Canon 600 F4 IS replacement foot options

About to throw down some coin for a very nice used 600 f4 IS.

So far I'm trying to find a replacement foot for the lens and most of my searches are coming back for the IS II version, same with most reviews, videos etc.

I know RRS and Jobu have one.

Can anyone offer advice on the options, pictures are what I'm really after to see the height differences.

I have the 500 is I and use the Kirk foot, no complaints.

http://www.kirkphoto.c​om …replacing_Canon​_foot.html

Thanks, I'll check that one out

I use the 4th generation design foot on mine.

4th gen?

Just a thought but why do you want a replacement foot?
I have owned the Canon 400 F2.8 L, Canon 600 F4 L IS and currently own the Canon 300 F2.8 L IS and Canon 800 F5.6 L IS - I haven't found any need to replace the lens foot on any of them.
In all cases I simply attached an Arca compatible QR plate and h#just got on with shooting. True an after-market foot (if it is Arca compatible) will save a few grams but it is a lot of money to spend for a VERY marginal improvement.
Just my thoughts.

I picked up the 600 and 500 with replacement feet on them already. The 500 has the 4th Gen and I love that one all around! The 600 has the Wimberly and I like the low profile + ease of inserting into a camera bag, but I don't like not being able to grab the lens by the foot. There is no room to get your fingers around the Wimberly replacement foot.

johnf3f - I didn't think much of the replacement feet before I got some lenses that already had them. It is nice not having to fight a lens foot in the camera bag/case and the balance on a gimbal is better.

With my 2 lenses (300 F2.8 L IS and 800 F5.6 L IS) and my 2 bags (Lowepro 600 AW and Supertrekker AW) I don't have an issue with the lens feet getting in the way. However, with some bags, this may well be an issue.
I was curious as I, previously, looked into replacement lens feet but couldn't really see the point - so I am very interested in other peoples observations here.
Perhaps I am missing something?

johnf3f wrote in post #17874121
Perhaps I am missing something?

On the Wimberly Gimbal and their sidekick the balance feels much better with the lower profiles. It isn't as noticeable on a ballhead or monopod. But if you're using a gimbal you might like the tracking feel/balance a bit better....everything feels "lighter" to me making it easier to move the lens around.

Aus.Morgo wrote in post #17873091
4th gen?

4th Generation Designs. The CRX-5 is for version II lenses and CP-60 is for the prior generation. I have the CP-51b for the 500mm, so I can't tell you how their 600mm version is.

Poindexter wrote in post #17874163
4th Generation Designs. The CRX-5 is for version II lenses and CP-60 is for the prior generation. I have the CP-51b for the 500mm, so I can't tell you how their 600mm version is.

Ah, thanks for the link, I was lost there for a bit not having hear of them before.

johnf3f wrote in post #17874012
Just a thought but why do you want a replacement foot?
I have owned the Canon 400 F2.8 L, Canon 600 F4 L IS and currently own the Canon 300 F2.8 L IS and Canon 800 F5.6 L IS - I haven't found any need to replace the lens foot on any of them.
In all cases I simply attached an Arca compatible QR plate and h#just got on with shooting. True an after-market foot (if it is Arca compatible) will save a few grams but it is a lot of money to spend for a VERY marginal improvement.
Just my thoughts.

Quite simple really, I don't like having a plate bolted on.

I had a 400 2.8 IS in the past and it had the plate bolted on. Nowadays my big white is the 200-400 F4L and I bought a replacement foot from RRS and much prefer it.

A few little reasons
- One less point of failure, replacement foot means no plate to come loose (the engineer in me would buy it for this reason alone)
- Weight savings, not much to count really though
- Fits in bags more easily and the original case more easily, I remember my 400 had to sit in a certain way with the plate for the case lid to close and lock correctly.
- More comfortable to carry the lens around when carrying by the foot
- More comfortable to hand hold, I remember my 400 2.8 was uncomfortable with the plate digging into my hands when hand holding.
- Looks better, I don't like the look of the plate bolted on and for a high dollar lens another hundred is not a big deal to have it looking the way you like.

I think I'm going to give the Kirk foot a try this time.

Aus.Morgo wrote in post #17874486
I think I'm going to give the Kirk foot a try this time.

Cool! Please update this thread with your opinion on it.

Aus.Morgo wrote in post #17874486
Quite simple really, I don't like having a plate bolted on.

I had a 400 2.8 IS in the past and it had the plate bolted on. Nowadays my big white is the 200-400 F4L and I bought a replacement foot from RRS and much prefer it.

A few little reasons
- One less point of failure, replacement foot means no plate to come loose (the engineer in me would buy it for this reason alone)
- Weight savings, not much to count really though
- Fits in bags more easily and the original case more easily, I remember my 400 had to sit in a certain way with the plate for the case lid to close and lock correctly.
- More comfortable to carry the lens around when carrying by the foot
- More comfortable to hand hold, I remember my 400 2.8 was uncomfortable with the plate digging into my hands when hand holding.
- Looks better, I don't like the look of the plate bolted on and for a high dollar lens another hundred is not a big deal to have it looking the way you like.

I think I'm going to give the Kirk foot a try this time.

Interesting thoughts. I think that I will look into these feet again to see if there is any advantage for me.
Thanks.

Picked up the 600 today. I was waiting to make sure everything went ahead before ordering the foot so will look at doing that tonight.