Do you support heavy lenses on the C300?

[Stewart Hemley]

A question for people using the C300 mk2 and the 70-200 2.8 lens (or any other heavy lens): do you think the camera is able to support the lens ok or do you use rods?

[Dan Parkes]

Hi Stewart

I often use the Canon 70-200mm lens on my Mk2. I think short term or temporary use is ok, but if it is going to be on for longer than an hour or two I then try to use rod supports if at all possible. However, not all shoots allow for such a setup.

[Jon Roemer]

I agree with Dan - I'm using the C300 Mark I with the 70-200 Mark II and sometimes with the 100-400 Mark II.

It's fine mounting from the camera for short periods but I try not to mount it that way.

What I do to keep things simple, not need rods and a rod support, is mount via the lens' foot instead of the camera.

I've got Arca-Swiss compatible plates on everything including lenses which have a mounting foot. Then I have Kessler Kwik Releases on every platform (sticks, sliders, monopod, jib, etc.) I can quickly move a camera without fussing and I can mount from the lens if needed.

[Stewart Hemley]

Hi Dan. Agreed, rods are not always the best solution. I'm thinking of getting a shoulder rig with rods that I can attach to the tripod with a quick release but I haven't found one that suits what I need yet.

Jon, I'm not sure if I'm clear on what you do. Do you attach only the lens foot to the tripod, or do you also manage to attach the camera to the tripod, ie both the lens foot and camera somehow attached? I wondered because the camera is heavier than the lens and so if only the lens is supported that would strain the camera mount more. Sorry if I'm reading it wrong.

[Dan Brockett]

I asked two Canon reps at the Canon Hollywood center about this and they said basically, it doesn't matter the lens, it matters the inertial leverage generated by any lens. Putting the 70-200 2.8 USM IS II or the 100-400 doesn't matter when it's sitting on a tripod. Where it does matter is if the same rig is on the tripod and you are running and gunning and grab the camera, lens and tripod with the camera mounted and run with it over your shoulder. Think about, you, climbing with that rig over your shoulder over rocks, barriers, uneven terrain, could amplify that inertial leverage by ten to one hundred times. That could bend or even tear the mount or front face of the camera off if you tripped or dropped it. Same issue with the same rig riding in your car, go over a few speed bumps or bad road a few times with the same result.

When one can purchase a lens support for as little as $16.99 on Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/Neewer-Profes...s=Lens+support to me, it doesn't make sense to not use a lens support. I use it on mine with any longer lens and when I switch to primes or shorter lenses like the 17-55 2.8 IS, I just drop the support down half an inch so it doesn't touch the 17-55 or prime. If you don't use rods, you are more vulnerable to damaging the lens mount. I use one of those inexpensive integrated baseplates with rod support, it never is NOT on my cameras and I have multiple sets of aluminum and carbon fiber short rod sets so I always use the lens support with my 70-200 2.8 UMS IS II or if I rent the 100-400 or a Cine Zoom of any kind.

It's up to you, it's your risk and your gear and money. I paid $2k for my 70-200 and quite a few thousand for my cameras so it seems like a no brainer to use a lens support every time possible.

[Jon Roemer]

Originally Posted by Stewart Hemley

H
Jon, I'm not sure if I'm clear on what you do. Do you attach only the lens foot to the tripod, or do you also manage to attach the camera to the tripod, ie both the lens foot and camera somehow attached? I wondered because the camera is heavier than the lens and so if only the lens is supported that would strain the camera mount more. Sorry if I'm reading it wrong.

Just attached via the foot. The idea being it's closer to a natural balance point, the lens is not cantilevered out on its own, and the camera body is not doing 100% of the support of the lens.

Here's the 70-200 II with a my 1DX Mark II:

http://blog.jonroemer.com/wp-content..._01_1440px.jpg

Upper right is a 100-400 II + C300 Mark I mounted this way:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BLxTdjAh...-by=jonroemer_

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

I asked two Canon reps at the Canon Hollywood center about this and they said basically, it doesn't matter the lens, it matters the inertial leverage generated by any lens. Putting the 70-200 2.8 USM IS II or the 100-400 doesn't matter when it's sitting on a tripod. Where it does matter is if the same rig is on the tripod and you are running and gunning and grab the camera, lens and tripod with the camera mounted and run with it over your shoulder. Think about, you, climbing with that rig over your shoulder over rocks, barriers, uneven terrain, could amplify that inertial leverage by ten to one hundred times. That could bend or even tear the mount or front face of the camera off if you tripped or dropped it. Same issue with the same rig riding in your car, go over a few speed bumps or bad road a few times with the same result.

This. ^^^^^

A while back, I was shooting some corporate b-roll using a Kessler Pocket Jib on wheels. We were using the Sony FS700 with an adapter to a modest EF lens. Everything was fine while in the building. Then we went outside, wheeling the jib with camera and lens. Big mistake. The ground was a bit rough. The small screws in the adapter ripped from their threads and we were lucky that the lens didn't fall to the ground. We really should have dismounted camera and lens before rolling the jib. Lesson learned.

Keep in mind that this was a modest lens. (I think it was the Zeiss 35/f2.) On a smooth surface, stress was minimal, but even over a single door threshold, "the force is strong."

[Josh Bass]

im probably gonna order that $17 support linked to tonight.

the cheapest way to do it that i know that still allows you to change lenses quickly is getting the zacuto gorilla baseplate, some rods, and a support like the one above. you can leave it all built all the time if your bag allows it and should be quick to build if not. then you just need to quickly adjust the support for each lens. that setup (with that cheap support from amazon) is around $185 altogether.

[Stewart Hemley]

Dan, that support is a great idea, I'm getting one too. It's good to know Canon think the lens is ok on a tripod but for such a small outlay for rods and a support it's good to have the extra insurance.

Jon F, I'm wincing with pain as I imagine that happening. Just think what damage a really heavy lens could do. Rods and a support are a no brainer.

Jon R, thanks for the pics. It probably is marginally safer to attach the lens your way but after reading Jon F's account I'm playing extra safe.

Thanks guys for some useful tips.

[Dan Brockett]

Our instructor at Canon Hollywood had some nice images in his slide deck of a Sony F55 that had a Cine Zoom mounted with no lens support that was used on a car shoot. Ripped the entire face of the F55 off, it actually broke the camera's frame too. It was painful to look at, the F55 is such a nice camera. Inertial leverage is crazy.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Stewart Hemley

Jon F, I'm wincing with pain as I imagine that happening. Just think what damage a really heavy lens could do. Rods and a support are a no brainer.

I have rods, but no supports for the smaller lenses. (I do for the 70-200.) The big lesson is to be aware of the stresses - and don't wheel the camera around unless there are ZERO bumps.

Fortunately, that was to be our last shot of the day, and we didn't really need it.

Then again, when the equipment breaks, that can be the last shot of the day by definition! (We did have a backup camera, but it was a different model and it was late in the day, so we skipped it.)

Kind of like, "How unlucky! He broke his leg on the last wave of the day." Well, yeah.

[Josh Bass]

I will post pics of my C100 with support when it's all delivered. As a public service but also 'cause boredom.

[Stewart Hemley]

Some really scary stories but great info. I think there should be a warning with all long/heavy lenses sold. Ok, I know there's usually a support foot but that's not usually practical for video cameras on a tripod. Rods and a support seems the only realistic solution. Thanks again,guys.

[Dan Parkes]

Attached is an image of my C300 Mk2 with the 70-200mm lens, with lens support, while filming in Prague. Also has CameTV wireless follow focus, wireless HD transmitter, radio mic and Atomos Shogun monitor mounted on a Miller tripod. Set up worked really well, and this was an overseas gig, but not always possible when travelling.

[Josh Bass]

My much simpler C100 setup. No the tripod collar mount on the lens is not resting on anything. Yes I removed it shortly after the photo.