Tripod mounting long lenses and vibration problems.

[prostie1200]

Don

Only use the monopod with the 70-200 f2.8 and 1.7 as my ability to keep the 300 rig steady is suspect due to old age ( the 70-200 +1.7 is fast at f4 but the same set up with the 300 is f6.7 and need at least 1/500 to get a clean sharp shot).

Since I bought the Magfibre tripod, I find even with the 501 head I have no difficulty carrying it around and as you know the 501 has a very convenient handle that rests over the shoulder for easy lugging

Brian.

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by prostie1200

Don

Only use the monopod with the 70-200 f2.8 and 1.7 as my ability to keep the 300 rig steady is suspect due to old age ( the 70-200 +1.7 is fast at f4 but the same set up with the 300 is f6.7 and need at least 1/500 to get a clean sharp shot).

Since I bought the Magfibre tripod, I find even with the 501 head I have no difficulty carrying it around and as you know the 501 has a very convenient handle that rests over the shoulder for easy lugging

Brian.

Brian,

Quite understand that. I would be a good test of a VR system also.

501 is super job for this lens range as you have discovered.

When you get an opportunity it would be interesting if you could post a 3/4 view of the lens mount so I can get some idea of the foot width and position of the fixing point. I have yet to find a decent sized pic of this on the net and I am 50+ miles from anyone that stocks it.

Don

[prostie1200]

Don

Here are a couple of shots - as I said - very Heath Robinson - but it works

[Don Hoey]

Thanks Brian,

From the pics I can see simple but effective. I am really quite surprised by the smallness of the collar locking screw head in comparison with my AIS 400mm. I would guess quite hard to really screw it down if you have large fingers.

I will post a similar angle or comparison.

Going to be a busy day as I am doing some other stuff to help Lello.

I am interested in your setup as I had a play with various Sigma at Focus and also this lens at the Nikon stand. Unfortunately it did not have the foot, and as I suggested that this may be the next lens for him to save for as I was impressed with the glass, I want to be happy with that recommendation.

Thanks again

Don

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by Don Hoey

Thanks Brian,

I will post a similar angle for comparison.

Here are my comparison shots with the 400mm that show the clamping ring/mounting foot.

Don

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by robski

LOL - Yes Don I love it. I'll be interested in your findings.

Conditions not the best for this Rob, but from the forecast they are getting worse for the week ahead, so I have now done the vibration on a tripod test for the 400mm lens.

We back onto open fields, and with Marham 5 1/4 miles away in a straight line soI have attatched a screen grab of Met Office recorded conditions at Marham.
I had to weigh the table used for the test subject down with my 10kg rotary table due to the wind induced movement. The grey card backdrop, even in a machine vice kept being blown sideways.

As the test was to check if I had solved the issue of lens vibrations as noted in Bjørn Rørslett's review a 5kg weight was suspended from the tripod to minimise the effect of the wind.

Camera : D2X, with cable release used but NOT mirror lock. ISO 100, aperture f7.1, shutter speed 1/125 sec.
Lens : Nikon 400mm f5.6 IFED AIS
Tripod : Slik proffesional.
Subject distance : 20 feet.

Pics attatched.

Screen grab of Marhams wind state during the test.
A full frame, and two levels of crop. These do contain the exif so there is some form of independant confirmation from the time stamp that the crops are from the posted full frame.

So from my point of view making of the intermediate lens foot is a success.

Don

[robski]

Looking good Don.

Have you tried the same setup without your improvements to make a direct image comparison ?

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by robski

Looking good Don.

Have you tried the same setup without your improvements to make a direct image comparison ?

What me post a fuzzy image.

For the record I will do that Rob. As the new foot has taken deflection down from 50mm to 2mm, mainly counteracting the relatively small lens mount footprint on the softish rubber on the sliding plate, I would expect a lot worse performance.

Don

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by robski

Have you tried the same setup without your improvements to make a direct image comparison ?

Rob I did suspect something like this after my clocking exercise, but when you see it in the flesh so as to speak its quite a shock.

The light was getting a bit poor and it was spitting with rain so this is not in the same conditions and I will wait for a decent day before I do a side by side. So this is a taster of the result I expect.

Ignore the red colour showing through the bar code label, its the red electrical tape sticking it in position showing through.

As before there is a full frame, crop 1, a more severe crop in crop 2, a 100% crop where the bounce really shows, and a side by side with the earlier test.

Whether lens vibration is a contributory factor to the general softness seen here is anybodys guess but the Slik tripod with 501 head is quite a heavy beast. The size of the lens footprint on the rubber of the sliding foot is I feel the major factor. When clocking it, I found that you cannot significantly reduce deflection no matter how tight you turn the locking screw. Hence I decided on increasing that footprint with the sub base.

Don

[Joe]

Note I also added a bit of foam to the barrel for hand comfort in the cold.

Don, I did much the same around the hood of my Tamron 300mm f/2.8...I wrapped around some neoprene, cut it to the right length, took it back off again and superglued the edge to make a tube....it very slightly stretches over the hood outer, enough to stay in place without using any tape or bands around the lens itself....
Yes, it makes a big difference, particularly the other night in the cold....

Trouble is this lens has turned into a cloud magnate.

All my lenses have that uncanny ability! LOL