Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Tripod suggestions for 300 2.8 and converters

  1. #1
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    16
    Threads
    3
    Thank You Posts

    Default Tripod suggestions for 300 2.8 and converters

    I've been following the threads on tripod and head suggestions for the 500 and the discussion is most useful, but I need a tripod and head combination for my 300 2.8 and converters. I am tempted to go all out for a Gitzo and Wimberly in case I move up to a 500 or 600 later, but thought I'd ask for recommendations. Perhaps I should go for a very good tripod, but might get away with a lighter head at this time? Thoughts appreciated.
    Marv

  2. #2
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    That is the big question; will you upgrade, and if so do you have one or two tripods.

    I have been very happy with the 055CSPRO3 from Manfrotto in combo with the RRS BH-40. I also have the Markins 20 (new and never used) if you are interested.

    I use the Manfrotto with the Wimberley Sidekick. The Sidekick works perfectly and allows me to convert the tripod from a long lens to landscape simply by removing the Sidekick.
    http://www.tripodhead.com/products/sidekick-main.cfm

    Since you have the 300 you can start with the Sidekick and when you go to a bigger lens then move up to a larger gimbal.

    At some point, though I am not sure why, I will ask Artie which Gitzo is equivalent - but better - to my current tripod.

    I used this combo for seven months in South America and couldn't have been happier with its performance.

    Every night in Antarctica I stood the rig in the shower and then let it drip dry.
    Cheers, Jay

    My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com

    "Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.

  3. #3
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,647
    Threads
    83
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Here's another vote for the Sidekick. It'll certainly handle the 500mm f/4L IS and your 300/f2.8 is a whole ton lighter.

    Also, go ahead and get a sturdy tripod that'll handle a bigger lens. When I had the 400mm f/5.6L I moved up to the Induro C414 (now CT414) from a Manfrotto. I was anticipating buying the 500mm, but while my wallet was gathering mass I used the Induro with my 400mm, with the Arca-Swiis ballhead and Wimberley Sidekick. I noticed an immediate improvement in my IQ. The CT314 and the CT414 are similar in weight and build, but one is 3-section and the other is 4-section. I bought the 4-section because it folds down shorter and can fit in my travel bags. Consider that when decide how many sections you want.

  4. #4
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    966
    Threads
    41
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Marvin, I use the same combo as Jay (with a RRS BH-55 ballhead by itself and with the sidekick). It works quite well with the 300 2.8 and TCs. With the 300 and no TCs the balance is a little off because the lens is heavier than the body. If you have a flash on and a battery grip, things even out.

    By the way, why the Manfrotto tripod? I don't know about Jay, but I like the Manfrotto because of the price and the flip locks; I just don't like twist locks!

    I love this combo because I don't plan on moving to a bigger lens (I'm more of a general natural photographer than a bird photographer), and the flexibility of the sidekick/ballhead allows me to change quickly from telephoto to macro or landscape work, as Jay mentioned.

    That said, if you are thinking of a bigger lens at some point, then I agree that that looking at a larger Gitzo or Induro might make good sense, though as David points out the Sidekick/ballhead combo will work for a Canon 500 f4.

    Cheers,
    Greg Basco

  5. #5
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,647
    Threads
    83
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Greg, are you using the long Wimberley quick release foot with your 300? I'd think that it would allow you to move the body/lens package far enough back to balance. Mine's around 5" long and the mounting grooves allow some flexibility to move it way forward for that lens.

  6. #6
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Barnstaple,South West England
    Posts
    155
    Threads
    28
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    With my 300/2.8 + converters I use a Feisol 3372 Carbon Fiber Tripod with a Jobu Blackwidow HD Gimbal Head MkII and find it a excellent combination. The Jobu HD is a full Gimbal but can be converted to a lighter weight sidekick if required. Personally I prefer the full gimbal as it is easier to mount the lens. For mounting I use a 41/2" arca lens plate which gives it plenty of length to easily balance at 300mm, 420mm, 600mm or even 840mm (with stacked converters).

    The Jobu Blackwidow HD will take up to a 500/4 lens although if I was going to get a 500/4 or bigger I think I might go for the Jobu Pro Gimbal.

    Speaking as an ex toolmaker I can confidently say that the Jobu gimbals are a very well engineered quality product (I also had a jobu Jr when I had the 400/5.6).

    Note: the Jobu HD or LD do not need a ballhead when using as a Sidekick as they screw right onto the tripod.
    Last edited by Roy Churchill; 12-18-2010 at 11:23 AM.

  7. #7
    Lifetime Member Jay Gould's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    In the whole wide world!
    Posts
    2,788
    Threads
    332
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I use the long Wimberley foot and depending upon the setup, which TC or no TCs, I have to move the rig to establish the balance point.

    I too like the Manfrotto for the same reasons as Greg.

    Also, I like the ability to put the center post horizontal for macro.
    Cheers, Jay

    My Digital Art - "Nature Interpreted" - can now be view at http://www.luvntravlnphotography.com

    "Nature Interpreted" - Photography begins with your mind and eyes, and ends with an image representing your vision and your reality of the captured scene; photography exceeds the camera sensor's limitations. Capturing and Processing landscapes and seascapes allows me to express my vision and reality of Nature.

  8. #8
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    16
    Threads
    3
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks everyone for all the good information. I appreciate the ideas.
    Marv

  9. #9
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    CA Central Coast
    Posts
    311
    Threads
    25
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Marvin,

    My wife and I have 2 Gitzo tripods. We bought a 2531 when our longest lens was a Nikon 80-400, it is fine for that and the light weight is nice for long hikes. We bought a 5541 when we got a Sigma 300-800, both are heavy and the SigMonster really needs the stability - it has no IS. The 2-Series Gitzo is too marginal for a 500. We use ours with a Nikon 200-400, but kind of wish we had a 3-Series for that. The 5-Series is overkill for a 500. There is a good reason why most folks use a 3-Series. For a 600 with no IS the 3-Series might tolerable, but the 5-Series is better. For a 600 with IS the 3-Series is probably fine.

    The main factor in tripod stability is really stiffness and torsional rigidity, not just quoted carrying weight. The longer the lens and higher the body crop, the stiffer the tripod needs to be. A 300 plus 2x TC needs as stiff a tripod as a 600 even though it weighs a lot less.

    Scott Bourne raves about Induro tripods, I trust his opinion. They are a lot less expensive than Gitzo. They have integral padding so you also save there. A short column is an extra $50 though if you want to get really low. From what I can gather, the Induro 414 is comparable to the Gitzo 5541, 314 to 3541, and 214 to 2541.

    We're planning to get an Induro 314. We can use it with the 2531 to save weight on hikes, and use it with the 5541 for more stability when close to the car.

    I've never used a Manfrotto, so I can't say how they compare.

    Alan

  10. #10
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    16
    Threads
    3
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks Allan,
    What kind of head do you recommend?
    Marv

  11. #11
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    CA Central Coast
    Posts
    311
    Threads
    25
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Marvin,

    Ask me again in another 5 weeks. We use a Markins M-10 and Sidekick on the 2531 for the 200-400, mostly with a D300+grip, often with a 1.4 TC. We use a Wimberly II on the 5541 for the SigMonster. We're very happy with both. We're going to the BAA San Diego IPT in January, I'm looking forward to seeing the Mongoose head there.

    There have been a variety of threads about gimbal heads. This one has a long section where Artie Morris, Roger Clark, and I talk about side mount versus bottom mount:

    http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...4-Gimbal-heads

    My quick summary: The main advantage of bottom mount heads is ease and safety when mounting heavy lenses. For me that is anything heavier than a 500 f/4. For my wife, mounting the 200-400 on the Sidekick makes her uncomfortable - she has me do it for her. A bottom mount also lets you adjust the balance for a flash. A side mount is going to be lighter and smaller, the Mongoose is lightest of all. A ball head plus Sidekick is the lightest if you want to walk around with both modes available. If you already have a good ball head then a Sidekick is the least expensive.

    If you do buy a ball head, buy a good one. Having smooth motion and fine friction control is worth the cost. I don't have direct experience with any but Markins, a little searching will turn up others though.

    Alan

  12. #12
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Costa Rica
    Posts
    966
    Threads
    41
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I too use the long plate but do find balance a problem without TCs. Not a huge deal but you do have to work with it. I use a 5D body, so a heavier Mark IV or 1Ds series body may not have this problem.

    Jay, we'll have to start a new group -- www.fliplocklovers.com.

    Cheers,
    Greg Basco

  13. #13
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I have been doing this for a while. If you are frequently doing landscapes with short lenses I can live with folks using a Sidekick/ballhead combo but it is far from ideal even for the landscapes a lot folks. Best would be the much smoother and much more efficient Mongoose M3.6 for the 300 f/2.8 and the Giotto's tiny M1302-655 ballhead for landscapes. I keep mine in my vest.

    How do I know that the Mongoose M3.6 is much better with a 500 than a Sidekick/ballhead combo? Because I have used both. I had tons of problems with the Sidekick. I would have strangled it if I could have. Not to mention that the Mongoose is far lighter than any Sidekick/ballhead combo, at least 50% lighter. In addition, it takes about as much time to spin off the Mongoose and spin on the Giotto's head (on the rare occasions that I do slow shutter speeds with short lenses on a tripod).

    Even though I am a Wimberley dealer I have been railing against the Sidekick for at least more than a decade. My only explanation for the considerable number of folks suggesting that the Sidekick/ballhead combo is the way to go for the four to 8 pound lenses is that they have never once had their lens on a Mongoose M3.5 or 3.6; ignorance is bliss.

    We are always glad to sell a Sidekick to the folks who do not believe me :)

    ps; I am currently working with a new company on designing and field testing several new heads that will surely prove be the best of all worlds..... Stay tuned.
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  14. #14
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Taunton MA
    Posts
    1,247
    Threads
    175
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    when I was on St Paul in the Pribilof's I did not have my mongoose ( it was in the shop being upgraded) and tried to use the sidekick on my RRS 55 ball-head with my 500 mm Nikon f4 and could not tighten the ball to keep it from slipping I was happy when I came home and had my Mongoose back

  15. #15
    Publisher Arthur Morris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Indian Lake Estates, FL
    Posts
    32,506
    Threads
    1,433
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Thanks Myer. I was beginning to think that I was the only one who hated the Sidekick....
    BIRDS AS ART Blog: great info and lessons, lots of images with our legendary BAA educational Captions; we will not sell you junk. 30+ years of long lens experience/e-mail with gear questions.

    BIRDS AS ART Online Store: we will not sell you junk. 35 years of long lens experience. Please e-mail with gear questions.

    Check out the new SONY e-Guide and videos that I did with Patrick Sparkman here. Ten percent discount for BPN members,

    E-mail me at samandmayasgrandpa@att.net.










  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,949
    Threads
    254
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I have a full Wimberly and a sidekick. I've never had a problem with the sidekick slipping (usually in an arca-swiss B1 ball head). But I rarely use the sidekick with the 500 on B1 as I feel that setup and the tripod os fine for 300 mm f/2.8 and smaller lenses. If I have the 500, I almost always have the full Wimberly. I do use the sidekick on an arca-swiss B1G ball head and the 500 f/4 on my window mount, and have never had a problem. I can see slipping issues when the weight of a big lens gets to be a lot for the ball head.

    Roger

  17. #17
    Forum Participant
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,647
    Threads
    83
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    Apparently the ballhead is extremely critical when using the Sidekick. I'm really surprised that the RRS wasn't up to the challenge. I haven't owned it, but I've played around with it and thought it was comparable to my Arca-Swiss Z1 ballhead. Evidently not.

    The A-S Z1 does provide the grip needed to hold the Sidekick in place. This is a great combination that I'd recommend to anyone, but particularly those that might want to switch between a super-tele and a wide angle on the same outing.

    I don't think it's really that hard to use the Sidekick, BUT you must select an appropriate ballhead for the job. The ballhead is required the full load of a super-tele lens while the lens is hanging off the side of the ballhead. That's quite a load. Part of the reason that I selected the A-S was its very high capacity and the belief that Wimberley used it when designing the Sidekick.

    Make sure that you know how all the knobs on your ballhead work. It's not rocket science, but you must tighten the correct knobs and loosen the other knobs. I'm sure that it only takes average intellegence, so don't be alarmed by the dire warnings. (Even a pro photographer tried my rig and had no problems).

  18. #18
    BPN Viewer
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Palm Coast, Fla - The Hammock
    Posts
    68
    Threads
    3
    Thank You Posts

    Default

    I'm new to the forum, first post/reply.
    I have a Nikon AF-S 300 2.8 mkII and was looking around at heads vs gimbals. I have a Markins Q20 on my Manfrotto 0055MF3 which supports my 70-200 2.8 and 300 f4 lens quite well but really want a gimbal on a separate tripod base since I intend to add a 500 f4 next year.. I have a Gitzo GT3541LS arriving in a few days. So I was looking at the Sidkick but saw these recommendations to Mongoose products. Never in my life have I heard of them. I shoot wildlife, birds using my 300 with TC14eII and TC 20eIII extenders along with a SB800 and a Better Beamer when some light is needed.

    I guess does mongoose make the lens plates, flash brackets that are for the cost better than say Wimberly, how do they support the product after the sale.. I have used a Wimberly II anda Sidekick on loan for a week and never had any issues, but after reading the post on this forum maybe I need to reconsider my purchase.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Web Analytics