Wimberley sidekick on BH-3

[manishkshukla]

Folks, Nikon 500 F4 VR is finally in stock at B&H and I ordered it. I would be receiving it tomorrow :) I have been thinking about appropriate support for it. I own the Kirk BH-3 ballhead and am considering the Wimberley sidekick to use on it - given that the sidekick is less than half price of the full gimbal head. What are your thoughts on this combination? Any other recommendations? Thanks!

[Don Hamilton Jr.]

I too struggled with this, however it's really a no brainer now that i took the plunge! The full Wimb II gimbal head is the safest, and the best for your longterm success! Never have to worry about flop, and a tumble over! Just my two cents worth...
Don

[David Billingsley]

Go for the full Wimb II - you won't be sorry.

[Alfred Forns]

Would go for the full Wimberley also !!! ... but if I'm going to hang the lens on the side would use the Mongoose 3.5 Great for walking long distances and traveling .... light and works !!!

[John Blumenkamp]

I recently test drove both for use with my EF 500 f/4, and agree the Wimb II is fantastic - you can't go wrong. I chose the Sidekick however for a couple reasons, primarily the setup of the sidekick with my RRS BH-55 ballhead and Apex Beanbag... this combo is working really well from the auto window. The full Wimb II w/ beanbag did not fit well in the window, etc, and I shoot a good amount from the auto. I also like the portability of the sidekick when hiking and it's smaller size in general.

I think if you are primarily shooting from a tripod most of the time, and don't need to switch quickly to a ballhead, go with the full Whim II... it's certainly a great product. But don't dismiss the sidekick for it's panning/pivoting motion - I had the full Whim II and Sidekick setup side-by-side when evaluating, and they are both very smooth. I am very happy with the Sidekick.

Enjoy your new 500 f/4. ;-)

[Eric Silvi]

I agree with John.
I don't use my 500 all the time. I started using my Sidekick on a BH3. It worked fine. I recently upgraded my tripod so I also upgraded to the kirk BH1.
I'm still using the Sidekick and happy with the results.

[manishkshukla]

Thanks everyone for your suggestions. So far, most of the votes have been for Wimb II. Still there seems to be value in the sidekick because of flexibility it provides. For example, one can easily remove the sidekick to shoot with smaller lenses. It is also lighter, and good for travel.

Mongoose 3.5 is quite expensive at $485 - I might as well get a full wimberly for $595. I am leaning towards sidekick because of its low price, and that it would be useful as a lighter alternative even when I get a full wimberley later on. The doubt I have is whether Bh-3 would be able to handle the sidekick+500 f4 setup..

[David Billingsley]

Be sure all the clamps on your sidekick setup are tight. Happy shooting with your new lens.

[Jamie Strickland]

Mongoose 3.5 is quite expensive at $485 - I might as well get a full wimberly for $595. I am leaning towards sidekick because of its low price, and that it would be useful as a lighter alternative even when I get a full wimberley later on. The doubt I have is whether Bh-3 would be able to handle the sidekick+500 f4 setup..

the Mongoose is expensive for sure, but so are all of those type of heads, and actually the Mongoose is cheaper than the wimberly and imo better. I am using the sidekick today with a benro head, and I have a wimberley india knockoff as well. I tested Alfreds mongoose and fell in love with it, its so darn light and small and works perfectly fine with a 600 so a 500 will work no problem. My next purchase is going to be a mongoose for sure.

As for the sidekick and BH-3 it should work no problem, I used a benro with the sidekick and I have never had a problem, I used a 600 for a bit and it was fine until you were hiking with it over the shoulder and then the ball head started to slip a little.

[Danny J Brown]

My two cents as follows. I've bought a lot of things in my life..Harleys, Berettas, Gitzos, etc..... and I truly believe you get what you pay for. Of all of those wonderful toys, the Wimberley II has to be right at the top. It is a magnificent piece of equipment and will make you fall in love with your supertelephoto all over again.

[Nancy A Elwood]

Ditto to what Danny says!! The other thing is the side mount of the Mongoose. If you are comfortable one handing your setup while mounting it side ways on the Mongoose then that is great, for the Mongoose is lighter than the full Wimberley, but I have small hands and did not feet comfortable doing that so the straight up mounting of the full Wimberley was better for me.

[Alan Lillich]

I have both a Sidekick and Wimberley II, I love them both and use both a lot. I won't try to say what is right for you, but here are some of my experiences. The Sidekick is indeed light, less expensive (ignoring the ball head cost), and gives you easy conversion for mixed use. The gimbal use is generally close to that of the full head.

Here is my list of Sidekick concerns or disadvantages:

- The vertical alignment of the lens is always center of lens on the horizontal pivot point. For just lens plus body use you only have to do front/back balancing. But put a flash on the lens or Sidekick and you're dynamically out of balance. Front heavy when pointing down, back heavy when pointing up. The base plate on the full head adjusts vertically, allowing you to make sure the full lens/body/flash system has its center of mass aligned with the horizontal pivot.

- The alignment of the center of mass with the vertical pivot (ball head center) depends on the height of the lens foot. I use a Wimberley foot on my 200-400. I don't have a feel for how much misalignment is OK. I don't think it will affect gimbal use, I think the effect is mainly in tripod stability.

- When mounting a lens on the Sidekick you must be comfortable and confident holding the lens in 1 hand, putting the lens foot into the Sidekick jaws, and tightening the clamp - or have an assistant. For me, this is OK with a 200-400 (7.2 lbs), but I'm always a tad nervous and *VERY* careful. The Nikon 500 is 8.6 lbs, I've never used one. I mostly mount the body to the lens after it is on the Sidekick or full head. With the full head you use 2 hands to set the lens on the flat base plate, then use one hand to keep the lens in place (insurance), and use the other to tighten the clamp. I'm more comfortable putting a 13 lb Sigma 300-800 on the Wimberley II than I am putting the 200-400 on the Sidekick. I won't even consider putting the Sigma 300-800 on the Sidekick.

hope this helps,
Alan

[manishkshukla]

Thanks everyone for detailing all the pros and cons. After filp-flopping a lot, I heeded the majority advice and ordered a full wimberley head :) Now, I need a bag to carry my gear around (and to Plum Island, MA on the weekend). I would do some searching to find prior threads on this topic.