Best lens plate/foot for 300 2.8 IS

I just bought a 300 2.8 IS (not the II) and looking for an Arca Swiss plate for it. I see the following options, not sure if there are others:

Kirk - http://www.kirkphoto.c​om …te_for_300mm_f2​.8_IS.html
RRS - http://reallyrightstuf​f.com …non-300mm-f2.8L-IS&key=it
4th Gen - http://stores.4gdphoto​.com …2%7E-Lens-Foot/Detail.bok

The first two look similar and are simple plates. The 4th Gen looks to be a foot, but I don't think the foot comes off of the 300, so not sure how it mounts and looks. Anyone have a picture of this guy installed on a 300 2.8 IS? Any recommendations would be appreciated.

(I did do a search and couldn't find an answer to this, though I'm sure its probably been discussed before... sorry)

I really like the RRS plates a lot.

that's a heavy lens, I'd put the RRS foot on it.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/11168​32

I like RSS stuff too.. have several of their plates, but just wasn't sure which of these were best. Thanks for the picture... that helps because the RRS plate looked a lot shorter than that. I wanted something that would give more balance than the width of the foot which is kind of short.

I kind of like the 4th Gen one... I found a picture of it mounted on FM also... http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/11723​19 From the picture on their website I couldn't figure out how it mounted, but now see that it tucks in and extends the rail up higher than the RSS and Kirk plates do... so this should be a little lower profile.

It looks more integrated.

rick_reno, I would definitely not go with anything but a solid arca swiss plate... used to have a 400 2.8 and know you need something substantial to hang onto the big whites.

Don't know about the best, but I have one of these (http://www.ebay.co.uk …s+86mm&_sacat=0​&_from=R40) on my 300F2.8 and it appears to be just as well made as my Wimberley and Kirk plates.
I don't know what head you intend to use but I have one of these: http://www.lensmaster.​co.uk/rh1.htm. It is not perfect (compared to my Wimberley 2) but it is roughly half the weight, less than a quarter the price of a Wimberley 2 in the UK and entirely functional. As an added bonus it comes with 2 Arca type QR plates (50mm & 140mm). I wouldn't want to put my 600 F4 IS on this head but it is fine for lenses like the 300 F2.8 & Canon 500 F 4.5.

I have the Wimberley P-30 on the 300 2.8 NON-IS, it works great, the anti-twist nubs do there job. I've had no problems with the P-30. I really like the design of the RRS B61 though, the custom fit radial flange is sweet, and appears more robust than the Wimberley nubs. For $10 more you get a custom fit plate. It does seem a little short, the P-30 is about 3/4" longer, something to consider if you need to attach a bracket.

P-30 here as well. I much prefer the OEM foot on both my 300 and 500.

I had both Kirk and RRS plates for this lens and sold the RRS one. If you handhold and use the plate as a platform for your palm, the Kirk bottom is flatter and feels good in the palm while the RRS bottom cut into the palm more and cause some uncomfortable. Beside that both work great.

johnf3f wrote in post #15364271
I don't know what head you intend to use but I have one of these: http://www.lensmaster.​co.uk/rh1.htm. It is not perfect (compared to my Wimberley 2) but it is roughly half the weight, less than a quarter the price of a Wimberley 2 in the UK and entirely functional. As an added bonus it comes with 2 Arca type QR plates (50mm & 140mm). I wouldn't want to put my 600 F4 IS on this head but it is fine for lenses like the 300 F2.8 & Canon 500 F 4.5.

I will be using it 90% of the time on a Gitzo 1588 monopod and RRS release... Same that my 400 2.8 lived on in the past.... Or hand holding. I don't really have a suitable tripod legs/head to handle this.

I think I found a deal on the RRS so will probably go with that.

As john says the RH-1 would not be the first choice for a 600mm on the RH-1 Its quite a lot to hold in one hand for mounting although it will work well, I use it with a 500f4+1.4tc with a 1dmk3 Iv used this setup for quite a few years. I do recommend the RH-2 for the 600f4 http://www.lensmaster.​co.uk/rh2.htm
Rob

GyRob wrote in post #15367380
As john says the RH-1 would not be the first choice for a 600mm on the RH-1 Its quite a lot to hold in one hand for mounting although it will work well, I use it with a 500f4+1.4tc with a 1dmk3 Iv used this setup for quite a few years. I do recommend the RH-2 for the 600f4 http://www.lensmaster.​co.uk/rh2.htm
Rob

Thanks for the info. I think we've diverged from the question quite a bit. I asked about a 300 which is quite a bit smaller than the 600. And I was asking about the plate, not the head.

I think the 4th Gen is the nicest of the bunch... its lower profile and looks more integral to the foot. With shipping, it's about $100. I actually bought a generic Wimberly plate that a POTNer was selling for less than half of that. It should work fine for my purposes. I don't intend to use a flash bracket, and will be only be using this for a monopod.

P30 Wimberley plate here also. So far no problems. Wimberley, RRS, Markins all good IMHO. Never used Kirk.

I had low profile foot for my 500mm f4 IS I. Big problem when hand holding like Sonny mentioned above. Also the foot is closer to the lens which is good when putting the lens on the wimberley head II but not good when trying to hold the lens as less space for your fingers. Not an issue for me as I am small guy but I can it being an issue for something with bigger hands and/or fatter fingers.

I do use a larger plate on my 300f2.8 its a 140mm as it gives more to hold onto when walking around .
Rob.