Lets talk about lens torque

[J. Bernard Vallon]

Larger lenses require support. PL lenses are big. Little lenses don't require support.

Most nikon lenses are little, especially compared to PL counterparts. I don't expect to have to provide any lens support except on my telephoto nikon 80-200, which is pretty big.

My understanding of lens support is that if you don't do it, the weight of the lens puts torque on the mount which can

a.) put unwanted wear on your mount and
b.) could be significant enough that the focus/sharpness of the lens can be affected

My question is, are nikons, even the big telephoto, small and light enough that support isn't really necessary? I use the 80-200 on my d2x all the time without much support without a problem.

[Evin Grant]

Any lens that hasa tripod collar should be supported. Those are there for a reason. Yes the Nikon mount can handle an 80-200 2.8 with out the added support but it was designed for handheld SLR shooting where you would be supporting both. As soon as you bump a tripod mounted zoom without support you're asking for trouble IMHO.

[chuck colburn]

Hey PerfectOptics,

What you said in your post is all true. The lens mounts used on slrs are capable of holding the camera tight to the lens. That is why the manufacturers put tripod mounts on their larger teles. The camera mount itself relies on a small surface area spring loaded design that is limited to it's weight carrying ability. So even if your 80-200 is not causing a deflection, keep in mind that you are probally holding the lens as much as you are the camera. Anything much more than that I would think a suppot is called for. The breech lock design of the PL, Panavision etc. has so much more surface area and combined with its positive clamping action you can hang much heavier lens off of it.
When in doubt, support.

[M Olsen]

Also don't forget a lens locked to its support bracket is less susceptible to wind and vibration which of course can be an issue with telephotos in certain conditions.