Tripod Collar for the 70-200mm f/4

I'm a little perturbed that the 70-200mm doesn't include the $169 tripod collar Nikon has for it, but at the same time it's light enough that I doubt I would have it on a lot. That said, shooting the eclipse yesterday was one of those times when I wondered if it would have been a little better for the camera to not have the lens extended out in front of it with no other means of support for an hour? So, I started looking for other options and found only 2, the Kirk aftermarket collar, which is only slightly less expensive but from reviews seems to be the better choice. Still, for as little as I'd use it I don't know if I want to drop $150 on it. Then there's the Vello version, which seems very similar to the Nikon, and only $49.

I suspect that I will drop the money on that as I've been happy with most of the Vello products I've used, but before I do that I was wondering if anyone here has had experience with it? Any negatives that I should seriously consider?

I agree. It should've been included with the lens. But, I rarely use the after-market version that I did end up purchasing, so I can't justify paying what Nikon wants. Here it is:

Amazon.com: DSLRKIT Full Metal Tripod Mount Ring for Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR lens: Camera & Photo

It's gone down in price and was shipped from Asia. I paid about $35. It arrived quickly and is of good enough quality that I feel comfortable that it won't fail and damage my lens.

You could always use zip ties and duct tape....

Kidding, I bought one for that rare time I actually need it. But your right, most of the time like 98% its not even on the lens. Mostly used for family portraits when I decide to step out from behind the camera.

Krs_2007 said:

You could always use zip ties and duct tape....

Kidding, I bought one for that rare time I actually need it. But your right, most of the time like 98% its not even on the lens. Mostly used for family portraits when I decide to step out from behind the camera.

Click to expand...

Zip ties and duct tape . . . It might work.

i look at it from the other perspective. I'm glad Nikon didn't include the collar because they most likely would have increased the price of the lens. The Nikon collar has received very marginal reviews. I will probably buying the lens soon, and if I decide to purchase a collar, I would spring for the Kirk, which has received outstanding reviews.

It is worth the additional cost for me to know my camera and lens will be steady and secure when I put it on a tripod.

I own this lens for only 3 days and faced the same dilemma. however, after mounting the setup on a tripod, with a ballhead, i have a feeling that the collar will not be needed. the lens is incredibly light and balances well on my D800. The only reason i would consider the collar is if you want the ability to quickly switch from landscape to portrait mode, without the need of taking the camera off the tripod. I use an L plate, so the switch is fairly quick and easy, and for now it looks like i will be skipping on the collar

any decent tripod head should be able to handle the stress. I tightened everything, took a shot, then left the setup unattended for 30 minutes and took another shot. the composition haven't changed the slightest bit, so i feel confident. You might want to do the same before throwing money on something you don't need

I'm not worried about the tripod head as much as about the camera mount when the lens is mounted for long periods at a shooting angle.

i wouldn't worry about that. if there was any risk of the lens weight damaging the body mount, nikon would supply a collar as a precaution measure. in this case, it's more of a luxury item

i would probably consider it if i had an entry level body with plasticky build, but with the gear you have listed in your signature you have nothing to worry about

Dimson said:

i wouldn't worry about that. if there was any risk of the lens weight damaging the body mount, nikon would supply a collar as a precaution measure. in this case, it's more of a luxury item

Click to expand...

Alas, I suspect that were I to return a D600 because their lens that didn't come with a collar warped the lens mount, I suspect I'd be paying for the replacement.

I think I would opt for the less expensive options as I do not feel you would recover that cost if you ever decide to sell the lens.

I paid $23.50 at StudioHut, including shipping
Studiohut - Affordable Photography Equipment, Photography Studio Equipment
It fits the lens beautifully, and has the inner soft lining, which prevents the mount from scratching the lens.

jrleo33 said:

I paid $23.50 at StudioHut, including shipping
Studiohut - Affordable Photography Equipment, Photography Studio Equipment
It fits the lens beautifully, and has the inner soft lining, which prevents the mount from scratching the lens.

Click to expand...

​Thanks for posting this! I think this will make an excellent stocking stuffer for myself

$21.68

RT 1 Tripod Mount Ring for Nikon AF s Nikkor 70 200mm F 4G Ed VR Lens as RT 1 | eBay

Cheers, Don

How do you guys like this lens?

Love it, gets excellent reviews everywhere. I debated for a while over this and the Tamron 2.8 VC. I went with the f4 for the size/weight and sharpness. 2.8's are great, but didn't want to carry one on a long hike.

I posted these two images before taken with my D600, and the 70-200mm F/4 at 200mm, and switched the camera into DX mode, with the second image cropping at 300mm. The lens is very sharp, light weight, and returns a crisp color image.

Good to know..just not sure if the f4 would be useful for weddings..

I got the f4 for much the same reason as Rick, I didn't want to carry that weight around, and with a D600 I have no problem ratcheting the ISO up one stop to make up for the lack of a stop on the lens. I very rarely shoot wide open. Unless you're talking very dim rooms I'm thinking the lens would do fine for weddings. People rave about the sharpness of the 2.8, but I find that kind of hype, deserved or otherwise, somehow casts every other lens in the very undeserving "not sharp enough" category, and that's far from the truth.

I absolutely love my "Unholy Trinity" - the 16-35mm f/4, 24-120mm f/4 and 70-200mm f/4. For what I paid for those I'd still be saving for lens #2 in the f/2.8 set, but I'm out there shooting with all of them, and more importantly don't feel like I'm missing a thing.

Is it fast enough for sports?

It is my primary lens and it does a fantastic job for sports pictures. I have never had an issue with it.