Gimbal and replacement foot for the Nikon 600mm FL

Unfortunately, the Nikon 600mm f/4E FL ED VR does not balance with the D810 and the foot replacement LCF-13 by Really Right Stuff nor with the Nikon stock foot. The LCF-13 worked perfectly with the previous model 600mm f1/4G ED VR.

After some research I ordered the foot LF-N604FL by jobu design. It is 4 cm longer than the Nikon stock foot and 2cm longer than the new LCF-18 by RRS, which is too short according to this comment. Now, my setup balances fine horizontally, but vertically the lens sits (still) too high with the gimbal by Dietmar Nil.

To balance my setup also vertically, I needed a different gimbal head. The WH-200 Wimberley Head Version II would let me compensate a height up to 12 cm. I went with the Jobu Heavy Duty MK IV, which is a bit lighter, but only gives you about 10.5 cm (my combination requires at least 10 cm).

Video showing the balancing of the Nikon 600mm f1/4E FL ED VR with the Jobu LF-N604FL replacement foot. The lens is attached to a Nikon D810 and mounted on the Jobu Heavy Duty MK IV gimbal.

You may wonder why the foot has such a high profile. I guess this is owed to the longer lens hood, which reaches further back when stowed away.

Comparison of lens feet: The jobu is 17.7 cm long and 3.6 cm high, the RRS LCF-13 designed for the previous model is 14.3 cm long and 1.8 cm high and the new RRS LCF-18 would be 15.4 cm x 4.8 cm. The Nikon stock foot has the dimensions and is 13.5 cm x 4.5 cm and not Arca Swiss compatible.

But I don’t really see why that was really necessary. I think it wouldn’t matter to have the hood cover the foot as shown in the mockup below:

Mockup of a suggested replacement foot for the front-heavy Nikon 600mm FL with a super low profile.
Closeup view of the gap between the reversed hood (lens coat removed) and the jobu replacement foot. The cutout edge does not align with the edge of the hood: @George.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. You’re right, by now (replacement foot installed) it’s hard to find out. But maybe you noticed it during installation.
    Almost every manufacturer doesn’t include additional screws (and they mention to use the original Nikon screws).
    But Wimberley does include a set of 4, which made wonder if their screws are different. I have send them an email.

    I like the Jobu foot, but this foot from Flexshooter (called the Bigfoot) is really low profile…

  2. Hi,

    Hope you can help me with this one: what kind of screws does this LF-N604FL use? The regular M3x12?

    I’m asking because my second hand 600mm FL came with an AP 555 from WImberley, I’m not sure if this foot (which I find rather tall) uses the original screws. I’m considering to buy the Bigfoot FLN-60 which, according to the website, uses the original Nikon screws (just like the LF-N604FL).

  3. Please refer to my earlier comments:

    “… fit only only the Nikon 600mm/E FL…” should be typed as “… fit not only the Nikon 600mm/E FL…”

  4. Would you think Jobu designed the LF-N604FL to fit only only the Nikon 600mm/E FL as the reason for the foot to be “outside” the reversed hood? The LF-N604FL also fits the following “E” lenses per Jobu’s website: 400mm/2.8, Nikon 500mm/4, and Nikon 800mm/5.6.

    My question for you is if your above still provides a “little” gap between the reversed hood and LF-N604FL foot?

    1. Yes, there is a small gap of about 3mm (narrowest part) and 6mm (wider part) between the reversed hood and the foot. Please notice that the foot has a small “step” in the front. I would think the cutout (“step”) was supposed to be a bit further back to align with the edge of the hood and provide a wider gap.

      1. Thanks for the quick reply.

        When you indicated “…was supposed to be a bit further back to align with the edge of the hood and provide a wider gap…”, do you mean currently it isn’t? It does not appear so in your photo, and can I take it that there would be a wider gap, for say, the Nikon 400/2.8E?

        1. I added a photo to the article showing the situation close up. As you can see, the “step” does not align with the edge of the reversed hood. Unfortunately, I don’t own the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 so can’t say if the gap there would be wider.

  5. Also another reason the RRS LCF-18 is slightly higher might be because there needs to be sufficient gap between the lens foot and the lens barrel so that one can also carry the lens by its lens foot. If too low a profile then, it would not be possible to slip the fingers around the lens foot for a good grip for carrying the lens

      1. I got the LCF-18. Its unnecessarily “tall” and it does not feel as solid as the old LCF-13. Also the screws are not easily accessible. I will try to take a picture and send a link

    1. I not only replaced the Nikon stock foot with the foot by jobu design, but also replaced the gimbal head from Dietmar Nill with the Jobu Heavy Duty MK IV. Now the whole setup sits lower and the center of mass is right on the tilt axis. I didn’t buy the classic Wimberley Gimbal Head II because it’s heavier than the Jobu, even though it would have given more play to adjust in the vertical.