I think the tripod collar helps to balance and center the mass of camera+lens over the center of support. I would not use any lens over 200mm if it doesn't have a tripod collar (and anything faster than 200/4) simply because I don't want to put torsional force on the lens mount. I can understand that many people would consider the 300/4 M to be very compact for it's focal length but because it doesn't have a collar I would only use it hand-held which limits its practicality and usability.
When I was in the market for a 300/4 the deciding factor in choosing the Sigma 300/4 APO Macro over the SMC-M 300/4 was the tripod collar. (The FA lens was WAY out of my price range). Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 8:13 AM Subject: Re: F*300/f4.5 versus FA*300/f4.5 > >I would be very interested in seeing an experiment to see whether the > >tripod shoe on the F* lens really is necessary. I tested my F* lens > >against my A* lens but as the optics are different I can't draw > >conclusions about the tripod mount. > > I would say yes if the tripod and head were not strong enough. I used to > have the Manfrotto 190 tripod with Gitzo G275 ballhead. With the F*300/4.5, > the whole setup was suffering from vibration. Even the MX with A70-210/4 in > vertical position had this problem. I cannot imagine using the F*300 without > the tripod collar. However, I have the Gitzo 1349 tripod with Arca B1 head. > The F*300 was doing fine with or without the tripod collar. So I guess it > much depends on the rigidity of the tripod, and whether extension tubes or > TC was being used. > > regards, > Alan Chan > > _________________________________________________________________ > Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 >
