Arca-Swiss replacement foot for Z 70-200 and 100-400

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
Here is a follow-up summary of this thread with included Loctite suggestion:
  • Posters recommended mostly
    • Really Right Stuff Foot for NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR-S Lens (and 100-400)
    • Hejnar foot for Nikon Z 70-200/f2.8 S VR
    • Kirk LP-70 Lens Foot for Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S & Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Lens
  • Cheapest of them all is Hejnar
  • Replacement foot using screws tend to loosen and need at least random checks to see if they are OK
  • There is no reported difference between more expensive RRS foot and cheaper Kirk LP-70
  • Nobody commented on Leofoto NF-05 Lens foot
  • Those preferring fixed foot are recommending Hejnar
  • Those having no issues with the one with a screw recommend RRS.
    • Loctite Blue 242 recommended for extra safety if using the foot like RRS or Kirk
Still anything missing?
 
Member's gallery
Tibor Hrnko said:
Here is a follow-up summary of this thread with included Loctite suggestion:
  • Posters recommended mostly
    • Really Right Stuff Foot for NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR-S Lens (and 100-400)
    • Hejnar foot for Nikon Z 70-200/f2.8 S VR
    • Kirk LP-70 Lens Foot for Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S & Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Lens
  • Cheapest of them all is Hejnar
  • Replacement foot using screws tend to loosen and need at least random checks to see if they are OK
  • There is no reported difference between more expensive RRS foot and cheaper Kirk LP-70
  • Nobody commented on Leofoto NF-05 Lens foot
  • Those preferring fixed foot are recommending Hejnar
  • Those having no issues with the one with a screw recommend RRS.
    • Loctite Blue 242 recommended for extra safety if using the foot like RRS or Kirk
Still anything missing?
Click to expand...
Hejnar Foot for both the Z 70-200 and Z 100-400
 
Member's gallery
Thanks for the post OP and to Hut2 for the suggestion. I just ordered the Z 70-200mm S Henjar foot. which should be here USPS in a few days. Their website was very easy to use and I see a couple of other things on there I might be interested in.
 
Member's gallery
I have added the info that both lenses mentioned in the thread use the same type of replacement foot:
  • Replacement foot is the same one for Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S & Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S.
  • Posters recommended mostly
    • Really Right Stuff Foot for NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR-S Lens (and 100-400)
    • Hejnar foot for Nikon Z 70-200/f2.8 S VR
    • Kirk LP-70 Lens Foot for Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S & Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Lens
  • Cheapest of them all is Hejnar
  • Replacement foot using screws tend to loosen and need at least random checks to see if they are OK
  • There is no reported difference between more expensive RRS foot and cheaper Kirk LP-70
  • Nobody commented on Leofoto NF-05 Lens foot
  • Those preferring fixed foot are recommending Hejnar
  • Those having no issues with the one with a screw recommend RRS.
    • Loctite Blue 242 recommended for extra safety if using the foot like RRS or Kirk
 
Member's gallery
This morning I ordered a Z8 (my first Z body) and Z 70-200 f2.8 S. I need an Arca-Swiss type replacement foot. One review on B&H mentions that some users report RRS knob is too close to the lens and can actually scratch it. RRS foot is also shorter, so longer Kirk (and Hejnar) is easier to use as a handle when carrying. Here are the pertinent specs that differentiate them (as I see it).
Hejnar: 4.3" long, no knob (tightens with hex wrench instead?), $69
Kirk: 4.28" long, with knob to tighten, $100
Really Right Stuff: 3.6" long, with knob to tighten, $140
 
Member's gallery
Steve W said:
I like the Kirk feet myself. For my 70-200 FL and 500 PF I chose it over the Wimberley, Hejnar and RRS and am very happy with it.
Click to expand...
Good to hear, because after typing my post above I ordered the Kirk! (On my old F mount lens I had and liked RRS, but for this one the Kirk seems better in both design and price).
 
Member's gallery
I am considering the Wimberley AP-501 for my Z100-400, but I am wondiring if the Kirk LP-70 is a better choice. Both are available here in Norway.
Just got the Wimberley AP-502 for my Z600/4 TC and I really like t so far and I do like their products.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
This morning I ordered a Z8 (my first Z body) and Z 70-200 f2.8 S. I need an Arca-Swiss type replacement foot. One review on B&H mentions that some users report RRS knob is too close to the lens and can actually scratch it. RRS foot is also shorter, so longer Kirk (and Hejnar) is easier to use as a handle when carrying. Here are the pertinent specs that differentiate them (as I see it).
Hejnar: 4.3" long, no knob (tightens with hex wrench instead?), $69
Kirk: 4.28" long, with knob to tighten, $100
Really Right Stuff: 3.6" long, with knob to tighten, $140
Click to expand...
I got the Hejnar based on price…and it’s just fine. Makes a fine handle and since mine is on a double BR strap with QD connectors and rarely comes off the strap for a shot opportunity…I hurt lock the collar at about 2:00 or 4:00 looking from the rear so it’s out of the way when I pull the camera up. For me the cheaper Hejnar is another one of those bang for the buck things…and I can’t fathom why Nikon doesn’t put Arca bevels on the stock one…but it’s too short and close to the lens to be a good carry handle anyway.
 
Member's gallery
Anjin San said:
…and I can’t fathom why Nikon doesn’t put Arca bevels on the stock one…
Click to expand...
This is an ongoing complaint among photographers about all the major camera manufacturers. Tamron and Sigma make their telephoto feet Arca-Swiss compatible, so I don't know why Nikon and Canon and Sony and the other major brands don't get it. I even met a Canon pro rep who said she had sent a memo to headquarters telling them that everyone is asking for it, but so far they have done nothing.
 
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
This is an ongoing complaint among photographers about all the major camera manufacturers. Tamron and Sigma make their telephoto feet Arca-Swiss compatible, so I don't know why Nikon and Canon and Sony and the other major brands don't get it. I even met a Canon pro rep who said she had sent a memo to headquarters telling them that everyone is asking for it, but so far they have done nothing.
Click to expand...
It's not the standard you think it is, wish it were. Manfrotto is far more prevalent and the camera manufacturers figure the secondary market would take care if it with plates and feet.
 
Member's gallery
Summary of posts since my last summary :). Two new entries see bellow:
  • Replacement foot is the same one for Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S & Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S.
  • Posters recommended mostly
    • Really Right Stuff Foot for NIKKOR Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR-S Lens (and 100-400)
    • Hejnar foot for Nikon Z 70-200/f2.8 S VR
    • Kirk LP-70 Lens Foot for Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S & Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Lens
    • Leofoto NF-05
    • Wimberley AP-501
  • Cheapest of them all seems to be Leofoto right now
  • Replacement foot using screws tend to loosen and need at least random checks to see if they are OK
  • There is no reported difference between more expensive RRS foot and cheaper Kirk LP-70
  • Those preferring fixed foot are recommending Hejnar
  • Those having no issues with the one with a screw recommend RRS and Kirk.
    • Loctite Blue 242 recommended for extra safety if using the foot like RRS or Kirk
I would like to add my own observation for Z 100-400 + Z9 + Leofoto. The combination of these three is very difficult to balance on gimbal head as it is body heavy. I have swapped to the original foot + Leofoto LEOFOTO PL-200 Arca Swiss plate for better balance. It still needs extra weight at the lens end to offset the heavy body. But the issue is not critical as the combo is still very light, it can be balanced by tightening the gimbal IMO. For Z8, any above mentioned options will behave better.

For details see above.
 
Member's gallery
Adding a new question to the mix: How have these various solutions worked for those of you using the Z TCs 1.4x and 2x? Also please add in the 400mm f/4.5 since it takes the same foot, but is lighter, so the center of gravity is even more toward the camera.

Adding a TC changes the balance point of the lens/camera. With the 400mm f/4.5 on a Z9, as others have noted, the balance point is already behind the extent of the nikon foot. When I add the TC 2x, it's even further behind the foot. I does not appear to me that even the Hejnar extends far enough back.

I've been using my kirk plate from my 200-500mm on the Nikon foot, and repositioning it a bit to get proper clearance from the body (i.e. required when on a gimbal, s noted by @Tibor Hrnko ) - so I don't have a good enough solution yet...

...Dave...
 
Member's gallery
For the past year I have used the Really Right Stuff LCF-21 lens foot on my 100-400 lens. It’s well made and attaches securely to my Movo gimbal head. It was out of stock earlier this year but is now available from directly from RRS or from B&H and other retailers. I recommend it without reservation.
 
Member's gallery
Dave Stargazer said:
Adding a new question to the mix: How have these various solutions worked for those of you using the Z TCs 1.4x and 2x? Also please add in the 400mm f/4.5 since it takes the same foot, but is lighter, so the center of gravity is even more toward the camera.

Adding a TC changes the balance point of the lens/camera. With the 400mm f/4.5 on a Z9, as others have noted, the balance point is already behind the extent of the nikon foot. When I add the TC 2x, it's even further behind the foot. I does not appear to me that even the Hejnar extends far enough back.

I've been using my kirk plate from my 200-500mm on the Nikon foot, and repositioning it a bit to get proper clearance from the body (i.e. required when on a gimbal, s noted by @Tibor Hrnko ) - so I don't have a good enough solution yet...

...Dave...
Click to expand...
I’ve used the RRS foot with my 100-400 with and without the TC 1.4. In terms of balance, I barely notice the difference.
 
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
This morning I ordered a Z8 (my first Z body) and Z 70-200 f2.8 S. I need an Arca-Swiss type replacement foot. One review on B&H mentions that some users report RRS knob is too close to the lens and can actually scratch it. RRS foot is also shorter, so longer Kirk (and Hejnar) is easier to use as a handle when carrying. Here are the pertinent specs that differentiate them (as I see it).
Hejnar: 4.3" long, no knob (tightens with hex wrench instead?), $69
Kirk: 4.28" long, with knob to tighten, $100
Really Right Stuff: 3.6" long, with knob to tighten, $140
Click to expand...
I have the RRS replacement foot. I’ve seen the reports of its knob scratching the lens. I’ve used it for a year with my 100-400 lens with no problem whatsoever. And the lens foot has been a convenient handle for carrying the lens. Again, no complaints or problems at all.
 
Member's gallery
Nimi said:
It's not the standard you think it is, wish it were. Manfrotto is far more prevalent and the camera manufacturers figure the secondary market would take care if it with plates and feet.
Click to expand...
I suspect that if Nikon, Cannon, and Sony provided 3rd party compatible lens feet there would be royalty payments required. I’m not surprised they’ve chosen not to do that.
 
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
This is an ongoing complaint among photographers about all the major camera manufacturers. Tamron and Sigma make their telephoto feet Arca-Swiss compatible, so I don't know why Nikon and Canon and Sony and the other major brands don't get it. I even met a Canon pro rep who said she had sent a memo to headquarters telling them that everyone is asking for it, but so far they have done nothing.
Click to expand...
It can’t really be cost I don’t think…because the foot is a machine piece anyway and it would barely change the machining time to just add the bevels.
 
Member's gallery
JAJohnson said:
I suspect that if Nikon, Cannon, and Sony provided 3rd party compatible lens feet there would be royalty payments required. I’m not surprised they’ve chosen not to do that.
Click to expand...
Arca-Swiss didn't invent the double dovetail design and their patent which I believe has expired was easy to get around because it was very narrow (due to "prior art") by slightly changing the angle and depth of the groove. That's how RRS and numerous others did it.
 
Member's gallery
Nimi said:
It's not the standard you think it is, wish it were. Manfrotto is far more prevalent and the camera manufacturers figure the secondary market would take care if it with plates and feet.
Click to expand...
But if they make the feet Arca-Swiss compatible, they still have the standard thread on the bottom to attach other feet such as Manfrotto. So it does not detract in any way from the usability of other brands but ADDS the value of not having to buy a replacement for those of us who use Arca-Swiss style. Obviously Tamron and Sigma feel it adds enough value to their telephotos that they are willing to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top