one of the replacements, but have been putting it off. Secondary to the performance aspects, it's annoying that the lens doesn't fit in the case with an arca plate added to the canon foot included. I didn't have this problem when the same plate was added to my 70-200 2.8 IS II. Now it requires removing the foot every time I put the lens away since it's easier than the screws for the plate. I'm pretty tired of it, but waiting on the Canadian exchange rate to improve before ordering one.

I am using the RRS plate that fit my old 400mm f/5.6. It fits my 100-400mm well enough, and it does not cause a problem with the Canon lens case. Sure, a little snug, but not enough to strain the zippers.

Does the RRS replacement foot also fit in the lens case? Anybody know?

 

[JPAZ]

This is not a "replacement foot" in these photos. It is a plate added to the Canon foot. The RRS and Kirk replacement feet are added to the lens after removing the Canon foot. See (for example)

https://www.kirkphoto.com/lens-mounting/canon/100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6l-is-ii-usm/replacement-lens-foot-for-canon-ef-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6l-is-ii-usm.html

and look at the video.

 

[mackguyver]

I went with the RRS replacement foot. I like to use the foot as a hand grip while shooting and the RRS foot is a bit taller and more rounded. I tried a couple of lens plates I had on hand first and the rounded front of the foot just didn't work well in terms of stopping it from twisting. Like all of my RRS purchases (outside the BH-55, which I did not like and felt was overrated/overpriced), the foot is excellent. I have some Kirk items as well and I'm sure the foot is equally as good in terms of quality, etc., and a better choice if you like the lower profile.

 

[bluenoser1993]

This is not a "replacement foot" in these photos. It is a plate added to the Canon foot. The RRS and Kirk replacement feet are added to the lens after removing the Canon foot. See (for example)

https://www.kirkphoto.com/lens-mounting/canon/100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6l-is-ii-usm/replacement-lens-foot-for-canon-ef-100-400mm-f-4-5-5-6l-is-ii-usm.html

and look at the video.

Yes, I know about the replacement foot, but YuengLinger mentioned using the same plate that fit on the 400 and it fit in the case.