Tripod and head for 500mm f4

[Jonathan Michael Ashton]

Could anyone tell me if there is a decent alternative to Gitzo 3540. I am considering the Manfrotto 055MF3/4 or possibly one of the studio pro series along with the Manfrotto 393 head. I suspect these will be far cheaper than Gitzo but I suspect everyone will tell me the cheaper alternative is cheaper because it is not so good - simple as that - or will they? I am interested to hear any views on this issue please.
Jon

[Steve Ashton]

Hi Jon, I know you have just got the 500mm and it comes as a shock when you look at the cost of good tripods. I will promise if you waste money on the manfrotto and head you will regret it and later spend more on the Gitzo and a good head.

The Gitzo 3540 is superb and I would match it with a kirk or RRS ball head and sidekick. As an alternative the mongoose heads seem good. But with the ball head and sidekick you cover all your options.

Not cheap but one of the best investments you will ever make in photography..... that 500 deserves the best.

[Robert O'Toole]

Steve is right, spend the money for the Gitzo 3540 for your 500.

I would go with the Mongoose M3.5 over the sidekick due to the cost and weight savings over the ball head+sidekick.

Robert

[Jonathan Michael Ashton]

Thanks guys you have made my mind up for me regards the tripod, I suppose I just needed a little nudge.
Now then, this head business, if I buy the Mongoose 3.5 do I just screw it on the tripod or are there other hidden extras? Like a head or plates or something like that.
The sidekick, I presume has to be mounted on a substantial ball head , i.e. it doesn't just screw onto the tripod. Do the ball heads you describe better the Markins M20? Oh yes again does the sidekick have to have a mount or is a complete jobby.
Thanks - sorry for all the questions but I want to get it right
Jon

[Nancy A Elwood]

I highly recommend the full Wimberley head!! I know expensive, but what comfort I have with this sent up!

[Robert O'Toole]

Thanks guys you have made my mind up for me regards the tripod, I suppose I just needed a little nudge.
Now then, this head business, if I buy the Mongoose 3.5 do I just screw it on the tripod or are there other hidden extras? Like a head or plates or something like that.
The sidekick, I presume has to be mounted on a substantial ball head , i.e. it doesn't just screw onto the tripod. Do the ball heads you describe better the Markins M20? Oh yes again does the sidekick have to have a mount or is a complete jobby.
Thanks - sorry for all the questions but I want to get it right
Jon

The Mongoose mounts straight on the tripod with a flat circular mounting plate. It uses the Arca-Swiss QR system so you will need a compatible plate or lens foot to mount the lens to the Mongoose head clamp.

Yes the sidekick needs a ball head to mount to the tripod. This also uses the A-S QR system so you will need the compatible plates.

Robert

[Roger Clark]

I'll second the full Wimberly over the sidekick for the 500mm. The 500 is pretty heavy, and after a long session, when you are tired, mounting the 500 to the sidekick can be difficult/dangerous (at least in my experience). You must mount the 500 with the plate to the side, thus holding the lens with one hand. The full wimberly has the plat on the bottom, so the lens sets down
on the plate and the weight is off your hand and arm--much safer. This is even more important if you do this in moving vehicles, like a safari vehicle. I have both a sidekick and a full wimberly. I use the sidekick for lighter lenses or when I must travel light.

Roger Clark

[Steve Ashton]

Roger the side Kick is best mounted to the lens before it is fitted to the tripod in my experience. In all honesty the full wimberly is overkill for the 500mm.

Also consider the UK cost £500 and you still need a ball head for other work. I think Jon is trying to save money. For this reason the SK or mongoose would be a better option. Also in the uk we tend to need to walk LONG distances to our subjects and the Full kit is a little heavy if its not needed.

I have both and only use the full wimberly on the 600mm when close to the car.

John... sent you a message you are welcome to borrow my rig and see how it performs for you.

[Simon Bennett]

Hi Jonathon - I have used both the Manfrotto 393 and Mongoose 3.5 heads with a Canon 500 IS. Both behave similarly as gimbal heads. The Manfrotto locks down better the Mongoose, but is a little heavier. The main advantage of the Mongoose is the integrated flash arm which is a snap to mount and places the flash on the lens/camera pivot point. This results in a very balanced combination. There is no integrated flash arm for the Manfrotto and you really have to mount the flash on the camera, with big red/steel-eye issues and added post production work.

I have tried manfrotto aluminium tripods and now have a Gitzo 3540 which really is superior - it's lighter, extends more easily and simply doesn't vibrate as much - I think it does justify the added cost if you can possibly afford it.

[Robert O'Toole]

I'll second the full Wimberly over the sidekick for the 500mm. The 500 is pretty heavy, and after a long session, when you are tired, mounting the 500 to the sidekick can be difficult/dangerous (at least in my experience). You must mount the 500 with the plate to the side, thus holding the lens with one hand. The full wimberly has the plat on the bottom, so the lens sets down
on the plate and the weight is off your hand and arm--much safer. This is even more important if you do this in moving vehicles, like a safari vehicle. I have both a sidekick and a full wimberly. I use the sidekick for lighter lenses or when I must travel light.

Roger Clark

Hi Roger, after using a 600/4 for a few years I almost slam a 500/4 in my face when I pick it up, it feels very light compared :)


Robert

[Robert O'Toole]

Hi Jonathon - I have used both the Manfrotto 393 and Mongoose 3.5 heads with a Canon 500 IS. Both behave similarly as gimbal heads. The Manfrotto locks down better the Mongoose, but is a little heavier. The main advantage of the Mongoose is the integrated flash arm which is a snap to mount and places the flash on the lens/camera pivot point. This results in a very balanced combination. There is no integrated flash arm for the Manfrotto and you really have to mount the flash on the camera, with big red/steel-eye issues and added post production work.

I have tried manfrotto aluminium tripods and now have a Gitzo 3540 which really is superior - it's lighter, extends more easily and simply doesn't vibrate as much - I think it does justify the added cost if you can possibly afford it.

Hi Simon, there has been a few minor M3.5 revisions and one is a update on the clamp internals. The newest versions give you improved clamping action. What color is your M3.5 end plate (it has 4th Gen engraved)?

Robert

[Roger Clark]

Roger the side Kick is best mounted to the lens before it is fitted to the tripod in my experience. In all honesty the full wimberly is overkill for the 500mm.

Good point about mounting the sidekick first.
I disagree that the full wimberly is overkill for a 500. I find I do my best birds in flight shots with the 500 and the full wimberly. It holds the lens better than a sidekick in my experience.

Also consider the UK cost £500 and you still need a ball head for other work. I think Jon is trying to save money. For this reason the SK or mongoose would be a better option. Also in the uk we tend to need to walk LONG distances to our subjects and the Full kit is a little heavy if its not needed.

I agree one needs a ball head for other work, so it does save money. But doesn't a sidekick plus ball weigh more than a full wimberly (if one is concerned about carrying weight)?

Roger

[DeepakDewan]

Is the Bogen 3421 Gimbal head not good enough for a 500mm f4?

Deepak

[Simon Bennett]

Deekap
The Bogen 3421 is identical to the Manfrotto 393, and is a very good gimbal head and works well with the 500 f/4 lens. When compared to the Mongoose 3.5 it is a little heavier and lacks that wonderful flash adapter. On the plus side, the 3421/393 has a safety catch that makes the lens less likely to fall off when mounting/dismounting it. The Mongoose mount is somewhat more precarious without a fail-safe, and you must be very careful when mounting/dismounting/rebalancing it. On balance I prefer the Mongoose.

[Robert O'Toole]

Good point about mounting the sidekick first.
I disagree that the full wimberly is overkill for a 500. I find I do my best birds in flight shots with the 500 and the full wimberly. It holds the lens better than a sidekick in my experience.



I agree one needs a ball head for other work, so it does save money. But doesn't a sidekick plus ball weigh more than a full wimberly (if one is concerned about carrying weight)?

Roger

You should really try a Mongoose Roger the M3.5 weighs less than 2 pounds and works very well with the 500/4 and is much smoother.

Robert

[Robert O'Toole]

Deekap
The Bogen 3421 is identical to the Manfrotto 393, and is a very good gimbal head and works well with the 500 f/4 lens. When compared to the Mongoose 3.5 it is a little heavier and lacks that wonderful flash adapter. On the plus side, the 3421/393 has a safety catch that makes the lens less likely to fall off when mounting/dismounting it. The Mongoose mount is somewhat more precarious without a fail-safe, and you must be very careful when mounting/dismounting/rebalancing it. On balance I prefer the Mongoose.

Agreed Simon. Also with the Mongoose you can hold the lens with the right hand and tighten the QR clamp with your left. Most heads like the Wimberly require you to do the opposite, holding your lens in our left hand (that is not ideal unless you are left handed).


Robert