100-400mm II anti twist Arca plate ?

I finally picked up a used 100-400mm II and have ordered a new iShoot replacement foot from eBay. While waiting for it to arrive I tried out a couple of Arca plates and found they tend to twist a bit on the Canon foot.

The 100-400mm II foot has an extra hole that I assume is for an anti-twist pin. Has anyone tried one of these other plates that have the anti-twist pin on them?

I replaced the foot on mine, and from what I've seen that's very common since the OEM foot can be problematic

I use the Jobu 3.5 inch on mine and it does not twist.
https://www.jobu-design.com/Surefoot-NX1--35_p_26.html

I can comment but not on antitwist! Some early users of this lens had problemswith the plate that the 5mm screw attached to the thumbscrew mates with. That plate is secured with 4 x 2mm screws. My 2mm screws were not tightened sufficiently so even though I fitted a replacement foot, it took a few loosenings of the foot to realize the problem. By that time the threads for the 2mm screws were damaged from loosening. So I now have the replacement foot metal epoxied to the plate with 4 screws which is also metal epoxied to the ring. My home fix has lasted more than 5 years. Canon (Aus) quoted $820 just for the ring and the lens cost $2500 new. Therefore my alternate solution.
I think Canon resolved the issue of screws not being correctly tightened, unlikely to afect you but worth making sure the screw used for replacement foot is not too long as the plate with the 4 screws won't tolerate a screw too long.

ed rader wrote in post #18999932
I replaced the foot on mine, and from what I've seen that's very common since the OEM foot can be problematic

Same here. I bought the Kirk foot with the integrated Arca Swiss plate. Works great.

Scott M wrote in post #19000243
Same here. I bought the Kirk foot with the integrated Arca Swiss plate. Works great.

Same here.
I do understand why they designed it that way, however is it really necessary?
The Kirk design works well. Why Canon didn’t make the Kirk design as well is intriguing.

Hi, I bit the bullet on the Kirk LP-61 Quick Release Lens Plate - dearer but is a solid fit. Happy with it and have it fitted all the time.

Nick5 wrote in post #19003043
Same here.
I do understand why they designed it that way, however is it really necessary?
The Kirk design works well. Why Canon didn’t make the Kirk design as well is intriguing.

really? when has canon ever made a lens foot with arca swiss bevels? canon worked on the 100-400L II for years and the foot was a new design that they thought was pretty slick but turned out to be flawed in the real world.

Choderboy wrote in post #19000117
I can comment but not on antitwist! Some early users of this lens had problemswith the plate that the 5mm screw attached to the thumbscrew mates with. That plate is secured with 4 x 2mm screws. My 2mm screws were not tightened sufficiently so even though I fitted a replacement foot, it took a few loosenings of the foot to realize the problem. By that time the threads for the 2mm screws were damaged from loosening. So I now have the replacement foot metal epoxied to the plate with 4 screws which is also metal epoxied to the ring. My home fix has lasted more than 5 years. Canon (Aus) quoted $820 just for the ring and the lens cost $2500 new. Therefore my alternate solution.
I think Canon resolved the issue of screws not being correctly tightened, unlikely to afect you but worth making sure the screw used for replacement foot is not too long as the plate with the 4 screws won't tolerate a screw too long.

I also had a problem with the screws loosening. I tried a few things and then called kirk and they sent me a replacement foot (the wrong one) but in the meanwhile I read your post and tightened the screws and that fixed the problem.

another problem I had was the screws beneath the zoom ring loosening and eventually the zoom ring froze. that cost me more than 300 bucks to have fixed.

ed rader wrote in post #19004370
really? when has canon ever made a lens foot with arca swiss bevels? canon worked on the 100-400L II for years and the foot was a new design that they thought was pretty slick but turned out to be flawed in the real world.

Sorry Ed.
I was referring to the idea of removing the plate from the collar.
Not incorporating the removable foot plate with an ARCA-Swiss, or all lens feet, we agree.

Nick5 wrote in post #19005832
Sorry Ed.
I was referring to the idea of removing the plate from the collar.
Not incorporating the removable foot plate with an ARCA-Swiss, or all lens feet, we agree.

the 100-400L II was long-anticipated. the engineers probably had too much time on their hands and got too cute. the hood with the sliding door is a dumb idea too. the same guy did that too or his buddy. I glued it shut but it didn't hold so it slides back and forth again.

The Kirk foot is the best solution by far, well worth the extra cost for such a great lens. However I find I rarely use the 100-400ii on a tripod as all my wildlife images are shot handheld. So mostly I use the lens without a foot as it is easier to pack and doesn’t get in the way.

the kirk foot is lower profile than say the RRS foot. the advantage is it packs better but the disadvantage is cost and if you have larger hands you might not be able to get your fingers under it if you carry your camera and lens that way.

I once had the bright idea of making a modular L bracket that attached to an arca swiss plate at the bottom of my camera. It worked pretty well but I never had it with me when I needed it

What I like best about the original Canon foot, is that it is a tool-less removal foot.

Although I have had to tighten/Loctite the 4 small screws on the non-removable collar section, I just find it very convenient to unscrew the foot when not required, without the need for an Allen key.

Cheers

Dennis