Latest or all posts or last 15, 30, 90 or 180 days.
Today’s Deal Zone Items... Handpicked deals...
$1099 $899
SAVE $200

$260 $140
SAVE $120

$1199 $879
SAVE $320

$239 $239

$599 $199
SAVE $400

$819 $649
SAVE $170

$348 $298
SAVE $50

$4500 $4500

$1000 $1000

$2799 $2149
SAVE $650

$750 $450
SAVE $300

$300 $170
SAVE $130

$1099 $899
SAVE $200

$280 $220
SAVE $60

$1299 $1169
SAVE $130

$998 $498
SAVE $500

$1999 $1799
SAVE $200

$1180 $1050
SAVE $130

$4499 $4499

Nikon 70-200/4: Torque on the Lens Mount vs 70-200/2.8

Nikon 70-200/4 VR with optional RT-1 tripod foot

See my ongoing review of the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G ED VR.

Torque on the lens mount can subtly affect image sharpness by applying a tilt or swing; this is why heavy lenses have a tripod foot.

Always support heavy lenses directly; do not allow the lens mount to take the stress as it can be subtly bent (5-10 microns of skew shows up easily enough, yet is invisible to the eye).

Jack M writes:

Would you measure the center of gravity of the Nikon 70-200/4 for me? Balance the lens on your finger. Measure the distance from the rear rubber gasket to the balance point. A rough measurement estimate to the nearest tenth of an inch would be great. You might want to do this over a pillow. :-)

The calculation is a simple one. Force x moment arm = torque. The moment arm, sometimes called a lever arm, is the distance measurement that I'm requesting. I calculate torque (with the force of gravity perpendicular to the lens axis) on the camera lens mount flange for my two heaviest lens as:

Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR II without both the lens hood and the mounting foot: 1.34 foot-pounds
Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8: 0.44 foot-pounds

I supplied the figure (including the hood) to Jack M and he replies:

0.30 feet x 1.87 pounds = 0.56 foot-pounds of torque for the Nikon 70-200/4.

This is less than half to torque applied by the 70-200 f/2.8 lens and certainly supports your observation about the feel of the lens on the camera. I don't know what Nikon's spec is for max torque on the lens mount flange, but at approximately 0.1 ft-lbs more applied torque than the 14-24, the 70-200 f/4 would seem to fall in the class of lenses that do not require a lens mount foot. (weight source: B&H web site)

DIGLLOYD: On the camera, it feels like a large difference in carrying the f/4 versus f/2.8 lens. I am comfortable with the 70-200/4 being supported by the lens mount, but the 70-200/2.8 VR II is definitely beyond the stress I would ever want to apply to my camera mounts.

Deals Updated Daily at B&H Photo
View all handpicked deals...

Xerox B215 Multifunction Monochrome Laser Printer
$260 $140
SAVE $120

diglloyd Inc. | FTC Disclosure | PRIVACY POLICY | Trademarks | Terms of Use
Contact | About Lloyd Chambers | Consulting | Photo Tours
RSS Feeds | Twitter
Copyright © 2020 diglloyd Inc, all rights reserved.