Replacement Foot for Z600 6.3

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
Vincent_VdB said:
I had a few items from Leofoto and is all replaced with more trusted brands as I had too fast wear & tear. Our gear is not particularly cheap and just not feel comfortable carrying my stuff on a cheap knockoff. As always, just my own experience and opinion ;-)
Click to expand...
I've had a Leofoto foot on my 500 pf since I bought it without a single problem. The US versions are sold in the USA and usually in stock and shipped instantly from LA. That is not to say others have not had problems. As a retired machinist I feel it seems to me to be well made. But "crap" happens. Maybe I was lucky but I've seen no bad reports on their equipment. Henry Hudsen brags about their tripods.
 
Member's gallery
The Leofoto option looks great. They make two different sizes, a standard 3.5" and a larger 4.25" which happens to be the longest foot I've seen so far.

I replaced all my expensive Gitzo/Wimberley stuff with Leofoto a few years ago and it's been a match made in heaven. No reason to overspend for the same type of stuff.
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
The Leofoto option looks great. They make two different sizes, a standard 3.5" and a larger 4.25" which happens to be the longest foot I've seen so far.

I replaced all my expensive Gitzo/Wimberley stuff with Leofoto a few years ago and it's been a match made in heaven. No reason to overspend for the same type of stuff.
Click to expand...
I ordered the 4.25" And it just arrived. Ordered it on Wednesday and it arrived in the mail on Friday. Looks and feels great great, has all the features that I was looking for in a tripod foot. Seems tight and well made, Time will tell.
 
Member's gallery
Ralph said:
The longer portion is in front of the mount toward the front of the lens. For carrying the lens it really doesn’t matter one way or the other. See photo above.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. With that Henjar you'd have less to grab onto unless you grip onto both in front and behind the mount section. But beyond that, the other reason I always try to find the longest foot possible is my preferred handholding technique is foot in palm of hand (I am not a fan of flipping the foot to the top and holding the barrel). I also look for a foot that is as close to the lens as possible while still allowing room for fingers in lightweight gloves to slide between when using it as a handle.

I'm a fan of Henjar, I've got a bunch of his feet for various lenses and even have a custom designed one he made for me. But IMO that Henjar design is inferior to the Kirk. I'll have to see if Chris would make me one with an extra inch of length up front and a bit closer to the barrel. Not sure if he will still do custom ones as it was some time ago I had the one made for a Canon lens.
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
The Leofoto option looks great. They make two different sizes, a standard 3.5" and a larger 4.25" which happens to be the longest foot I've seen so far.

I replaced all my expensive Gitzo/Wimberley stuff with Leofoto a few years ago and it's been a match made in heaven. No reason to overspend for the same type of stuff.
Click to expand...
The Kirk is 4.28" so just slightly longer. I'd still go for the Leofoto 4.25" to save some $$. They look like clones anyways.
 
Member's gallery
arbitrage said:
Sure it does. With that Henjar you'd have less to grab onto unless you grip onto both in front and behind the mount section. But beyond that, the other reason I always try to find the longest foot possible is my preferred handholding technique is foot in palm of hand (I am not a fan of flipping the foot to the top and holding the barrel). I also look for a foot that is as close to the lens as possible while still allowing room for fingers in lightweight gloves to slide between when using it as a handle.

I'm a fan of Henjar, I've got a bunch of his feet for various lenses and even have a custom designed one he made for me. But IMO that Henjar design is inferior to the Kirk. I'll have to see if Chris would make me one with an extra inch of length up front and a bit closer to the barrel. Not sure if he will still do custom ones as it was some time ago I had the one made for a Canon lens.
Click to expand...
Its inferior based on your use but I’m not a fan of holding the foot while shooting. I just rotate the foot approx. 90o. to my left and I hold the lens near the function buttons. I find the use of the function button very convenient while shooting. I guess there are many ways to skin a cat. To each their own😉
 
Member's gallery
GinaLola said:
I know this was discussed back in the fall as the lens was just being released, but I was curious to know which replacement foot (with Arca-style mount) everyone was finding works best for the Z600 6.3. Thanks!
Click to expand...
I bought the Leofoto Leofoto NF-05N. They also have a longer foot Leofoto NF-05L (108mm vs. 91mm). I really like it. It has a QD connector. I find it to be very solid. Quite a reasonable price.
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
The Hejnar foot appears to be 0.2" longer than the Kirk foot.

However, the only pic I can find of the Hejnar is their CAD advertisement or whatever. Can anyone post a pic of it on the lens?
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3118.jpeg
    IMG_3118.jpeg
    483.3 KB · Views: 61
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    415.2 KB · Views: 58
Member's gallery
I’ve been very pleased with the Henjar. I also purchased the low profile one for my 100-400. I don’t carry that lens by the foot. So the low profile makes it extremely easy to hold and adjust the lens when shooting.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
CJC2 said:
IMHO RRS is always the absolute best designed and made. If you need/want to save $$$ then go with another brand that also makes what you want, Best of luck.
Click to expand...
I have two RRS LCF-21s. High quality and they look like they could have come from Nikon. I’m totally happy with them.
 
Member's gallery
Another vote for the Kirk (which I use). Equal in quality to RRS, but less $$. Also longer than the RRS while still allowing the hood to be put on backwards for storage. Longer means easier to carry and more importantly, easier to balance the lens on different types of tripod heads or if using flash gear for flash fill. I used to be a RRS junkie, but no more. Others give more for less, and the Kirk 600 pf foot (Kirk LP-70) is a perfect example of this.

The Kirk LP-70 Lens Foot fits the Nikon Z 70-200mm f/2.8 VR S, Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S, Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S & Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S.
 
Member's gallery
Yes, I already have the Kirk LP-70 for my Z 70-200. Since I don't use the feet that often (I take them off when hand-holding), I will just share the foot I already have between the 70-200 and the 600PF.
 
Member's gallery
+1.. really like Hejnar products, very high quality and well thought out designs. Installed one in my 600pf recently and I don't think I'll ever bother with RRS or Kirk again. Not saying the Kirk or RRS arent quality hardware, because they are ...but the Hejnar is at least their equal and better in some ways for me.


Jerry Watson said:
I got the Hejnar. It has two QD connectors which I connect to both for a well balanced strap connection..
Click to expand...
 
Member's gallery
Jerry Watson said:
I got the Hejnar. It has two QD connectors which I connect to both for a well balanced strap connection..
Click to expand...

For the OP, I am happy with the Kirk. Honestly can’t go wrong with Kirk, RSS or Hejnar.

A bit off topic from the foot, more on the one or two QDs.

Are two better than one? Could be or maybe not if someone doesn’t carefully check them both for a solid connection.
No opinion either way here.
FWIW I have settled on the Magpul with one connection and the Peak Key holder as a safety strap. PMG tested and rated it to 15lbs. The Magpul can be used in a two connection set up.
Why - it sits flat with one connection and is super easy to adjust the length. I am not carrying anything heavier than a Z9 with 600PF.
The sitting flat is better than the Peak straps I have which could be either a single or dual connection. I only tested with a single connection. Harder to adjust length vs Magpul, even though they are easy to adjust when attached to the camera lugs. Camera didn’t sit flat against my body all the time.
I think this is due to the Magpul connection point coming together and then a single 2” or so strap to the camera connection.
 
Member's gallery
I got the Kirk foot. Was surprised there is only one QD connector and no other option for the peak design anchor, so both have to be attached to the one QD loop. Also seems to be a lot of play on the QD Is that normal? Afraid of the rig detaching and falling
 
Member's gallery
soundwatts said:
I got the Kirk foot. Was surprised there is only one QD connector and no other option for the peak design anchor, so both have to be attached to the one QD loop. Also seems to be a lot of play on the QD Is that normal? Afraid of the rig detaching and falling
Click to expand...
I use the PD key holder to go to an anchor lug. I prefer a lug as the back up rather than a lens foot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top