User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  2
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Tripod Lans mounts for Canon 70 -300mm

  1. #1
    Ausphotography Regular Geoff Port's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jun 2012
    Location
    Jerilderie
    Posts
    697
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Tripod Lans mounts for Canon 70 -300mm

    Can anyone tell me if there is a tripod lens mount available for a 70 - 300mm zoom lens. I am unable to find any mention of such a beast on any supplier web sites.
    EOS 60D and a couple of lenses.

  2. #2
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    847
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Which EF 70 to 300 lens?
    There are 3:

    • EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
    • EF70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM
    • EF70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM


    Only the L series has a dedicated Tripod Mount Ring CW II
    There are also less expensive, third party copies.

    I expect one could rig a TMR for the EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, around the ledge on the barrel where “ultrasonic” appears: but there are no Guide Screws nor any Gutter and the ledge is not very long, so one runs the of the grip not being very effective and the lens falling out – but it would fall such that the camera body hit the TMR, so the rig might not fall onto the ground – but do you want to run that risk? Certainly there would be no/limited free turning to rotate the camera from Vertical to Horizontal Framing.

    I cannot envisage how any ring could be adapted to the DO, lens as it is very short and thick and appears to have no ledge suitable.

    I cannot easily note any reason for TMR for either of the other two lenses – both are relatively small, short and lightweight lenses and should be ably held on a tripod (or monopod) mounted to the camera base - - -

    If you are considering a TMR for either of the other lenses – what’s the problem with just mounting the camera?

    WW

  3. #3
    Ausphotography Regular
    Threadstarter
    Geoff Port's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jun 2012
    Location
    Jerilderie
    Posts
    697
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the info William. My problem is that when I mount my 60D and EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM onto the Manfrotto 494RC2 mount and lock it after framing a shot the weight of the lens causes a bit of drop at the front of the lens requiring a reset of the framing to allow for it. Very frustrating.
    Maybe I need to go to a more substantial quick mount?

  4. #4
    Ausphotography Regular junqbox's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Jul 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    710
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Don't know much about the Canon lenses. Maybe if you contact RRS or Kirks they might suggets one of their other ones might fit on your lens.

  5. #5
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    847
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Understood. I have know the problem.

    Have you tried a very thin shim placed on the BASE of the plate bed, on the BALL HEAD?
    Four or six layers of Aluminium Cooking foil, for example.



    Also - (and likely you have already confirmed this) - ensure that it is NOT play at the lens mount - and you are supporting the lens underneath
    the barrel as you frame the shot - and then you release that supporting hand.

    WW
    Last edited by William W; 31-10-2012 at 11:05am. Reason: added more comment

  6. #6
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,188
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Geoff Port View Post
    ...... My problem is that when I mount my 60D and EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM onto the Manfrotto 494RC2 mount and lock it after framing a shot the weight of the lens causes a bit of drop at the front of the lens requiring a reset of the framing to allow for it. Very frustrating. ....
    this is a common problem. One I only know too well!
    It's not specific to Manfrotto, but I'm 99.9% convinced it's entirely due to the 494 ballhead. I'm 99.8% convinced that a lens mounted tripod foot will not help much with the problem.
    This doesn't mean that it's WON'T help, only that my experience is that it may not help .. having various ballheads to test with!

    .... Maybe I need to go to a more substantial quick mount?
    I could recommend a few alternatives, but again in my experience some do better at some things, and others do better at other things.

    So far:

    RRS BH-55(very expensive for a ballhead, but it's the best I have for a specific task .. being rigid and not shaking(much) when required. They all have a tendency to prove a small amount of shakyness, but the better ones will delay this point and minimize the range where it's an actual problem. But I can provide mirror slap induced images as examples with the use of this ballhead and a Gitzo 3531 carbon tripod if you really need.
    This ballhead gives me a very small amount of droop with the 300/2.8 attached(via the tripod collar) and also the much lighter 500/8 mirror lens too. the very small amount of droop is acceptable with these lenses tho!
    I could rabbit on for another 30 pages about other experiences, but this gives you a rough idea that just about any and every ballhead may give you this small amount of droop.

    nearly!
    Manfrotto MG468RC5: good ballhead, but one I'm going to replace one day soon(no urgency). This one no longer gives me any lens droop, with most lenses. Very slight when the 300/2.8 is turned into a 840/5.6. The extra magnification is what does it. That is, it's pretty rigid now, and the droop is so slight that you need extreme instances to actually be bothered by it.
    But this ballhead wasn't always like this tho. It used to droop massively prior to a cleanout. Much more than I ever saw with the 500/8 on the RRS ballhead. And what used to be worse was that the more you tighten, the more it kind of drooped!
    So I pulled it apart only to a specific point, where I had full access to the actual ball, and wasted a can(large can) of WD40 on it, to clean it up .. or out.
    Copious quantities of black goop were expelled into many rags I had at hand .. and this went on for many minutes .. maybe 20 .. even 30 maybe. The amount of blackish coloured 'whatever' constantly dripped off the ball, eventually cleared to a point that clean WD40 became obvious on the white rags I had.

    Then I put it together and the miraculous transformation of this ballhead was immediate.
    Where the expensive RRS ballhead gives me a very slight droop, the MGR468 gives me none at all. 200mm over 4 meters focused distance, and I calculated about 2mm of droop with the RRS55 ballhead, and just a mil or so more with the 300/2.8 attached, but inconsequential by comparison.
    The newly cleaned Manfrotto 468 gave nothing at all .. not even half a mil by comparison with either of the two lenses tested.

    Problem is that when it came to the actual exposure, there was significantly more mirror slap from the manfrotto ballhead on the same gitzo tripod when compared to the RRS head.
    For landscapes this isn't an issue, but for low light macro, where available light is wanted, it's the difference between fine detail and mush.
    When(if) I could be bothered, I use mirror lockup for the exposures with the manfrotto head in use.
    I have three tripod setups where I switch between bits and pieces when my energy levels allow .. otherwise i just shoot with whatever is there and set up.

    Note that there may be a difference between the RC4 and RC5 quickrelease plate system too. RC5 is a massively rigid QR system. It's found on many video setups.
    Annoyance tho with an rc5 plate on your camera's base plate is that it's intrusive into the way you hold the camera.
    (the Arca Swiss plate system is a godsend by comparison).

    If you have the money, possibly contemplate the acquisition of a new, more rigid, ballhead.

    If you have the time and inclination try a cleanout of the manfrotto head .. you have nothing to lose other than a few rags and a can of cleaning spray(I used the straw nozzle to get in deep into the ball housing and crevices).

    I think, if you're about to spend money, don't waste it on a collar that may not help with the issue. I think it's most likely the ballhead at fault here.
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  7. #7
    Ausphotography Regular
    Threadstarter
    Geoff Port's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jun 2012
    Location
    Jerilderie
    Posts
    697
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well gentlemen, thankyou very much for such extensive advice. My camera to mount rigidity is solid William so I don't think I have the need for shims.
    Sounds to me like I have to spend some additional $s to rectify this problem.
    As soon as I've purchased my external flash I'll investigate a new head. Will keep you informed.
    Thanks again.

  8. #8
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    847
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    thisis a common problem. One I only know too well!
    It's not specific to Manfrotto, but I'm 99.9% convinced it's entirely due tothe 494 ballhead. I'm 99.8% convinced that a lens mounted tripod foot will nothelp much with the problem. . . .
    having various ballheads to test with!


    Ah – OK – thanks for that information - I have filed that away.
    Mine – (the one in the image) is a 496RC2 – it’s reasonably solid when locked – but I don’t use it that often and I am not too fond of BallHeads, generally.

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by GeoffPort View Post
    . . . My camera to mount rigidity is solid William so I don't think I have the need for shims.

    OK – understood - (I do have some worn plates - that's why I suggested it)
    Good luck with it.
    BTW - I am NOT recommending the 496RC2 as a solution to your problem – just stating that’s the one I have.

    WW
    Last edited by William W; 01-11-2012 at 5:47pm.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •