wimberly

I have been going back forth over the idea of purchasing a wimberly head. I use a 200-400vr which is much less weight than something like a 600 f4. Therefore I was considering purchasing the sidekick isntead of its big brother. Does anyone have experience with the side kick? Will I get similiar performance from the side kick? Considering I am not putting an 11 lbs lens on it, is the side kick better suited for my combo?

thanks,
Jared

I can't comment directly on the side kick, I own and use the Wimberley 2 Head on the Canon 5D, MK2N with the 300 2.8 being the largest. Highly recommend it. If the sidekick is anything like it, buy it! Wimberley's high quality is, well excellent. Bought it from Artie. He answered all my questions, patiently too.

Consider the Mongoose Head that Artie sells. I prefer it to the Sidekick.

I agree with Doug.

I have both the Sidekick and a Mongoose 3.5a and prefer the latter. It's very smooth and lighter than a ball
head/sidekick combo.

I use a Sidekick with my RRS BH55 and 200-400 and am very happy with it. Weight wise - I always travel with the ballhead anyway so the sidekick is a small addition to get the function of a gimbal. I use RRS Quick release clamp so it all goes together very quickly and conveniently.

Mongoose 3.5a is the way to go Light and simple The flash bracket is a thing of beauty. The sidekick is good but you need a ball head (weight)

If you need to mount the camera directly to the Mongoose there is an adapter then you can use the L bracket !!!

other than weight, what are the advantages over the sidekick and the wimberly?

Functionally all three work quite well.

With the Sidekick setup there are several clamps that have to kept tight or the results could be disaster. The Mongoose 3.5a is a sleek design and travels a little better than the full Wimberly.

sorry y'all in my last post I meant to ask : other than weight, what are the advantages of the Mongoose over the sidekick and full size wimberly?

thanks,
Jared