Sigma Tripod Socket TS-81 Availability Announced

[Canon Rumors]

This is not an announcement of a new product, Sigma is just letting us know that the Arca compatible foot for the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082152-REG/sigma_150_600mm_f_5_6_3_dg_os.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Sigma 150-600 f/5-6.3 OS Sport</a> is now available and retailers should have it soon.</p>
<p>From Sigma:</p>
<p>We are pleased to announce the availability of TRIPOD SOCKET TS-81 that is the optional lens foot which can be attached to the SIGMA 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM | Sports. It is compatible with the Arca Swiss quick release plate and the clamp. The deliberately designed length of its rail provides the flexibility to adjust the center of gravity making it balance perfectly, even while zooming or using accessories, such as a tele converter and battery pack. Consideration has been given to the portability and transportation of the lens when Tripod Socket TS-81 is attached. The lens hood can still be reversed and the lens stored in its original padded case, even with the Tripod Socket TS-81 attached. Incorporated into the Tripod Socket are safety stopper screws to prevent the lens from falling. There are 2 sizes of screw holes, 1/4 and 3/8, making it compatible with tripods other than Arca Swiss, too. When it is compared to the supplied tripod socket, it offers more space between the lens and device, and the change of grip has improved the usage as a handle for carrying.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=15086" target="_blank">The-Digital-Picture</a>]</p>

 

[candc]

it costs $238.00.

how about just get the tamron 150-600 which is half the cost and half the weight of the sigma lens and then you don't need the foot.

 

[TexPhoto]

Not to be a negative Nancy, but $238.00 is insane. You can just attach a $10 Arca Swiss plate to the included tripod collar.

I have a Sigma 120-300 and have done just that. The problem with my tripod collar and and the $238.00 replacement is they are too square and make using it as a handle uncomfortable.

 

[johnnycash]

$238? Amazing. One company can make lens for $125 (the new 50mm f/1.8 STM) and another makes a piece of metal for double that amount. I understand they don't sell it in high volumes but still, it is ridiculous.
I recall paiying around $100 for RRS replacement foot for my 200-400 and I considered this too expensive already.
This makes my opinion about Sigma even worse, I don't like them no matter how good PR they are pushing. Tamron is a better choice compared to Sigma in many cases.

 

[Bennymiata]

I think it's a great idea and I wonder why all the lens makers don't do this too.
Surely it can't be difficult for Canon to make the feet Arca Swiss compatible on its big whites.

The cost that Sigma is asking is a bit rich though.

 

[sanj]

The original handle is HORRIBLE

 

[johnnycash]

$238? Amazing. One company can make lens for $125 (the new 50mm f/1.8 STM) and another makes a piece of metal for double that amount. I understand they don't sell it in high volumes but still, it is ridiculous.

The same company that makes a lens for $125 sells a tripod collar for $168:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/747346-REG/Canon_4429B001_Canon_Tripod_Mount_Ring.html

That's expensive too, luckily you don't need that collar for 70-300L.

 

[sulla]

Well, the Canon Tripod Mount Rings are more: They are rings with locks, screws and other bells and whistles (to exaggerate a bit). While being ridiculously expensive on their own, their 160 (USD/EUR) price tag is STILL 1/3 lower than the Sigma TS-81 which is a MERE FOOT without anything to it.

Come on, Sigma, your're pulling our legs!

 

[TexPhoto]

Here is a photo of the Sigma 120-300 Sport mount vs. the Canon 400mm f2.8 IS mount. Both with generic $10-20 arca-swiss plates attached.

Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

The Sigma's is square, uncomfortable in the hand, and close to the lens body, so fingers touch the lens. The Canon is beveled and has a rubberized pad for extra grip. It is also far enough from the lens body that a gloved hand is not going to touch the lens body.

I should add, the Sigma has 3 tripod socket holes allowing for 2-3 1/4" fasteners to be used. (I used 2). The Canon has 2 tripod sockets, one 1/4 inch and one 3/8", I used both. Both systems allow for very secure fastening of the arca swiss plate.

As The Digital Picture points out, this could be a standard feature for Sigma (or Canon). Nothing is lost by cutting the arca-swiss mount into the existing mount. I might even look into having a machine shop do this for me.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

The Sigma's is square, uncomfortable in the hand, and close to the lens body, so fingers touch the lens. The Canon is beveled and has a rubberized pad for extra grip. It is also far enough from the lens body that a gloved hand is not going to touch the lens body.

True of the 400/2.8, but not the 300/2.8 which would have been a fairer comparison.

 

[TexPhoto]

The Sigma's is square, uncomfortable in the hand, and close to the lens body, so fingers touch the lens. The Canon is beveled and has a rubberized pad for extra grip. It is also far enough from the lens body that a gloved hand is not going to touch the lens body.

True of the 400/2.8, but not the 300/2.8 which would have been a fairer comparison.

I am trying to point out good vs. bad design. I don't own a Canon 300, and am not sure why I need to be fair. If the Canon design for the 300 is bad, they should fix that too.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

The Sigma's is square, uncomfortable in the hand, and close to the lens body, so fingers touch the lens. The Canon is beveled and has a rubberized pad for extra grip. It is also far enough from the lens body that a gloved hand is not going to touch the lens body.

True of the 400/2.8, but not the 300/2.8 which would have been a fairer comparison.

I am trying to point out good vs. bad design. I don't own a Canon 300, and am not sure why I need to be fair. If the Canon design for the 300 is bad, they should fix that too.

I was thinking because the 400/2.8 is a much bigger, heavier lens so it naturally has a bigger foot. But actually the difference is not that great is it?