Support for 400/5.6

[Jay Abrams]

I have a Canon 50D and 400/5.6 which is my main bird lens. I use a Manfrotto CF tripod and Kirk BH-3 head. I am debating whether to upgrade to a Sidekick or Jobu Jr. gimbal head, or stay with the Kirk. I can't handhold the 400 since I have a slight tremor. I know the Mongoose 2.3a is the head of choice - but is no longer produced.

Is the purchase of a gimbal for this setup overkill, or a good idea? I doubt, because of cost, that I will upgrade lenses anytime soon. Thanks.

[James Prudente]

Jay,

Find a used Wimberley Sidekick. You should be able to obtain one for around $200.00 in excellent condition. It will work very well for you with your existing tripod and Kirk ball head. You may need to get a longer lens plate in order to balance the camera/lens combo on the Sidekick, but try it first with the lens plate you now use with your ball head.

Cheers,

Jim

[Alfred Forns]

Jay a full Wimberley would be an overkill .... will weigh more than the lens itself !!!

Would go for a Mongoose ... even the 3.5 weighs only one pound. Could even find one use I'm sure. With the Mongoose can even use it for landscapes attached to the camera body with an L bracket.

I'm sure all options will work, consider weight in your decision !!! ... btw for a lens that light a ball head would not be that much of a problem !!

[Jay Abrams]

Will the Mongoose or Sidekick balance if I put a canon flash on the camera? I won't be buying a flash arm until later.

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Jay The flash would fit on the Mongoose itself, its a little stick (convenient) I don't know that all the models have been fitted for the flash but I'm sure they can be.

... btw there is one 2.3 for sale in photo gear !!!

All Mongoose will vary a little as far as balancing the lens. The current model that I'm using now balances the 600 f 4.0 IS perfectly !!!! Before the update I had some creeping !!! Do love the unit !!!

[Roy Churchill]

Jay, the Jobu Jr is a superb head for the 400/5.6 - the sidekick version weighs in at just 0.62 KG and is well up to the job (unlike a lot of sidekicks you do not use a ballhead with the Jobu as it screws directly on the tripod).
As far as I know it is one of the only gimbals that is made specifically for relatively lightweight lenses like the 400/5.6, 100-400 and 300/4 . Since I upgrade my lens to a 300/2.8 I also upgraded the Gimbal to a BWG HDII but for a lens like the 400/5.6 I would unreservedly recommend the Jobu Jr, it is a superbly made piece of kit.

BTW you can buy the Jr as a kit which includes a full Gimbal type arm or as a side kick only. I had the full gimbal kit but preferred using it with the 400/5.6 as a side kick (you can remove the horizontal mount). If you did get just the side kick version and then decided you wanted the full Gimbal you can always, then you can buy just the horizontal mount separately.

I know of lots of birders who use the Jobu Jr with these lightweight lenses and they are all over the moon with it.

[James Prudente]

Jay,

Wimberley makes a flash bracket for use with the Sidekick and you can balance the whole unit out.

Jim

[Jamie Strickland]

Something else you may want to check is the benro GH-1 gimbal I got one a while ago and am amazed how good it is, it only weights 1.5lbs like the mongoose. It supports a 500L very easily and its just as smooth as the wimberley. There is absolutely no creeping on it either even with the 500+TC & 7D + battery grip & flash / better beamer over my shoulder.

[Jay Abrams]

Are theres advantages/disadvantages of each? I don't have the greatest dexterity in the world, and wonder if a side mount won't be stressful to use.

Also, with the sidekick, does rotating the clamp of the ballhead sideways put stress on the clamp and sidekick?

Thanks to everyone for all their help.

[Jamie Strickland]

the biggest disadvantage of the side mount is when you want to use the camera without a lens foot, like for landscapes using the 24-105 for instance, if you have an L bracket for your camera its not a problem of course

the side mount is more stressful on the foot but on the 400 5.6 the lens is so light it wont be an issue

yes the sidekick puts stress on it but again with that light lens it should not be a problem as long as you have a decent ballhead, if it can handle the weight it will start slipping / moving, I only ever had that happen with a 600L once

[Jay Abrams]

Thanks, everyone. I wound up buying a Mongoose 2.3 used that was listed on the Buy/Sell forum. I appreciated taking time to give lots of good advice.

[David Stephens]

Are theres advantages/disadvantages of each? I don't have the greatest dexterity in the world, and wonder if a side mount won't be stressful to use.

Also, with the sidekick, does rotating the clamp of the ballhead sideways put stress on the clamp and sidekick?

Thanks to everyone for all their help.

I'm late in, but wanted to comment on the some of the advantage of the Wimberley Sidekick used with a sturdy ballhead. I've got the Sidekick mounted on an Arca-Swiss Z1 and recently switched from the bargain Manfrotto gimbal. The Manfrotto is a great gimbal and a relative bargain price, but you need to screw it off the tripod and screw on a head to switch from tele with a collar to a body with a wide-angle lens. With the Sidekick, I can slip the Sidekick out of the ballhead and slip in a separate body that I carry with a wide-angle attached. I'd previously done all my wide-angle shooting hand held when I was primarily shooting birds, but that often compromised the scenic shot because of low early morning light or other issues. Now I can optimize either my tele or wide-angle exposure.

Not all side mounts are quick release, so you'll want to consider that when purchasing. If you don't need that, then there are several economic alternatives. The Arca-Swiss Z1 plus the Wimberley Sidekick is an expensive proposition, but it's extremely flexible. You could save a little money on the ballhead, but you do need a very strong one because of the side-load caused by the side-mount of the head.

Dave