Tripod collars by size?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul Ciszek, Dec 10, 2012.

  1. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    All of the tripod collars I can find for sale list the lens they are
    intended to grip, but never the size. I am quite certain that there
    has never been a tripod collar for the teleconverter I want to grip,
    so I was hoping to shop by size and "wrap" the teleconverter to make
    it fit.


    --
    Please reply to: | No nation is drunken where wine is cheap.
    pciszek at panix dot com | --Thomas Jefferson
     
    Paul Ciszek, Dec 10, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Ciszek

    Rob Guest

    On 10/12/2012 7:01 PM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
    > All of the tripod collars I can find for sale list the lens they are
    > intended to grip, but never the size. I am quite certain that there
    > has never been a tripod collar for the teleconverter I want to grip,
    > so I was hoping to shop by size and "wrap" the teleconverter to make
    > it fit.
    >
    >



    Whats more I don't think there would be enough strength in the converter
    shell to enable the collar to tighten.
     
    Rob, Dec 10, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Ciszek

    Rob Guest

    On 10/12/2012 7:31 PM, Rob wrote:
    > On 10/12/2012 7:01 PM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
    >> All of the tripod collars I can find for sale list the lens they are
    >> intended to grip, but never the size. I am quite certain that there
    >> has never been a tripod collar for the teleconverter I want to grip,
    >> so I was hoping to shop by size and "wrap" the teleconverter to make
    >> it fit.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    > Whats more I don't think there would be enough strength in the converter
    > shell to enable the collar to tighten.




    Oh BTW what lens/TC????
     
    Rob, Dec 10, 2012
    #3
  4. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:31:03 +1100, Rob <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>On 10/12/2012 7:01 PM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
    >>> All of the tripod collars I can find for sale list the lens they are
    >>> intended to grip, but never the size. I am quite certain that there
    >>> has never been a tripod collar for the teleconverter I want to grip,
    >>> so I was hoping to shop by size and "wrap" the teleconverter to make
    >>> it fit.

    >>
    >>Whats more I don't think there would be enough strength in the converter
    >>shell to enable the collar to tighten.

    >
    >What's wrong with clamping on to the lens with which you are using the
    >teleconverter? It is almost certainly made to be supported in this
    >way.


    That is in fact my plan B, but the reason is simple: The center of gravity
    of the camera-teleconverter-lens combo is closer to the teleconverter than
    to the only grippable area of the lens.

    The lens is a Tamron 55BB mirror lens. The 55BB, unlike its predecessor,
    was not designed to have a mounting bracket. Focusing rotates almost the
    entire barrel except for a portion approx. 3/8" long. This part of the
    lens is slightly forward of the center of balance of the camera+lens combo
    even when there is no teleconverter, and is even further forward of the
    center when the teleconverter is added. The teleconverter is a Tamron
    140F; since they no longer sell the adaptall mount version, I had to get
    a Nikon mount version and add an adapter, but it seems to work. (The
    Tamron 140F was meant to work hand-in-glove with Tamron lenses like the
    55BB; that's why I went to the trouble.) The camera is an Olympus OM-D.

    I think the 140F is sturdy enough to be gripped. If the mounts on either
    end of it can't hold up the weight, then I am screwed no matter where I
    grip the combination. I do think it makes more sense to hang the camera
    off of one side of the teleconverter and the mirror lens off of the other
    side than it does to either hang the whole thing one-sided off of the
    camera or the lens.

    --
    Please reply to: | No nation is drunken where wine is cheap.
    pciszek at panix dot com | --Thomas Jefferson
     
    Paul Ciszek, Dec 10, 2012
    #4
  5. Paul Ciszek

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:17:39 +0000 (UTC), (Paul Ciszek)
    wrote:
    :
    : In article <>,
    : Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    : >On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:31:03 +1100, Rob <>
    : >wrote:
    : >
    : >>On 10/12/2012 7:01 PM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
    : >>> All of the tripod collars I can find for sale list the lens they are
    : >>> intended to grip, but never the size. I am quite certain that there
    : >>> has never been a tripod collar for the teleconverter I want to grip,
    : >>> so I was hoping to shop by size and "wrap" the teleconverter to make
    : >>> it fit.
    : >>
    : >>Whats more I don't think there would be enough strength in the converter
    : >>shell to enable the collar to tighten.
    : >
    : >What's wrong with clamping on to the lens with which you are using the
    : >teleconverter? It is almost certainly made to be supported in this
    : >way.
    :
    : That is in fact my plan B, but the reason is simple: The center of gravity
    : of the camera-teleconverter-lens combo is closer to the teleconverter than
    : to the only grippable area of the lens.
    :
    : The lens is a Tamron 55BB mirror lens. The 55BB, unlike its predecessor,
    : was not designed to have a mounting bracket. Focusing rotates almost the
    : entire barrel except for a portion approx. 3/8" long. This part of the
    : lens is slightly forward of the center of balance of the camera+lens combo
    : even when there is no teleconverter, and is even further forward of the
    : center when the teleconverter is added. The teleconverter is a Tamron
    : 140F; since they no longer sell the adaptall mount version, I had to get
    : a Nikon mount version and add an adapter, but it seems to work. (The
    : Tamron 140F was meant to work hand-in-glove with Tamron lenses like the
    : 55BB; that's why I went to the trouble.) The camera is an Olympus OM-D.
    :
    : I think the 140F is sturdy enough to be gripped. If the mounts on either
    : end of it can't hold up the weight, then I am screwed no matter where I
    : grip the combination. I do think it makes more sense to hang the camera
    : off of one side of the teleconverter and the mirror lens off of the other
    : side than it does to either hang the whole thing one-sided off of the
    : camera or the lens.

    You're also screwed if the wall of the TC deforms under the force applied by
    the collar or by the lens. It sounds as though you're pushing the envelope,
    whatever you do. It might be safer to place a large beanbag (or a small
    pillow) over the tripod head, lay the camera/lens assembly on it, and use a
    couple of bungee cords to secure it to the tripod. It wouldn't be pretty, but
    you'd know you weren't stressing any components beyond their design capacity.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 10, 2012
    #5
  6. Paul Ciszek

    Irwell Guest

    On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:00:35 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:

    > On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:17:39 +0000 (UTC), (Paul Ciszek)
    > wrote:
    >:
    >: In article <>,
    >: Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >:>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:31:03 +1100, Rob <>
    >:>wrote:
    >:>
    >:>>On 10/12/2012 7:01 PM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
    >:>>> All of the tripod collars I can find for sale list the lens they are
    >:>>> intended to grip, but never the size. I am quite certain that there
    >:>>> has never been a tripod collar for the teleconverter I want to grip,
    >:>>> so I was hoping to shop by size and "wrap" the teleconverter to make
    >:>>> it fit.
    >:>>
    >:>>Whats more I don't think there would be enough strength in the converter
    >:>>shell to enable the collar to tighten.
    >:>
    >:>What's wrong with clamping on to the lens with which you are using the
    >:>teleconverter? It is almost certainly made to be supported in this
    >:>way.
    >:
    >: That is in fact my plan B, but the reason is simple: The center of gravity
    >: of the camera-teleconverter-lens combo is closer to the teleconverter than
    >: to the only grippable area of the lens.
    >:
    >: The lens is a Tamron 55BB mirror lens. The 55BB, unlike its predecessor,
    >: was not designed to have a mounting bracket. Focusing rotates almost the
    >: entire barrel except for a portion approx. 3/8" long. This part of the
    >: lens is slightly forward of the center of balance of the camera+lens combo
    >: even when there is no teleconverter, and is even further forward of the
    >: center when the teleconverter is added. The teleconverter is a Tamron
    >: 140F; since they no longer sell the adaptall mount version, I had to get
    >: a Nikon mount version and add an adapter, but it seems to work. (The
    >: Tamron 140F was meant to work hand-in-glove with Tamron lenses like the
    >: 55BB; that's why I went to the trouble.) The camera is an Olympus OM-D.
    >:
    >: I think the 140F is sturdy enough to be gripped. If the mounts on either
    >: end of it can't hold up the weight, then I am screwed no matter where I
    >: grip the combination. I do think it makes more sense to hang the camera
    >: off of one side of the teleconverter and the mirror lens off of the other
    >: side than it does to either hang the whole thing one-sided off of the
    >: camera or the lens.
    >
    > You're also screwed if the wall of the TC deforms under the force applied by
    > the collar or by the lens. It sounds as though you're pushing the envelope,
    > whatever you do. It might be safer to place a large beanbag (or a small
    > pillow) over the tripod head, lay the camera/lens assembly on it, and use a
    > couple of bungee cords to secure it to the tripod. It wouldn't be pretty, but
    > you'd know you weren't stressing any components beyond their design capacity.
    >
    > Bob


    Try the muffler Shop.
     
    Irwell, Dec 10, 2012
    #6
  7. Paul Ciszek <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:31:03 +1100, Rob <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>On 10/12/2012 7:01 PM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
    >>>> All of the tripod collars I can find for sale list the lens they are
    >>>> intended to grip, but never the size. I am quite certain that there
    >>>> has never been a tripod collar for the teleconverter I want to grip,
    >>>> so I was hoping to shop by size and "wrap" the teleconverter to make
    >>>> it fit.
    >>>
    >>>Whats more I don't think there would be enough strength in the converter
    >>>shell to enable the collar to tighten.

    >>
    >>What's wrong with clamping on to the lens with which you are using the
    >>teleconverter? It is almost certainly made to be supported in this
    >>way.


    > That is in fact my plan B, but the reason is simple: The center of gravity
    > of the camera-teleconverter-lens combo is closer to the teleconverter than
    > to the only grippable area of the lens.


    > The lens is a Tamron 55BB mirror lens. The 55BB, unlike its predecessor,
    > was not designed to have a mounting bracket. Focusing rotates almost the
    > entire barrel except for a portion approx. 3/8" long. This part of the
    > lens is slightly forward of the center of balance of the camera+lens combo
    > even when there is no teleconverter, and is even further forward of the
    > center when the teleconverter is added. The teleconverter is a Tamron
    > 140F; since they no longer sell the adaptall mount version, I had to get
    > a Nikon mount version and add an adapter, but it seems to work. (The
    > Tamron 140F was meant to work hand-in-glove with Tamron lenses like the
    > 55BB; that's why I went to the trouble.) The camera is an Olympus OM-D.


    > I think the 140F is sturdy enough to be gripped. If the mounts on either
    > end of it can't hold up the weight, then I am screwed no matter where I
    > grip the combination. I do think it makes more sense to hang the camera
    > off of one side of the teleconverter and the mirror lens off of the other
    > side than it does to either hang the whole thing one-sided off of the
    > camera or the lens.


    What you want is a bracket which will let you screw the camera via its
    tripod mount to one end, and a tripod collar round the lens to
    other. Then beneath the bracket at a point you choose (they have slots
    which to allow flexible positioning of the mounts) you mount the
    tripod. Such brackets are used for lots of things like mounting
    flashes, video lights, microphones, camera pairs for stereo. etc..

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 11, 2012
    #7
  8. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >
    >What you want is a bracket which will let you screw the camera via its
    >tripod mount to one end, and a tripod collar round the lens to
    >other. Then beneath the bracket at a point you choose (they have slots
    >which to allow flexible positioning of the mounts) you mount the
    >tripod. Such brackets are used for lots of things like mounting
    >flashes, video lights, microphones, camera pairs for stereo. etc..


    So, where do I get one that can grip a 2.66 inch cylinder? None are
    sold by size, only the model of lens they are meant to grip.

    Also, the teleconverter has a tab sticking off to one side that the
    bracket would have to dodge.

    --
    Please reply to: | No nation is drunken where wine is cheap.
    pciszek at panix dot com | --Thomas Jefferson
     
    Paul Ciszek, Dec 11, 2012
    #8
  9. Paul Ciszek

    Irwell Guest

    On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:39:14 +0000 (UTC), Paul Ciszek wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >>
    >>What you want is a bracket which will let you screw the camera via its
    >>tripod mount to one end, and a tripod collar round the lens to
    >>other. Then beneath the bracket at a point you choose (they have slots
    >>which to allow flexible positioning of the mounts) you mount the
    >>tripod. Such brackets are used for lots of things like mounting
    >>flashes, video lights, microphones, camera pairs for stereo. etc..

    >
    > So, where do I get one that can grip a 2.66 inch cylinder? None are
    > sold by size, only the model of lens they are meant to grip.
    >
    > Also, the teleconverter has a tab sticking off to one side that the
    > bracket would have to dodge.


    Think outside the box, visit an auto muffler (silencer) shop,
    they stock all sorts of clamps, do a little modifying.
     
    Irwell, Dec 11, 2012
    #9
  10. Paul Ciszek

    Rob Guest

    On 12/12/2012 1:39 AM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    >>
    >> What you want is a bracket which will let you screw the camera via its
    >> tripod mount to one end, and a tripod collar round the lens to
    >> other. Then beneath the bracket at a point you choose (they have slots
    >> which to allow flexible positioning of the mounts) you mount the
    >> tripod. Such brackets are used for lots of things like mounting
    >> flashes, video lights, microphones, camera pairs for stereo. etc..

    >
    > So, where do I get one that can grip a 2.66 inch cylinder? None are
    > sold by size, only the model of lens they are meant to grip.
    >
    > Also, the teleconverter has a tab sticking off to one side that the
    > bracket would have to dodge.
    >



    You may like this

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554350-REG/Manfrotto_293_293_Telephoto_Lens_Support.html
     
    Rob, Dec 11, 2012
    #10
  11. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <ka8a6t$ah8$>,
    Rob <> wrote:
    >
    >You may like this
    >
    >http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554350-REG/Manfrotto_293_293_Telephoto_Lens_Support.html


    Very nice! It looks like the distance between the camera and lens pedastal
    doesn't quite get short enough--there is only one narrow band of the mirror
    lens that doesn't turn--but I am sorely tempted to buy this anyway and see
    if a friend with a machine shop can "shorten" it somehow. Thank you for
    showing me this.

    --
    "Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
    crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
    TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
    bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."
     
    Paul Ciszek, Dec 12, 2012
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Chris
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    646
    Barry Parker
    Jul 16, 2003
  2. Desmond
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    888
    Bob D.
    Sep 27, 2003
  3. PeterH

    Pixels v Jpeg File Size v Print Size??

    PeterH, Jan 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    14,887
    Don Stauffer
    Jan 18, 2004
  4. B. Peg

    Equating monitor size to film size question

    B. Peg, Jan 31, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    481
    Dan Wojciechowski
    Feb 4, 2004
  5. mark heinemann

    jpg file size ---> print size problem

    mark heinemann, Apr 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,731
    Jonathan Wilson
    Apr 29, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page