Big white lenses: Foot replacement or Lens plate?

[tron]

hello,

having bought a 500mm f/4L IS II and using a Markins M20 head - which for at least this year will NOT be complemented with objects named Wimberely, Gimbal, Sidekick etc - I wonder if the best choice is a lens foot replacement or a lens plate. Since a friend is coming from the States where almost everything is cheaper I decided to test both! So I will get Kirk LP-58 and Kirk LP-55SG - the reason for Kirk is my positive experience with their Camera plates. I will have them in about 2 weeks.

I have the following thoughts:

1. LP-58 comes with 2 1/4" screws and a 3/8" adapter.

My 500mm requires 3/8 and 1/4 screws (one per category) so the adapter will have to be used. Do you have experience with these adapters? Are they safe to use?

For example when you decide to remove the plate which one will unscrew first adapter with the screw or just the screw first and leave the adapter in the lens plate and me scratching my head wondering how to fix it

2. LP-55SG means removal of the original foot. Will the screwing of the new foot be secure? Canon suggest to leave this to them which of course is silly so what is your opinion? Is the replacement safe? I guess it's both safe and trivial...

On RRS site they say: "If your mounting screws loosen over time, consider using a drop of LocTite 242 for better security. "

There is nothing like that on Kirk's site but I think RRS are being more sincere...

3. Any comparison between Lens foot replacement and use of lens plate?

Sorry for possibly silly questions but I am newbie as far as big white lenses are concerned.

 

[Loswr]

I'd recommend neither. Instead, get the Really Right Stuff LCF-53 replacement foot.

I posted a detailed rationale earlier, especially relevant since you've been discussing TCs. Let me find that reference to avoid a long iPhone composition...

 

[Loswr]

Here it is...

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 and why?

The RRS foot, for better balance on a gimbal while retaining handle function. I eliminated the Wimberley replacement foot as it can't be used as a handle. I'd never heard of 4th Gen Design, but looking them up, I learned that's the maker of the Mongoose side gimbal, of which I've certainly heard. Although the pic is tiny, it looks much like the Wimberley 'foot' - too flat to be used as a handle. I believe that is a consequence of the Mongoose and Wimberley side gimbal designs. RRS doesn't have that issue, since their side mount gimbal (which I have) can be adjusted horizontally to center the lens, as opposed to the one-piece design of the others.

I'm not sure what Canon was thinking with the tripod collar on the 600 II, and the 500 II seems even worse. Basically, the Canon foot is too far forward. It's fine with just the body, but when you put a 1-series or gripped body with a 2x TC, the center of mass is right under or very slightly behind the mounting screws on the tripod collar. The problem is the Canon foot sweeps forward, and a Wimberley P-50 doesn't sit back far enough. The Kirk foot is designed just like the Canon foot, with the forward sweep. The RRS foot can be used as a handle, and actually extends slightly behind the mounting screws on the collar. With the 2xIII and 1D X, the back edge of the foot is flush with the back of the 80mm RRS clamp on the gimbal at the balance point. So, with the Kirk foot or a Wimberley P-50 plate on the Canon foot, the back edge of the foot/plate would be inside the clamp - probably still plenty stable, but I'd prefer to use the full extent of the clamping surface. Alternatively, with it flush the intrinsic tension/resistance of the head would probably compensate for it being slightly off-balance - but I'd prefer it to be properly balanced.

Probably more detail than you wanted...

Note that the MkI lenses didn't have this issue. But a fair bit of the weight savings for the MkII lenses is because the protective front meniscus lens was eliminated - that shifts the center of mass backward, but it seems Canon used the same foot design and placement on the MkII lenses. I've read of people mounting the supplied monopod foot in reverse to get the proper balance on the new lenses.

Also, I'd really consider a gimbal sooner than later if you're using it with a tripod. Until then, be very careful. Always have a hand on the camera/lens when you loosen the ball, always tighten the ball securely. Set up your legs so one of them is directly under the lens. Even knowing that, a friend with a 500 I had 'ballhead flop' a couple of times. He was lucky - the lens just slammed into the tripod leg (right under it, which is why I suggest that). Even that can potentially decenter an element if the impact is hard enough. If the leg hadn't been there, most likely the whole rig would have toppled to the ground. An incident like that would make a gimbal seem like a cheap investment. My friend now has a Wimberley II.

 

[Loswr]

Forgot to add...I did use a little Loctite Blue 242 on the four hex bolts when replaced the foot.

 

[tron]

Thank you very much. Better more detail than less.
And anyway I can go back to this when necessary.

I have a non-gripped 5D3 so I believe the problem will be a little less.

I am aware of possible Markins head limitation and when I use it I will be very careful.

Right now I (think I) have no access to an RRS representative in Europe but I have already ordered the Kirk plate and replacement foot so that's it for a year.

I understand that eventually the correct thing is to use a specialized head but the use of this lens will be mostly for:

1. Sunsets/moonrises/sunrises (with extender or not)
2. Wetlands visits. This will be a first!

Lens arrived on Friday 21st. After a rather unfortunate choice of place on Saturday
I found the correct spot next day (full moon day) and that day was rather a success.

Since I did not have either a lens plate or a replacement foot I reverted to my old Manfrotto 055PROB with a Junior Gear Head 410 head.

Now the advantage of this head is that the plate can be used either with a 1/4 inch or a 3/8 inch screw.
I used the later and the lens was steady (with the help of mirror lock and 2 second delay anyway).

This combination is perfect for the sun and the moon but is useless otherwise.

So I am thinking of Markins as a compromise for now.
(Another choice I am contemplating for the next year is the replacement of M20 with an Arca Swiss Z1)
But first I need to test the combination...

By the way isn't the use of glue bothering you with the thought that you are somehow bound to that choice?
Is its use permanent?

Again thank you very much for your response.

 

[Loswr]

Loctite Blue 242 is 'semipermanent' - a good hard pull with a long-handled hex key and the screws will come out. But they won't work loose on their own. Loctite has other products with a much stronger 'permanent' bond.

RRS doesn't use distributors - you buy direct from them. They do ship internationally.

 

[tron]

Loctite Blue 242 is 'semipermanent' - a good hard pull with a long-handled hex key and the screws will come out. But they won't work loose on their own. Loctite has other products with a much stronger 'permanent' bond.

RRS doesn't use distributors - you buy direct from them. They do ship internationally.

Once more 100% precise. Thanks