If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Tripod / head for big lens
I'm thinking about making the big plunge for a 600mm f/4.0 lens and
would appreciate any advise on tripods and heads to go with it. I want to be able to carry this on back-country hikes and am leaning towards a carbon fiber tripod such as the one below as listed at B&H: Gitzo G-1548 Tele Studex Mk2 Performance Carbon Fiber 4-Section Tripod - Supports 33.1 lb (15 kg) The total weight of camera + lens + 2x Extender + gimbal head should be less than about 20 lbs so it should be suitable for the task, BUT, if there is any reason this tripod would NOT be appropriate please let me know. As to the head ... I'm planing on the following head also listed at B&H as follows: Wimberley Tripod Head Gimbal Type They also make a model with quick release: Wimberley Tripod Head, Gimbal Type - with C30 Quick Release Base Since the only setup I would imagine using this head with is the 600mm f/4.0 I don't think the extra $100 (US) for the quick release would be needed but I'm open to feedback on this point. As I see it now the head would be left connected to the 600mm lens and when using another lens setup the gimbal head would be removed from the tripod and my ball head mounted -- again, any feedback on doing this? Lastly, if there is any other tripod/head arraignment that you can recommend please let me know bearing in mind that I do plan on hiking this equipment into the back-country. Thanks, Brian |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I have this lens and if you're going to hike with it good luck. I suggest teh
Gitzo 1325 tripod and definitely the Wimberly head and quick release. Harvey |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Brian Stirling" wrote in message
... I'm thinking about making the big plunge for a 600mm f/4.0 lens and would appreciate any advise on tripods and heads to go with it. I want to be able to carry this on back-country hikes and am leaning towards a carbon fiber tripod such as the one below as listed at B&H: I have a 600mm f4 (Pentax F*) but I haven't done a lot of hiking with it - you'll certainly need a serious back-pack set up to carry both lens and tripod. Still, it is a wonderful lens, and worth a certain amount of work to cope with the weight. Gitzo G-1548 Tele Studex Mk2 Performance Carbon Fiber 4-Section Tripod - Supports 33.1 lb (15 kg) I have a G-1504, which is the aluminium 5-section version of this: great tripod, not for carrying about... I also have a G-1325, which is a three leg section tripod and lighter than the 5 series you suggest: 4.5 vs. 6.7 lb. It has a stated load capacity of 26.5lb and seems to me to be absolutely fine with my 600/4. Maybe if I was working in a hurricane I'd rather have the 1548, but for walking about the 1325 is nicer to work with. Although it's a three section not a four it folds almost as short as the 1548 (26" vs. 23.2") and of course is smaller in 'diameter'. It extends nearly as far (58.3" vs. 59.1") and being a three section I reckon it is probably about as rigid as a heavier four section anyway. Look at both, but I know which one I prefer. The total weight of camera + lens + 2x Extender + gimbal head should be less than about 20 lbs so it should be suitable for the task, BUT, if there is any reason this tripod would NOT be appropriate please let me know. As to the head ... I'm planing on the following head also listed at B&H as follows: Wimberley Tripod Head Gimbal Type A marvellous head, though not easy to pack. You should look also at the Kirk King Cobra, which has a few fewer adjustments, but is certainly easier to hike with. What I use with my 600/4 is a Wimberley Sidekick in an Arca-Swiss B1. Yes, I know Wimberley says the Sidekick is only OK up to about a 300/2.8 or maybe 400/2.8, but so far it has been _absolutely_ fine for me. You might want to try one, but I certainly wouldn't discourage you from going for a 'full' gimbal head if you decide that is what you need. What I would say very firmly, though, is that you should look at getting a levelling base. Once you are using a gimbal head (or a Sidekick) your horizontal panning movement is determined by the levelling of the tripod - so unless you want to work constantly with the lens collar unlocked, you won't be able to pan in a straight line unless you spend a lot of time messing with the length of the tripod legs to level it. Or, you could use a levelling base... I use the Gitzo one and it is excellent. I can swap it between my 1504 and 1325, with the Arca head attached, which is also very convenient. (The 1504 often has a geared column and a P&T head in it for architecture, but it is nice just to swap that out and put in the levelling base and the ballhead if I need the extra height of the big tripod for a landscape job.) They also make a model with quick release: Wimberley Tripod Head, Gimbal Type - with C30 Quick Release Base Since the only setup I would imagine using this head with is the 600mm f/4.0 I don't think the extra $100 (US) for the quick release would be needed but I'm open to feedback on this point. I would go with the quick release myself, but then I have them on all my lenses, bodies, and tripod heads anyway. But it is _so_ much more convenient than screwing on a lens, and to me at least it feels a lot more secure. If you get a custom lens-plate for your lens (Kirk or RRS will have one) you can attach it to more than one of the screw holes (the one for my Pentax 600/4 screws on in three places) so it is rock solid. Also, I find lifting a heavy lens into the plate and then tightening the knob feels a lot less nerve-wracking than trying to cling onto said lens whilst fiddling about with screws to attach it. As I see it now the head would be left connected to the 600mm lens and when using another lens setup the gimbal head would be removed from the tripod and my ball head mounted -- again, any feedback on doing this? Well, since I use the Sidekick it isn't a big problem for me. However, with the Gitzo Systematic tripods you can swap between a flat plate, a rapid column, a geared column, and a levelling base very easily with just the aid of one wrench. So you have the option of leaving your gimbal head on a levelling base and having your ballhead on a flat plate or a column as you prefer. Alternatively, the levelling base has a lever arrangement that makes removing a head from it _much_ easier than is normally the case, so if you go with the levelling base you could just swap heads with not that much trouble. Lastly, if there is any other tripod/head arraignment that you can recommend please let me know bearing in mind that I do plan on hiking this equipment into the back-country. Guess I covered that. (I try to avoid getting my head arraigned... ;-) Peter |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:26:09 +0100, "Bandicoot"
wrote: "Brian Stirling" wrote in message .. . I'm thinking about making the big plunge for a 600mm f/4.0 lens and would appreciate any advise on tripods and heads to go with it. I want to be able to carry this on back-country hikes and am leaning towards a carbon fiber tripod such as the one below as listed at B&H: I have a 600mm f4 (Pentax F*) but I haven't done a lot of hiking with it - you'll certainly need a serious back-pack set up to carry both lens and tripod. Still, it is a wonderful lens, and worth a certain amount of work to cope with the weight. Gitzo G-1548 Tele Studex Mk2 Performance Carbon Fiber 4-Section Tripod - Supports 33.1 lb (15 kg) I have a G-1504, which is the aluminium 5-section version of this: great tripod, not for carrying about... I also have a G-1325, which is a three leg section tripod and lighter than the 5 series you suggest: 4.5 vs. 6.7 lb. It has a stated load capacity of 26.5lb and seems to me to be absolutely fine with my 600/4. Maybe if I was working in a hurricane I'd rather have the 1548, but for walking about the 1325 is nicer to work with. Although it's a three section not a four it folds almost as short as the 1548 (26" vs. 23.2") and of course is smaller in 'diameter'. It extends nearly as far (58.3" vs. 59.1") and being a three section I reckon it is probably about as rigid as a heavier four section anyway. Look at both, but I know which one I prefer. The total weight of camera + lens + 2x Extender + gimbal head should be less than about 20 lbs so it should be suitable for the task, BUT, if there is any reason this tripod would NOT be appropriate please let me know. As to the head ... I'm planing on the following head also listed at B&H as follows: Wimberley Tripod Head Gimbal Type A marvellous head, though not easy to pack. You should look also at the Kirk King Cobra, which has a few fewer adjustments, but is certainly easier to hike with. What I use with my 600/4 is a Wimberley Sidekick in an Arca-Swiss B1. Yes, I know Wimberley says the Sidekick is only OK up to about a 300/2.8 or maybe 400/2.8, but so far it has been _absolutely_ fine for me. You might want to try one, but I certainly wouldn't discourage you from going for a 'full' gimbal head if you decide that is what you need. What I would say very firmly, though, is that you should look at getting a levelling base. Once you are using a gimbal head (or a Sidekick) your horizontal panning movement is determined by the levelling of the tripod - so unless you want to work constantly with the lens collar unlocked, you won't be able to pan in a straight line unless you spend a lot of time messing with the length of the tripod legs to level it. Or, you could use a levelling base... I use the Gitzo one and it is excellent. I can swap it between my 1504 and 1325, with the Arca head attached, which is also very convenient. (The 1504 often has a geared column and a P&T head in it for architecture, but it is nice just to swap that out and put in the levelling base and the ballhead if I need the extra height of the big tripod for a landscape job.) They also make a model with quick release: Wimberley Tripod Head, Gimbal Type - with C30 Quick Release Base Since the only setup I would imagine using this head with is the 600mm f/4.0 I don't think the extra $100 (US) for the quick release would be needed but I'm open to feedback on this point. I would go with the quick release myself, but then I have them on all my lenses, bodies, and tripod heads anyway. But it is _so_ much more convenient than screwing on a lens, and to me at least it feels a lot more secure. If you get a custom lens-plate for your lens (Kirk or RRS will have one) you can attach it to more than one of the screw holes (the one for my Pentax 600/4 screws on in three places) so it is rock solid. Also, I find lifting a heavy lens into the plate and then tightening the knob feels a lot less nerve-wracking than trying to cling onto said lens whilst fiddling about with screws to attach it. As I see it now the head would be left connected to the 600mm lens and when using another lens setup the gimbal head would be removed from the tripod and my ball head mounted -- again, any feedback on doing this? Well, since I use the Sidekick it isn't a big problem for me. However, with the Gitzo Systematic tripods you can swap between a flat plate, a rapid column, a geared column, and a levelling base very easily with just the aid of one wrench. So you have the option of leaving your gimbal head on a levelling base and having your ballhead on a flat plate or a column as you prefer. Alternatively, the levelling base has a lever arrangement that makes removing a head from it _much_ easier than is normally the case, so if you go with the levelling base you could just swap heads with not that much trouble. Lastly, if there is any other tripod/head arraignment that you can recommend please let me know bearing in mind that I do plan on hiking this equipment into the back-country. Guess I covered that. (I try to avoid getting my head arraigned... ;-) Thanks for the reply... How much does a leveling base add to the weight? I posted the same question on the digital group and received several great replies. It does appear that most people are a bit skittish about lugging a 600mm f/4 lens along with the necessary tripod and head due to the weight. I've hiked with a 50 lbs+ backpack in the mountain of New York and though it does take some time to get used to carrying that much weight it is not as bad as some have indicated. That said, I may opt for the 500mm f/4 instead as it appear to be 3-5 lbs lighter with only 20% shorter FL and almost 3 inches shorter. Thanks, Brian Peter |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Brian Stirling" wrote in message
... On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:26:09 +0100, "Bandicoot" wrote: [SNIP] What I would say very firmly, though, is that you should look at getting a levelling base. Once you are using a gimbal head (or a Sidekick) your horizontal panning movement is determined by the levelling of the tripod - so unless you want to work constantly with the lens collar unlocked, you won't be able to pan in a straight line unless you spend a lot of time messing with the length of the tripod legs to level it. Or, you could use a levelling base... I use the Gitzo one and it is excellent. I can swap it between my 1504 and 1325, with the Arca head attached, which is also very convenient. (The 1504 often has a geared column and a P&T head in it for architecture, but it is nice just to swap that out and put in the levelling base and the ballhead if I need the extra height of the big tripod for a landscape job.) [SNIP] How much does a leveling base add to the weight? The part is number G1321: I just took mine off the tripod and stuck it on the kitchen scales, and I get about 1 lb 4.5 oz. It also adds a little height: about 1 3/8" when used with a series 4 or 5, and about 1 7/8" when used with a series 3. That weight is less than the difference between a 1325 and a 1548... I posted the same question on the digital group and received several great replies. It does appear that most people are a bit skittish about lugging a 600mm f/4 lens along with the necessary tripod and head due to the weight. I've hiked with a 50 lbs+ backpack in the mountain of New York and though it does take some time to get used to carrying that much weight it is not as bad as some have indicated. Well, I've carried 50 lb+ packs quite often, but that has been with a load of other stuff (3 35mm bodies and lenses, an MF technical camera and lenses, an X-Pan body and lenses, etc.) to take along the 600mm I'd be leaving behind a lot of other stuff. Still, I would carry it in preference to other things if I knew I'd need it: it's just that most of the time I am going to photograph other things, so it only comes out when my plans include it, which usually means I've also planned going most of the way by car! Certainly it is perfectly do-able if you don't plan to carry a lot of other gear, and if your other stuff is a couple of zooms, rather than the dozen or more fixxed ffl lenses I often carry, then you need not be too limited. I just think that you really do need a well thought out carrying system: but if you travel with heavy packs anyway, then you already knew that. That said, I may opt for the 500mm f/4 instead as it appear to be 3-5 lbs lighter with only 20% shorter FL and almost 3 inches shorter. Yes, a lot of people do make that choice for just that reason. I think if you are after bird pictures you need all the length you can get and the 600mm is worth the extra weight. For other subjects I don't know. I like my 600 very much, and personally find it a nicer perspective than a 500 - but that is a _very_ personal thing: why, after all, do I like 300 and 600, yet almost never find myself reaching for a 400? What sort of subjects are you after with your big glass? Peter |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:24:20 +0100, "Bandicoot"
wrote: "Brian Stirling" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:26:09 +0100, "Bandicoot" wrote: [SNIP] What I would say very firmly, though, is that you should look at getting a levelling base. Once you are using a gimbal head (or a Sidekick) your horizontal panning movement is determined by the levelling of the tripod - so unless you want to work constantly with the lens collar unlocked, you won't be able to pan in a straight line unless you spend a lot of time messing with the length of the tripod legs to level it. Or, you could use a levelling base... I use the Gitzo one and it is excellent. I can swap it between my 1504 and 1325, with the Arca head attached, which is also very convenient. (The 1504 often has a geared column and a P&T head in it for architecture, but it is nice just to swap that out and put in the levelling base and the ballhead if I need the extra height of the big tripod for a landscape job.) [SNIP] How much does a leveling base add to the weight? The part is number G1321: I just took mine off the tripod and stuck it on the kitchen scales, and I get about 1 lb 4.5 oz. It also adds a little height: about 1 3/8" when used with a series 4 or 5, and about 1 7/8" when used with a series 3. That weight is less than the difference between a 1325 and a 1548... I posted the same question on the digital group and received several great replies. It does appear that most people are a bit skittish about lugging a 600mm f/4 lens along with the necessary tripod and head due to the weight. I've hiked with a 50 lbs+ backpack in the mountain of New York and though it does take some time to get used to carrying that much weight it is not as bad as some have indicated. Well, I've carried 50 lb+ packs quite often, but that has been with a load of other stuff (3 35mm bodies and lenses, an MF technical camera and lenses, an X-Pan body and lenses, etc.) to take along the 600mm I'd be leaving behind a lot of other stuff. Still, I would carry it in preference to other things if I knew I'd need it: it's just that most of the time I am going to photograph other things, so it only comes out when my plans include it, which usually means I've also planned going most of the way by car! Certainly it is perfectly do-able if you don't plan to carry a lot of other gear, and if your other stuff is a couple of zooms, rather than the dozen or more fixxed ffl lenses I often carry, then you need not be too limited. I just think that you really do need a well thought out carrying system: but if you travel with heavy packs anyway, then you already knew that. That said, I may opt for the 500mm f/4 instead as it appear to be 3-5 lbs lighter with only 20% shorter FL and almost 3 inches shorter. Yes, a lot of people do make that choice for just that reason. I think if you are after bird pictures you need all the length you can get and the 600mm is worth the extra weight. For other subjects I don't know. I like my 600 very much, and personally find it a nicer perspective than a 500 - but that is a _very_ personal thing: why, after all, do I like 300 and 600, yet almost never find myself reaching for a 400? What sort of subjects are you after with your big glass? Peter I have decided on the 500mm f/4 lens... As to what I actually carry with me that would depend on where I am and what I'm there to do. If birding I figure the 500mm f/4 is a given but for landscape work I can safely eliminate the big lens from my kit. I have ordered the EF 24-70mm, EF 28-136mm IS and EF 70-200mm IS zooms to complement my fixed lens: EF 20mm f/2,8, EF 50mm f/1.4, EF 100mm f/2.8 macro, EF 300mm f/4.0 IS and the EF 500mm f/4 IS. I do not have all this gear yet and may wait till I return to FL before getting the big lens. I also like to have a second body but I may wait until there some feedback on the performance of the upcoming 1Ds Mark II instead of having two 1D Mark II's. Thanks, Brian |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Brian Stirling wrote in message . ..
I'm thinking about making the big plunge for a 600mm f/4.0 lens and would appreciate any advise on tripods and heads to go with it. Ha ha ha ha. Those things weigh a ton. You need TWO tripods and a porter. Forget it. This is what you REALLY want: http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/560R68.HTM I want to be able to carry this on back-country hikes and am leaning towards a carbon fiber tripod such as the one below as listed at B&H: Gitzo G-1548 Tele Studex Mk2 Performance Carbon Fiber 4-Section Tripod - Supports 33.1 lb (15 kg) The total weight of camera + lens + 2x Extender + gimbal head should be less than about 20 lbs so it should be suitable for the task, BUT, if there is any reason this tripod would NOT be appropriate please let me know. As to the head ... I'm planing on the following head also listed at B&H as follows: Wimberley Tripod Head Gimbal Type They also make a model with quick release: Wimberley Tripod Head, Gimbal Type - with C30 Quick Release Base Since the only setup I would imagine using this head with is the 600mm f/4.0 I don't think the extra $100 (US) for the quick release would be needed but I'm open to feedback on this point. As I see it now the head would be left connected to the 600mm lens and when using another lens setup the gimbal head would be removed from the tripod and my ball head mounted -- again, any feedback on doing this? Lastly, if there is any other tripod/head arraignment that you can recommend please let me know bearing in mind that I do plan on hiking this equipment into the back-country. Thanks, Brian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FA: Bogen Tripod & Head | Tom C. | Digital Photography | 11 | September 5th 04 05:03 AM |
FA: Bogen Tripod & Head | Tom C. | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | September 3rd 04 04:44 AM |
FA: Bogen 3221WN Tripod & 3030 Head | Tom C. | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | September 3rd 04 02:58 AM |
Tripod ball vs pan head? | ChrisPlatt | Photographing Nature | 5 | June 26th 04 05:12 AM |
Lightweight tripod & ball head | Andy Williams | Photographing Nature | 12 | December 25th 03 01:55 AM |