Review: Wimberley vs. Mongoose M-3.5a

[Joe Milmoe]

Hi all,

Haven't posted much here, have learned a good bit (much appreciated!) and thought I'd post to share with others.

Recently did my own field tests comparing the Wimberley Wh-200 and Mongoose M-3.5a setups with the Canon 1d3, 800IS and flash attached.

http://blog.joemilmoe.com/2009/06/22...ngoose-m-3-5a/

Have a good one,

Joe Milmoe

[Don Thompson]

Not being able to afford the Wimberley I have considered the Mongoose.

I know that the Mongoose is well liked around here. It will be interesting to see what comments you might get regarding your review.

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Joe

You put a lot of work into your review and thank you for the link !!! Didn't read every single work but you touched some important points.

There are different versions of the Mongoose with later being better but would not mind using any of the older ones. I have not found quality to be a problem with the Mongoose but I'm sure there could be variations.

I think the real comparison for a test is between the Mongoose and the Sidekick :) I treat the full Wimberly and the Mongoose as complementing heads and recommend one of each !!!

[James Shadle]

You put a lot of work into your review, thanks for sharing it.

I do disagree on a few points. I own both the new Wimberley and the Mongoose 3.5a.
Both heads have been used with A Nikon 600 ED F4 AF-S I(the heaviest version) and a Sigma 300-800mm HSM.

I give the fit and finish to Mongoose. As well as weight, price, smoothness of operation and panning.
Tensioning the Mongoose base is much better.

The Wimberley is the winner for flash use. You can change the center of gravity on the Wimberley, you can not on the Mongoose. Yes it is a little easier to attach your lens to the Wimberley, however I have no problem attaching my lenses to the Mongoose.

You really can't go wrong with either head. My preference, because of the above is the Mongoose 3.5a.
My everyday, waste deep in saltwater, Nikon 600mm carrying gimbal head.

[Joe Milmoe]

Al & James,

Thanks for your notes.

James, one of your previous postings which highlighted success with the 300-800 on your mongoose was motivation for me to try the mongoose setup myself...much appreciated. It's always hard to guage until you see folks pushing the weight capacity.

I do agree-

Price...yes
Weight...yes

Smoothness (pan / vert fully opened)...negligible difference between the heads. Personal preference if you can identify a difference.

Tensioning...once you begin to increase pan tenion on the mongoose, the drag immediately sets in and is quite rough. The Wimberley's pan tension is incrementally smooth throughout the adjustment range.

Finish....sorry, I simply can't agree here. Numerous physical blems aside, the mongoose is a lightweight, raw machine. Edges are rougher, knobs are plastic, and things like pinched fingers are a regular ordeal. Different strokes for different folks!

You are definitely right- the mongoose does an incredible job of supporting such great weight, and both systems provide a totally useable option.

In the end, I had little interest in owning two separate systems (~$2000 worth) with great overlap in utility, so it came down to a decision of one or the other for me.

[Gerald Kelberg]

Hi Joe,
I enjoyed reading your review. I have a Mongoose (2.3) and since this is the first gimbal head I have used, I know no other and I'm pretty happy with it. I just have a couple of points I would make.

One is that you seem to have been putting your lens on the wrong side i.e. with the foot on the left. If you had put the foot on the right, you would have been able to hold the lens with your left hand and close the lock with your right hand. You probably would have found this much easier and more important, it would have given you (better) access to the lens control switches. I'm surprised you hadn't noticed how difficult they are to get at otherwise - I noticed it the first day I used it!

Happily, with my 500 f/4 IS (yeah, I know I'm supposed to use the 3.5 for the 500mm- but that is another story!) I have never noticed any variation in the smoothness of the rotation of the lens in the collar.

My other point is that we all get used to the gear we use a lot and I guess that if you had your Wimberly for two years you may have had some trouble getting used to the Mongoose over just a couple of weeks.

Regards,

Gerald

PS. By the way, do you hold the lens by the foot when you are shooting hand held?

[Joe Milmoe]

Hi Gerald,

I did try mounting the lens the opposite way (collar right) as you mentioned. I actually found it to be harder to reach the vertical adjustment knob this way, but easier to manually focus / support the lens with left hand. I hadn't seen it used this way in the past, but just figured I would try it.

If the 3.5 can support the 600+ lenses, I don't doubt the 2.3 works just as well with the 500.

I definitely bring some bias to the table, but tried to be as objective as possible. Definitely no affiliation with the company or brand loyalty.

My shooting situations often require me to shoot handheld 50% or more of the time. Yes- when handholding the 800, I prefer to keep the foot in normal (downward) position, support with left hand wrapped around the foot and keep right hand on the camera body. Folks are quick to criticize for bad form, but it is definitely do-able. Standing 6'1, 220lbs and always working to refine technique definitely helps. Also, the decreased weight and upgraded IS mechanism on the 800 also make it easier to hand-hold than the 5 or 600mm's, IMO. Handheld shots @ 1120mm are quite attainable with some practice :D

[James Shadle]

Joe,
All good points.
And I forgot to mentioned that the review was well laid out.

It really boils down to mind sets and personal ergonomic preferences.
You use Canon, a great system. I use Nikon, a great system(let's not start that;))

Thanks again for posting it.

James

[MichaelM]

Excellent review... wish I had read earlier.

I am a recent Wimberly convert after living with the Mongoose for about a year. I should say up-front, I believe mine was version 3.5, not 3.5a.. it had the older. second style knobs..the wing nut style.

My primary rig is a Sigma 500/4.5, TC and D300 or D700 with grip, plus Wimberly F9 bracket and SB-800 w/ BB. Second admission I need to make is that unlike the Nikon and Canon 500's, the tripod foot for the Sigma isn't replaceable.. and it is quite tall, and this added to the issues I faced with side mounting.

I started, like many folks, with a Sidekick with RRS lever action clamp and ballhead. The height of the Sigma's foot put the lens too far outside of the plumb line and I never felt comfortable with the stability or the extra stress it put on the pan base on the ball head, so after may reviews and trying a Mongoose in person I bought it. I used it for about a year.

Pros:

• Light weight
• Compact
• Super smooth panning action
• Excellent fit and finish. No marks or scuffs though the 4th Gen logo on the side was faded
• Tension was easy to adjust
• Less expensive
• Cool design (yes, I dig gear and this does make a difference)

Cons:

• Unlike the RRS clamp on my Sidekick there is no positive stop or detent so when releasing the clampng lever to adjust, it's very easy to open it too much
• Mounting was more stress than I needed
• Inevitably I would forget to lock the tripod collar and the foot, and often the flash rig would come swing around
• The issue with the lens/body being outside the plumb line still existed
• Neither the pan base nor vertical swing lock knobs would tighten enough to prevent the lens/body from moving while transporting over my shoulder.. I understand this might have been addressed in the newer designs
• Lock knobs were precariously small
• Only works with the Mongoose on the left side mount
• Impossible to achieve neutral balance... there was no way I would ever walk away from it if it were unlocked..no better than the Sidekick
• Once a bit of tension was delivered some of the smoothness was lost, but still usable under tension
• Mine was delivered the same way as the OP's..loose in a box

I replaced it with a Jobu Black Widow Pro... Why? I have no idea. I returned the Jobu after two weeks. It never left the house. Too big and bulky. The vertical rail isn't Arca Swiss so the F9 bracket didn't work. Neutral balance was near impossible.. can't understand why given the full gimbal design. Tension adjustment..there was none. On or off.

I now have a Wimberly.

Pros:

• Silky smooth on both vertical and panning
• Also beautifully made and delivered
• Vertical mounting is stress free
• Accommodates the tall foot of the Sigma 500 with no problem
• Easily achieve dead neutral balance with any setup. Walk away from it and it stays put, even fully unlocked
• The rubberized knobs are a joy...
• ...and have a fine enough thread to allow for a lot of adjustment in the tension
• Equally smooth loose or under tension, though I like just a hint of drag
• Locked is locked. No creep when transporting or locking down
• Arca Swiss vertical rail allows for use of the F9 and I also mount a small Kirk AS clamp on the vertical rail for other purposes
• Works mounted left or right side..I prefer it on the right unless I am using a 300/2.8 then it has to be on the left side or my fingers don't fit between the body and the vertical rail.

Cons:

• Heavier
• More expensive
• Harder to pack, though I don't travel such that I need to pack it away

Not nearly the in-depth review one might want to read but it's my brain dump....

I still remain curious why RRS hasn't stepped into the arena.

[Joe Milmoe]

Great points, Michael!

Interesting about RRS. They may well be stepping up sooner or later...who knows? Thus far, their products have complimented other brands nicely.

[Chris Spratt]

The review mentioned a "side mount conversion kit" to modify the Mongoose to the Wimberley type mount. Can't find that anywhere and is it worth the extra money?