Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II

Started May 7, 2013 | Discussions
Martin_E
Regular MemberPosts: 301
Like?
Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
May 7, 2013

Hi,
   I have a big favour to ask anyone who owns both the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II and Canon 500mm f4 IS II Lenses. Please could you tell me if the Allen Bolts that hold the Lens Foot to the rotating Ring are the same for both? The bolts on my mkI 500 are smaller than the ones on my 300mm mkII and the hole spacing is slightly different. the same size Allen key should if both is a way to check. (without loosening of course)

Much appreciated.

Martin,

Steve Balcombe
Forum ProPosts: 10,638
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to Martin_E, May 7, 2013

Martin_E wrote:

Hi,
   I have a big favour to ask anyone who owns both the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II and Canon 500mm f4 IS II Lenses. Please could you tell me if the Allen Bolts that hold the Lens Foot to the rotating Ring are the same for both? The bolts on my mkI 500 are smaller than the ones on my 300mm mkII and the hole spacing is slightly different. the same size Allen key should if both is a way to check. (without loosening of course)

I only have the 300, but the answer must be yes because the same Jobu replacement foot fits both lenses.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joger
Senior MemberPosts: 2,571Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to Steve Balcombe, May 8, 2013

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Martin_E wrote:

Hi,
   I have a big favour to ask anyone who owns both the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II and Canon 500mm f4 IS II Lenses. Please could you tell me if the Allen Bolts that hold the Lens Foot to the rotating Ring are the same for both? The bolts on my mkI 500 are smaller than the ones on my 300mm mkII and the hole spacing is slightly different. the same size Allen key should if both is a way to check. (without loosening of course)

I only have the 300, but the answer must be yes because the same Jobu replacement foot fits both lenses.

I also only own the 300 f/2.8 II - I'd go with the RRS replacement foot. It is lightweight (adds no further weight to the lens - which is key for me) and it is quite long and solid like a rock and it does not shift the center of gravity too far out. So the lens balances nicely with a gimbal mount still.

If you replace the original foot with a foot from the 500 f/4.0 you probably add another 0.15 kg with the heavier foot plus a suitable Arca Swiss mount plate and you shift the center of gravity further away.

Both the original (almost unusable) Canon foot and the really excellent RRS foot weigh around 0.07 kg but the RRS foot has a rather long Arca Swiss compliant mount and needs no further tripod mount.

IMHO the perfect foot. (that's why I bought it - the original bolts fit perfectly and I fixed them with Loctite 243)

It is easy for me to cary the lens with three fingers - the total weight 5D II plus the 300 f/2.8 II is close to the weight of an 1D body plus the 70-200 f/2.8 II - thus not a huge total weight - in fact hand holdable for quite a while in case you dislike a gimbal mount or a monopod (which I prefer to get the best framing)

I'd go for the RRS foot - it is just perfect - and it has the right color too

(btw - it also adds positive and negative slide path with no extra weight)

-- hide signature --

__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein

 joger's gear list:joger's gear list
Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin_E
Regular MemberPosts: 301
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to Steve Balcombe, May 8, 2013

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Martin_E wrote:

Hi,
   I have a big favour to ask anyone who owns both the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II and Canon 500mm f4 IS II Lenses. Please could you tell me if the Allen Bolts that hold the Lens Foot to the rotating Ring are the same for both? The bolts on my mkI 500 are smaller than the ones on my 300mm mkII and the hole spacing is slightly different. the same size Allen key should if both is a way to check. (without loosening of course)

I only have the 300, but the answer must be yes because the same Jobu replacement foot fits both lenses.

Thanks for your reply, Much appreciated.
            Thats exactly what I needed to know. I want to get a longer replacement foot for my new 300 IS mkII to make it easier to carry, Its quite a walk from the car to the bird hide so I normally have the Camera and Lens on my back ThinkTank Bag. I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen somethink interesting to take a shot of. I will purchase a longer replacement foot for the Lens but wanted to make sure the hole spacing and thread size was the same, unlike the old ver 500 f4L. below is a link to the Kirk Foot I'm thinking of getting.

http://www.kirkphoto.com/Lens_Plate_for_Canon_500mm_F4_IS_II_replacing_Canon_foot.html

Martin,

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin_E
Regular MemberPosts: 301
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to joger, May 8, 2013

Hi,
       Thanks for your reply, much appreciated. The main reason for getting a replacement foot is to make to easier to carry from the car to the bird hide ( at least a mile wald) I see quite a few interesting things I would like to shoot on the way but have the camera/lens on my back in a ThinkTank bag. I was thinking of getting the Kirk replacement Foot but wanted to make sure the hole alighmement and thread size was the same before I made the purchase, see link below.

http://www.kirkphoto.com/Lens_Plate_for_Canon_500mm_F4_IS_II_replacing_Canon_foot.html

Regards,

Martin,

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joger
Senior MemberPosts: 2,571Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to Martin_E, May 8, 2013

Martin_E wrote:

Hi,
       Thanks for your reply, much appreciated. The main reason for getting a replacement foot is to make to easier to carry from the car to the bird hide ( at least a mile wald) I see quite a few interesting things I would like to shoot on the way but have the camera/lens on my back in a ThinkTank bag. I was thinking of getting the Kirk replacement Foot but wanted to make sure the hole alighmement and thread size was the same before I made the purchase, see link below.

http://www.kirkphoto.com/Lens_Plate_for_Canon_500mm_F4_IS_II_replacing_Canon_foot.html

Regards,

Martin,

sure

maybe only a bit heavier (which is better then the original 500 f/4.0 foot) but as far as i can see the kirk has no negative slide path which can be a disadvantage.

But the rest looks very promising- post your results as soon as you have it - would be interested to get your thoughts on this foot and how it feels for carrying the lens.

I often carry the 300rd with three fingers on on a monopod on my shoulder since I use a (carbon fibre) monopod most of the time.

-- hide signature --

__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein

 joger's gear list:joger's gear list
Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin_E
Regular MemberPosts: 301
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to joger, May 8, 2013

Hi,

Does the reversed Lens Hood fit under the Jobu Foot?

Martin,

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steve Balcombe
Forum ProPosts: 10,638
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to Martin_E, May 8, 2013

Martin_E wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Martin_E wrote:

Hi,
   I have a big favour to ask anyone who owns both the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II and Canon 500mm f4 IS II Lenses. Please could you tell me if the Allen Bolts that hold the Lens Foot to the rotating Ring are the same for both? The bolts on my mkI 500 are smaller than the ones on my 300mm mkII and the hole spacing is slightly different. the same size Allen key should if both is a way to check. (without loosening of course)

I only have the 300, but the answer must be yes because the same Jobu replacement foot fits both lenses.

Thanks for your reply, Much appreciated.
            Thats exactly what I needed to know. I want to get a longer replacement foot for my new 300 IS mkII to make it easier to carry, Its quite a walk from the car to the bird hide so I normally have the Camera and Lens on my back ThinkTank Bag. I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen somethink interesting to take a shot of. I will purchase a longer replacement foot for the Lens but wanted to make sure the hole spacing and thread size was the same, unlike the old ver 500 f4L. below is a link to the Kirk Foot I'm thinking of getting.

http://www.kirkphoto.com/Lens_Plate_for_Canon_500mm_F4_IS_II_replacing_Canon_foot.html

Yep, I'll be replacing my foot partly for the same reason, and also because it means I don't need to add an additional plate when I want to use a gimbal head or my travel tripod.

The Kirk foot doesn't look like a good choice, because with the fairly light 300/2.8L II, a 2x Extender and the 7D I'm pretty sure the centre of gravity is further back than that foot would allow. With a heavier 1D-series body it would be even worse.

Balance is essential with a gimbal head of course, but it also helps a lot with the travel tripod because it's not as heavy or as stiff as a full size tripod.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joger
Senior MemberPosts: 2,571Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to Martin_E, May 8, 2013

Martin_E wrote:

Hi,

Does the reversed Lens Hood fit under the Jobu Foot?

Martin,

it fit's under the RRS foot and that looks a bit tighter - but I am working on my "own hood".

My plan is to create a foldable nylon hood that is lighter and foldable to enable an even lighter setup and lower volume consumption in the backpack.

I only have to have some spare time to do that.

the original lens shade (hood) is too big in diameter for my taste and it add's almost 0,25 kg to the package - my idea will only weigh some 0.1 kg in total. Hope this works out as intended.

I'd rather like to invest that weight in further batteries or a further lens.

Target: utmost reduced weight with no compromise on image quality

Next purchase might be the Bataflae 26L since it is lighter yet more roomy then my LowePro Flipside.

-- hide signature --

__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein

 joger's gear list:joger's gear list
Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin_E
Regular MemberPosts: 301
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to Steve Balcombe, May 8, 2013

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Martin_E wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Martin_E wrote:

Hi,
   I have a big favour to ask anyone who owns both the Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II and Canon 500mm f4 IS II Lenses. Please could you tell me if the Allen Bolts that hold the Lens Foot to the rotating Ring are the same for both? The bolts on my mkI 500 are smaller than the ones on my 300mm mkII and the hole spacing is slightly different. the same size Allen key should if both is a way to check. (without loosening of course)

I only have the 300, but the answer must be yes because the same Jobu replacement foot fits both lenses.

Thanks for your reply, Much appreciated.
            Thats exactly what I needed to know. I want to get a longer replacement foot for my new 300 IS mkII to make it easier to carry, Its quite a walk from the car to the bird hide so I normally have the Camera and Lens on my back ThinkTank Bag. I've lost count of the amount of times I've seen somethink interesting to take a shot of. I will purchase a longer replacement foot for the Lens but wanted to make sure the hole spacing and thread size was the same, unlike the old ver 500 f4L. below is a link to the Kirk Foot I'm thinking of getting.

http://www.kirkphoto.com/Lens_Plate_for_Canon_500mm_F4_IS_II_replacing_Canon_foot.html

Yep, I'll be replacing my foot partly for the same reason, and also because it means I don't need to add an additional plate when I want to use a gimbal head or my travel tripod.

The Kirk foot doesn't look like a good choice, because with the fairly light 300/2.8L II, a 2x Extender and the 7D I'm pretty sure the centre of gravity is further back than that foot would allow. With a heavier 1D-series body it would be even worse.

Balance is essential with a gimbal head of course, but it also helps a lot with the travel tripod because it's not as heavy or as stiff as a full size tripod.

Hi Steve,
           Yes your right, balance is very important on any gimbal head, I have a Side Kick Head myself but the same thing applies. I've researched most of the other replacement Lens feet, and like the look and feel of the Kirk LP-55 replacement foot, plus it will work with the reversed Lens Hood, I'm not sure if the Jobu Foot will work with the reversed Lens Hood (with camo lens coat fitted) as it looks like its got a much lower profile.

Anyway, thanks for your helpful information above, I'll give more feedback when I get the new lens foot.

Regards,

Martin

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steve Balcombe
Forum ProPosts: 10,638
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to Martin_E, May 9, 2013

Martin_E wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Martin_E wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

... Jobu replacement foot ...

...

Yes your right, balance is very important on any gimbal head, I have a Side Kick Head myself but the same thing applies.

Actually mine is a 'sidekick' style too - http://www.lensmaster.co.uk/rh1.htm - I don't know if there's a better generic name than "gimbal head".

I've researched most of the other replacement Lens feet, and like the look and feel of the Kirk LP-55 replacement foot, plus it will work with the reversed Lens Hood, I'm not sure if the Jobu Foot will work with the reversed Lens Hood (with camo lens coat fitted) as it looks like its got a much lower profile.

According to the page I linked to above, "Clearance has been added for the lens hoods".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin_E
Regular MemberPosts: 301
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to Steve Balcombe, May 10, 2013

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Martin_E wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Martin_E wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

... Jobu replacement foot ...

...

Yes your right, balance is very important on any gimbal head, I have a Side Kick Head myself but the same thing applies.

Actually mine is a 'sidekick' style too - http://www.lensmaster.co.uk/rh1.htm - I don't know if there's a better generic name than "gimbal head".

I've researched most of the other replacement Lens feet, and like the look and feel of the Kirk LP-55 replacement foot, plus it will work with the reversed Lens Hood, I'm not sure if the Jobu Foot will work with the reversed Lens Hood (with camo lens coat fitted) as it looks like its got a much lower profile.

According to the page I linked to above, "Clearance has been added for the lens hoods".

Hi Steve,
              I had the same Lens Master Gimbal/Sidekick as in the link but sold it after one outing. Unfortunately my one wouldn't fully lock in any direction. I ended up getting the Benro Side Kick which works like a dream, it fully locks with little effort and the horizontal and vertical bearings are vering smooth without any play. I've ordered the replacement Lens Foot so I'll see what thats like when it arrives.

Martin,

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steve Balcombe
Forum ProPosts: 10,638
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to Martin_E, May 14, 2013

Martin_E wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Martin_E wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Martin_E wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

... Jobu replacement foot ...

...

Yes your right, balance is very important on any gimbal head, I have a Side Kick Head myself but the same thing applies.

Actually mine is a 'sidekick' style too - http://www.lensmaster.co.uk/rh1.htm - I don't know if there's a better generic name than "gimbal head".

I've researched most of the other replacement Lens feet, and like the look and feel of the Kirk LP-55 replacement foot, plus it will work with the reversed Lens Hood, I'm not sure if the Jobu Foot will work with the reversed Lens Hood (with camo lens coat fitted) as it looks like its got a much lower profile.

According to the page I linked to above, "Clearance has been added for the lens hoods".

Hi Steve,
              I had the same Lens Master Gimbal/Sidekick as in the link but sold it after one outing. Unfortunately my one wouldn't fully lock in any direction. I ended up getting the Benro Side Kick which works like a dream, it fully locks with little effort and the horizontal and vertical bearings are vering smooth without any play.

Mine does lock but to be honest the build quality is not great. But I chose it because it fits in a corner of my back pack which other gimbal heads wouldn't, and it's light. I don't have a ball head of the size which would be needed for a true sidekick and at the present time I don't want to buy one, so the RH-1 made good sense. I think there's a good chance I'll upgrade the whole setup in the future.

I've ordered the replacement Lens Foot so I'll see what thats like when it arrives.

Please let us know how you get on.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin_E
Regular MemberPosts: 301
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to Steve Balcombe, May 16, 2013

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Martin_E wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Martin_E wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Martin_E wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

... Jobu replacement foot ...

...

Yes your right, balance is very important on any gimbal head, I have a Side Kick Head myself but the same thing applies.

Actually mine is a 'sidekick' style too - http://www.lensmaster.co.uk/rh1.htm - I don't know if there's a better generic name than "gimbal head".

I've researched most of the other replacement Lens feet, and like the look and feel of the Kirk LP-55 replacement foot, plus it will work with the reversed Lens Hood, I'm not sure if the Jobu Foot will work with the reversed Lens Hood (with camo lens coat fitted) as it looks like its got a much lower profile.

According to the page I linked to above, "Clearance has been added for the lens hoods".

Hi Steve,
              I had the same Lens Master Gimbal/Sidekick as in the link but sold it after one outing. Unfortunately my one wouldn't fully lock in any direction. I ended up getting the Benro Side Kick which works like a dream, it fully locks with little effort and the horizontal and vertical bearings are vering smooth without any play.

Mine does lock but to be honest the build quality is not great. But I chose it because it fits in a corner of my back pack which other gimbal heads wouldn't, and it's light. I don't have a ball head of the size which would be needed for a true sidekick and at the present time I don't want to buy one, so the RH-1 made good sense. I think there's a good chance I'll upgrade the whole setup in the future.

I've ordered the replacement Lens Foot so I'll see what thats like when it arrives.

Please let us know how you get on.

Hi Steve,
            I managed to find a Canon 500mm f4L IS II Lens Foot which works perfectly for my needs. I've fitted a 140mm Arca Swiss Plate which balances perfectly on the Side Kick. The Canon Service centre phoned me to say they had a mkii 500mm Lens in for repair and I could have the Lens Foot off of it for £40 Bargain. Its nice to have a bit of luck now and then.

Regards,

Martin

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Steve Balcombe
Forum ProPosts: 10,638
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to Martin_E, May 17, 2013

Martin_E wrote:

Hi Steve,
            I managed to find a Canon 500mm f4L IS II Lens Foot which works perfectly for my needs. I've fitted a 140mm Arca Swiss Plate which balances perfectly on the Side Kick. The Canon Service centre phoned me to say they had a mkii 500mm Lens in for repair and I could have the Lens Foot off of it for £40 Bargain. Its nice to have a bit of luck now and then.

That really is a bargain. It wouldn't actually work for me because I want the Arca-Swiss type of foot so I don't have to fit an accessory plate, but if you just want the bigger foot I can't imagine a better solution.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Sabud
Regular MemberPosts: 316
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to Steve Balcombe, May 17, 2013

I have used the RRS foot and monopod head for my 500/4 IS II for one year now and it´s exc

ellent. Very easy to carry around

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joger
Senior MemberPosts: 2,571Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to Sabud, May 17, 2013

Sabud wrote:

I have used the RRS foot and monopod head for my 500/4 IS II for one year now and it´s exc

ellent. Very easy to carry around

fully agree - I use the same setup and i would neither want to add a arcs swiss plate nor a different heavier foot - if there is not real reason for that.

I guess the RRS replacement foot is the lightest option available to date.

yet it is surely not the cheapest one - but hey - the 300 f/2.8 II costs enough to justify a nice foot

-- hide signature --

__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein

 joger's gear list:joger's gear list
Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Apewithacamera
Senior MemberPosts: 2,161Gear list
Like?
Too bad RRS doesn't paint the feet a lens matching color. :( nt
In reply to joger, May 17, 2013

Nt

 Apewithacamera's gear list:Apewithacamera's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Tamron 16-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD Macro Tamron 28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD Sigma 18-300 F3.5-6.3 DC Macro OS C +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
joger
Senior MemberPosts: 2,571Gear list
Like?
Re: Too bad RRS doesn't paint the feet a lens matching color. :( nt
In reply to Apewithacamera, May 18, 2013

Apewithacamera wrote:

Nt

what's wrong with this  ?

I have one in my neighborhood that would do it for a few bucks - if you are really interested in a shiny (homogenous) appearance of your X00 f/2.8 II

For me it's a tool and I try avoid scratches and damages to keep it's value but I am surely not interested in the color of the lens foot - I would even accept it to be green or military look - the lens is already covered in lens coat anyhow

at the ned of the day it is simply an lens foot with A color - who cares? TG it's not yellow or purple

btw - the RRS foot has plus and minus shift path - which allows to compensate for different lens camera combinations plus extenders to be balanced in the center of gravity.

If I had to find flaws of the 300 f/2.8 II - this would be it - the original lens foot is just useless for me. Canon could optimize the lens by adding such a foot with (+/-) movements and arcs swiss mount - but fortunately some 3rd party companies have a very good replacement and refreshingly other ideas of lens foots.

-- hide signature --

__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein

 joger's gear list:joger's gear list
Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Martin_E
Regular MemberPosts: 301
Like?
Re: Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II vs Canon 500mm f4 IS II
In reply to joger, May 20, 2013

joger wrote:

Sabud wrote:

I have used the RRS foot and monopod head for my 500/4 IS II for one year now and it´s exc

ellent. Very easy to carry around

fully agree - I use the same setup and i would neither want to add a arcs swiss plate nor a different heavier foot - if there is not real reason for that.

I guess the RRS replacement foot is the lightest option available to date.

yet it is surely not the cheapest one - but hey - the 300 f/2.8 II costs enough to justify a nice foot

-- hide signature --

__________________________________
isn’t it funny, a ship that leaks from the top
ISO 9000 definition of quality: 'Degree to which a set of inherent characteristic fulfills requirements'
I am the classic “Windows by Day, Mac by Night user'
“The horizon of many people is a circle with zero radius which they call their point of view.” Albert Einstein

Hi,
        The RRS Monopod Head you show looks great, does it lock off securely?

Martin,

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads