Printable View
I'm looking to get a Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS and the gear needed to use it. I need some advise on the details.
1. Gitzo 3540, 3540LS, 3530 or 3530S? Center column a bad idea even if its not extented? 4 sections OK?
2. RRS BH-55, lever release clamp OK with a 500mm?
3. Wimberley Sidekick necessary or will the BH-55 alone be sufficient?
Thanks!
Michael
I read somewhere that to be safe, don't choose the lever release option. May be faster and easier to use, but more prompt to accidental release, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by monitorpop
Yeah, I was nervous about that with such a heavy lens. Thought I would see what people thought here.
Thanks for the reply
Michael don't consider the center column even if you never extended, will get in the way when you use the tripod low !!!
For support I would use the Mongoose 3.5 or full Wimberley The 3.5 is lighter and handles better but not as easy to balance as the the Wimberly.
I know the Sidekick is very similar to the Mongoose but don't recommended because of the weight since you need to carry a ballhead wth you. btw when I travel the 3.5 gets used with my 600 VR
OK, I have things narrowed down a bit based on your advise.
NO lever release clamp and NO center column.
Now I need to figure out how many sections on the tripod. The Gitzo 3530S is $75 less than the 3540LS but 7 inches shorter, will the height matter if I'm 6.2? Is 3 sections more stable?
I would like the RRS BH-55 so I can use it for more than the 500mm. Is the BH-55 by itself not even an option to be considered? If a Wimberley is a must, is the full the only way to go? I was hoping to at least go with the sidekick so the BH-55 could stay on 24/7. In actual use what would the difference be between these options?
Also, I'm a bit confused about the balance issues. I never even considered that these things didn't balance on their own.
Thanks for taking the time to help me out!
Mike
Hi Michael Balance first
When you set a full Wimberley properly you will be able to point the lens up/down and will stay balanced. With the side mounted units it will not stay, actually it can if you tighten the screw but it defeats the purpose. I feel more comfortable with the unit balanced but do like the lightness of the Mongoose.
The Wimberley (full) will be for the long lens primarily, with an adapter you can use other lenses but its an overkill. The Mongoose can be used with anything. If you get an L-Plate then you can mount a camera and shorter lenses with collars can also be used. Same for the Sidekick.
I think only you can decide what is best. If you use the 500 a minority of the time maybe the Sidekick would be the best option. Might want to check out the Mongoose site Do a search on 4th Generation .. Mongoose Also check in Arties old bulletins, he has info on the Mongoose. btw my reasoning for favoring the Mongoose over the sidekick is weight. To me its a big reducing a couple of pounds when walking long distances.
Mike... I personally haven't had any problems using a ballhead (Markins M20L) and Wimberley Sidekick combination. With an RRS plate on the lens foot my 40D/500 balances perfectly and has a very smooth, fluid movement. For me it made sense because I already had $400 invested in a good ball head when I bought my 500 and couldn't really justify spending ANOTHER $400 on a Mongoose or $600 on a full Wimberley head.
One of the issues I think some folks have with the sidekick is safety. Because the lens foot is mounted in a vertical position rather than parallel with the ground like a full Wimberley head, if the quick release plate is not secured the lens is going to take a tumble. And it can be a little bit tricky at first to mount the lens in a sideways position like that. I've found that I feel much better about the whole process if I attach and secure the Sidekick to the lens FIRST and THEN slide the Sidekick into the ballhead quick release plate.
If money were no object I most certainly would have gone with the full Wimberley head or Mongoose I suspect. Needing to stretch my dollars I've found the Sidekick to be an excellent choice as it makes a very smooth Gimbal platform and can be quickly removed and the ballhead used by itself.
If your wanting to shoot birds I would certainly suggest you go with one of these solutions and not just the ballhead by itself. While the RRS BH-55 is an excellent ballhead, I think most here would agree that even just adding a Sidekick will vastly improve the quality of your birding experiences over just using a ballhead... ANY ballhead... alone. A Gimbal mount of some kind (Mongoose, Sidekick, Full Wimberly) is going to allow you MUCH smoother freedom of movement with a lot less effort.
My 2 cents...
Steve
OK, great information. I think I will meet in the middle and get a Sidekick.
Anyone have any input on Gitzo 3530S vs. 3540LS?
Thanks for making these decisions a lot less scary!
I have a BH-55, a Sidekick, and a Wimberley II, along with a 500 and a 600. I'm also tall (6' 3"). I would not even consider using a super telephoto lens with just a ballhead. It's just too cumbersome. As Al said, I would avoid a center column. I have no experience with the Mongoose product. The full Wimberley is the best at what it does, but the Sidekick works fine with a 500. When I go to Costa Rica I bring my BH-55 and the Sidekick. I put an L-plate on one of my bodies. I use the Sidekick for birds, and use the BH-55 for landscape and macro. I would consider going with the 3540 or the 3540XLS for your tripod. I believe Artie sells them on his website. The XLS is designed for tall people and I'm expecting delivery of one this week. I've heard that it handles the 600 with no problem.
Oh man, so much misinformation. Where do I start. Good so far:
1: Do NOT get a centerpost.
2: Do NOT put a long lens on a ballhead alone.
As far as the Sidekick, I will sell one to anyone who wants one, but.... Consider the following:
1: The Mongoose 3.5 is several pounds lighter than the RRS ballhead/Sidekick combo and handling is far smoother and more efficient.
2: 87% of the folks who I have run into using the ballheadSidekick combo constantly complain about it.
3: Sell your $400 ballhead and do not buy a Sidekick. Purchase a Mongoose and the tiny Gitto's ballhead to keep in your pocket. It weighs 13 ounces and will handle a pro body and any short zoom lens.
4: You rig that is three pounds lighter and that will handle like a dream...
5_ As far as the tall tripods, you will need to keep the skinny lowest legs sections extended only a bit else stability is an issue.
Lastly, we have everything above in stock, sell it for 5 cents less than B&H when we are allowed to, and we know what we are talking about...
Best of luck with your choices.
Artie, how does the Mongoose handle a 500 f/4 and a 600 f/4?
Hi Doug and Gang, I have been using the M3.5 with my 500 for about two years and loving it, as does my right shoulder... Robert O'Toole has been using it with the 600 for longer than that (without incident) but I cannot recommend that combination as most folks are not strong enough to move the plate in the clamp and supporting the lens with one hand (while attempting to balance the rig). The Wimberley V2 has a tiny edge on lens handling. You can read the details on that and check out my extensive comments here: http://www.birdsasart.com/bn254.htm In fact, anyone shopping for a tripod head for a big lens is advised to study the info at that link carefully.
ps to your PM: I would never put a 600 on a Sidekick for the same reasons as above (plus more)> Heck the one time that I tried to use a 500 on a Sidekick I had to go to the shrink for a month and get some heavy medications to get straightened out...
I thought I had it figured out and Arthur throws me a curve ball!
Arthur, you're clearly an expert and your opinion caries allot of weight. I've done done tons of searching around the web and opinions are all over the place on this head issue. I would really like to avoid the full Wimberley or Mongoose, but will cave in if using the lens will be miserable with out one.
Maybe my use will help? My wife is into birding and I'm into photography, so I'm basically trying to bridge the gap. I live in lower Michigan and think most of my shooting would be birds perched in place or maybe humming birds at flowers. If were out together and I've had enough of the birds I would like to be able to quickly switch over to landscapes or macro.
On the tripod, I can't see the point to the 3540LS if the legs are not fully extended to gain the extra 7 inches. Is the 3530S be tall enough for someone 6.2?
As for the store page, the links don't work for me and I can't find the Mongoose.
Thanks to everyone for taking the time to help!
Hi Michael,
re:
I thought I had it figured out and Arthur throws me a curve ball!
No curve balls. Only straight shooting. I have called them as I see them and always been honest; that's why we do in excess of $500,000 mail order every year...
Arthur, you're clearly an expert and your opinion caries allot of weight.
After 25 years of doing this, I have figured a few things out.
I've done done tons of searching around the web and opinions are all over the place on this head issue.
Have they been doing it for 25 years? When folks want to know what is, the contact BAA.
I would really like to avoid the full Wimberley or Mongoose, but will cave in if using the lens will be miserable with out one.
Do you know what ballhead flop is??????????????
Maybe my use will help? My wife is into birding and I'm into photography, so I'm basically trying to bridge the gap. I live in lower Michigan and think most of my shooting would be birds perched in place or maybe humming birds at flowers. If were out together and I've had enough of the birds I would like to be able to quickly switch over to landscapes or macro.
Mongoose 3.5 plus the tiny Giotto's head in your pocket.
On the tripod, I can't see the point to the 3540LS if the legs are not fully extended to gain the extra 7 inches. Is the 3530S be tall enough for someone 6.2?
That is a close call depending on our shooting style and the head you choose. Both the Wimberley and the Mongoose M3.5 will make your tripod effectively taller.
As for the store page, the links don't work for me and I can't find the Mongoose.
How's this:
Now Available: M 3.5: Gimbal Head for Larger Telephoto Lenses $485.00 plus $15 shipping.<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = U1 /><U1:PLACE></U1:PLACE><U1:PLACENAME></U1:PLACENAME>
http://www.birdsasart.com/231/Mongoose%203.5.jpg
After many, many prototypes and demos, John Zeiss has perfected the new, larger Mongoose. About sixteen months ago I began using the Mongoose M3.5 with my 500mm f/4L IS lens in order to save weight. I am constantly struggling to keep my shoulders healthy and by reducing the weight of my rig I am able to do that without too much trouble. In addition, the M3.5 travels a lot easier than the Wimberley V2 or the old Wimberley. And if you you are using a Nikon 200-400 or any of the 300mm f/2.8s lenses on a tripod, this is the ideal head for you. You will need to add the low foot for (CP-42) for the 400 DO and the Canon 300mm f/2.8. Though I will be glad to sell you one, the regular Wimberley head is way over-kill for either of the afore-mentioned lenses. In addition, the Mongoose M3.5 is far more elegant and efficient than the Sidekick/ballhead combo. As above the Mongoose M3.5 is far superior to anything else in terms of weight, access to the lens controls, ease of handling, and stability. Folks will most likely want to add the flash bracket and the appropriate low foot (the NP 42 Replacement Foot is correct for the wonderful Nikon 200-400 mm. f4.0 Zoom Lens.
We have long recommended the lighter, smaller M2.3 for all intermediate telephoto lenses such at the Canon 100-400 IS<U1:P></U1:P>, the Nikon 80-400, and all of the 70 and 80-200 and 300 f/4 lenses as well.
The Mongoose M-3.5 Action Head is available now for $485 plus $15 shipping. Florida residents need to add $33.95 sales tax.
Please make all checks out to "Arthur Morris." Credit card orders call 863-692-0906. Or use Paypal: <INPUT type=image height=31 alt="Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!" width=62 src="https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/x-click-but02.gif" border=0 name=submit>
You will also want the low foot:
http://www.birdsasart.com/cp-51A.jpg CP 51a: Replacement Foot for Canon 500 mm. f4.0 Telephoto Lens Price: $85.00 plus $5.00 shippingA highly sculptured full replacement foot; just long enough to cover the balance point, just tall enough to fit under the lens hood. Has a double cut dovetail to accommodate flash arms using the ARCA style mount. Improved balance for ball heads and action heads because of a 2.7" offset from the lens center. Featuring our unique "Limit System" providing an improved anti drop function. ARCA compatible like all 4th Generation Designs products. Wrench and limit screws provided. Weight: 3 ozs.
Thanks to everyone for taking the time to help.
YAW
Good luck with your decision.
A newbe thought here... I have a ballhead and Sk for my 300f2.8,not bad to put on, but add the 2xtc and that extra length does change things.Now what I have has worked just fine, BUT instead of having just one piece of equipment, like the Mongoose, you have two pieces, the ballhead and the sidekick that you have to make sure everything is good and tight, easier to 'not' happen than one might think.
Weight matters, I use to think it was nuts folks taking about saving 1lb in weight. I hike a lot and while the 300+2x isn't a 500 and extra pound here and there makes a difference.
In other words as soon as I can figure out a way to slide a Mongoose in on hubby, I'm switching. Anyone game for sending one wrapped as a gift:D
I had the SideKick and BH-55 combo. Basically, I hated it even with a 200-400, and I never dreamed of putting my 600 on it. I kept the BH-55 for studio style stuff and sold the SideKick.
My SideKick experience soiled my veiw regarding side mounting options, but folks that tried out the Mongoose on the SWFL IPT in March really liked it.
Another issue with the SideKick / Ball head setup is that it add at least one more "joint" between pieces of gear. That's a point of potential failure of the equipment or the operator when assembling. Also, when you use a SideKick with the BH-55 and several other ball heads, Wimberly recommends an adapter plate which is an additional expense and another couple screws to worry about.
Do you know what ballhead flop is??????????????
Nope, I'm a complete moron when it comes to this side of photography, first tripod and the longest lens I have now is 135mm. If it wasn't for places like this I would have given up trying to figure this out.
---
Mongoose 3.5 plus the tiny Giotto's head in your pocket.
Could you point me towards the Giotto head your recommending? Do you sell it?
Thanks!
Love the Mongoose. A 500 on a Mongoose is easier to handle that a 300 on a quality ballhead. You do not want to put your 500 on a ballhead.
OK, I'm sold on doing it right. Thanks for kicking my butt in the right direction Arthur...
Mike
Michael,Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Donk
With a standard tripod head, whether ball head or standard pan head, if the axes or ball are not locked down tight, the heavy camera + lens can fall over. This can happen too with just a camera and any lens. But with short focus lenses, you tend to frame and lock the head and take the picture. With wildlife photography, unless you only do portraits of still subjects, you have the axes unlocked and follow the action. If you have any of the axes or ball slightly clamped, you risk having a jerky motion when you pan. The gimbal heads (e.g mongoose, sidekick or full Wimberly) are designed to be able to balance the system so you can keep the axes unlocked and the camera will not move when you let go, and then moves freely so you can pan the action. With the sidekick, you lock the ball sideways and use the azimuth axis of the ball (only use ball heads with a separate azimuth axis), and the vertical axis is on the sidekick). So both horizontal and vertical panning is easy with the sidekick, or other gimbal heads.
I have both the full Wimberly and sidekick. I use the full Wimberly with my 500 f/4 and the sidekick when I want to travel lighter. But I also do landscapes and digital mosaics. The ball head plus sidekick work very well as key components for a homemade panoramic head.
I only carry the ball head and sidekick when I take my smaller lenses (300 f/2.8 and smaller). If I take the 500 f/4, after a long day shooting, I find mounting the 500 on the side tiring (mongoose or sidekick are this way). So as one tires this becomes more of a safety issue.
Roger
Nice explanation, Roger. I used the 300 2.8 / 2X combination on a BH1 ball head for several years. I bought a Mongoose when I got my 500. It is so much smoother and so much more controllable. I plan to move the 300 to the mongoose as well and use the ball head only for smaller lenses/landscapes etc. I was foolish not to have done this earlier.
Well, I'm in the tripod and head shopping mode also. Looking at the Gitzo 3540LS and Mongoose 2.3 for my 100-400 and 40D combo and a small ball head for landscapes. Thinking of the Markins Q-3 or M-10 as an option. This may be overkill for my current setup but was thinking I may get a 500 in the future.
First off, thanks to Roger for the excellent explanation of ball-head flop. One clarification though, the lens does not fall off the tripod, it just flops to one side or the other, sometimes with a thud. I remember being so nervous once when a flicker landed on a perch right in front of me while in a blind at Big John's Pond at Jamaica Bay WR in Queens, NY. I was so nervous that I lost control of the lens and the sound of the 800 f/5.6 flopping scared it away. Fortunately it came back and wound up as a full page chapter opener in ABP and a Birder's World cover image.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maurice Allen
As for a small ballhead, we strongly recommend this one: http://www.birdsasart.com/giottos.htm. It is only 13 ounces. We have lots of M2.3s and M3.5s in stock and would of course appreciate your order once you are good to go.
ps: We also have the tripod in stock for a nickel less than B&H.
Artie,Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Morris
Yes, I didn't mean to imply the whole thing will fall on over onto the ground, although it can happen with a heavy lens. I was on Mount Evans (Colorado) photographing mountain goats a few years ago and got to talking with another photographer. He had just returned from Yellowstone and he said he had a big lens on his pro Nikon DSLR (forget the models) and he said the system fell over (ball or pan head-again I forget) and completely fell over hitting the back of the camera and cracked the sensor! Complete loss on the camera.
These gimbal mounts like the Wimberly and Mongoose, by the way, are a design that comes from telescope mounts called fork mounts. Specifically, the Wimberly and Mongoose are one-armed fork mounts. Many large observatory telescope mounts are two-armed fork designs. If you don't want to spend the money, you can make a very effective 2-arm fork out of hardwood with very smooth action for a few dollars. The wood also dampens vibrations real well, but it will be a little heavier than a Wimberly. Google Dobsonian Telescope mount and you'll see many designs, including amateurs building telescopes like 4000 mm focal length f/4 telephotos and larger!
(They transport it in a van and setup on site.)
Roger
Here is what I ended up buying this weekend, I'll post back on how its working out in case it helps other newbies.
Canon 500IS: used 9+ condition for $4800 with a 4th Gen. foot included.
Gitzo GT3541LS tripod
Mongoose M-3.5 (with visual blemish for $50 off)
RRS BH-40 ballhead with LR (for other lenses)
I'm sure I'll be buying Arthur's CD next, since I have no clue what I've gotten myself into... :)
Thanks to everyone for the help.
Michael
