r._j. Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Can anyone comment on the usefulness of these Wimberley devices when attached to Canon long lenses? I use the 70-200/2.8 IS, 300/2.8 IS and 400/2.8 IS lenses and I am curious about the Wimberley product's helpfulness. The existing tripod-foot on these lenses can (sort of) be used as a carry handle. The Wimberley brings the lenses closer or lower to the tripod, I think), so the possibility of a carry handle is no doubt diminished, although you won't miss the (ahem) miniscule tripod foot 'carry handle' on the 70-200/2.8 What exactly are the Wimberley foot's advantages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_smith2 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 Twofold 1 - It lowers the centre of gravity of the lens when mounted on a large ballhead eg Arca Swiss B1 effect of which it to reduce the tendancy for "ballflop" - More of an issue for the Big Nikon telephoto lenses rather than the Canon I think 2 - More importantly it makes it easier to pack the lens in a backpack style case and you are not reliant upon the travelling hard case trunk. The Wimberley website does warn that the Canon replacement feet makes it very difficult to use the lens foot as a handle when retrofitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 R.J.: Are you asking about the Wimberley head itself, or the replacement tripod feet they make? Can't quite tell from your post but I'm assuming you're asking about both. My apologies if you already know the advantages of gimbal heads.<P> <I>1 - It lowers the centre of gravity of the lens when mounted on a large ballhead eg Arca Swiss B1 effect of which it to reduce the tendancy for "ballflop" - More of an issue for the Big Nikon telephoto lenses rather than the Canon I think</i><P> Wimberley heads (or any gimbal head) don't 'reduce' the tendancy for ballflop. They completely eliminate it. They let you balance the lens+camera assembly at its center of mass. This means you can point it in any direction (except highly vertical, due to mechanical limits of the hinge) and let go, and it will stay exactly where you left it -- <B>without</b> having to tighten anything. When I use mine, 99% of the time I never bother locking down the head, since there's no tendency for movement.<P> A Wimberley head will be of little use for a 70-200/2.8, is probably a good idea for a 300/ 2.8, and IMO is absolutely vital for a 400/2.8 or similar lens. Until you try one on a big tele, you can't appreciate how much easier it is to use than a ballhead.<P> I think that all of the Canon lenses can be used with a Wimberley with their standard foot, so you can continue to use the 'handle'. If you want, you can put a lower-profile replacement foot on the 400/2.8 but it isn't necessary. On a few of the Nikon teles, with their absurdly long tripod-feet, a shorter replacement foot is pretty important. Mike is correct that a lower-profile replacement foot will reduce ballflop, if you persist in using these monsters on a ball head. And it does make the lens a little easier to put into a backpack. I carry a 500/4 in a medium-sized Lowepro with the standard foot + Arca- Swiss plate and it fits OK.<P> If you use a Wimberley, I'd strongly advise getting the model with an Arca-Swiss clamp, with matching plates for your lenses. They sell the head 'plain' (with a threaded screw mount) but I'll bet that makes it extremely awkward to properly mount a big lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_smith2 Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 I believe he was talking about the replacement lens feet, not the gimbal heads. The original replacement feet were designed for the Nikon telephoto lenses that had a lens foot extension of about 6" above the plate "line", one lens was notorius for instability from flexing of the foot mounting. Canon do not suffer the same foot extension problems, but Wimberley obviously recognise a marketing opportunity to get people to replace the feet when not really necessary, albeit the slimline packing effect is useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14mm 2.8l Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 My FD 400mm 2.8L factory foot remains attached to my lens, as issued. No problems, ever. http://users.adelphia.net/~adkinstone/wimberlyF1N.jpg The QR mount: C30 and lens mount P50 are a big plus. I waited 1 year for the $155.00 assessories. Bad idea. Well worth the additional fee. Lindy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r._j. Posted January 13, 2005 Author Share Posted January 13, 2005 Thanks for the comments. I use a Manfrotto ballhead (Art. 168) and a variety of lenses on every shoot. I posted this message in the Canon EOS forum, but it was moved here. It seems I need the Sidekick arm, which will turn my existing Manfrotto (Bogen) ballhead into the Wimberley style of head. The Sidekick can apparently be quickly and easily removed on occasions when you want to use wider/shorter lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted January 13, 2005 Share Posted January 13, 2005 R.J.: I have the Sidekick and it works great with a 500/4 (8.5 pounds or so). I'd be a bit hesitant to use it with a 400/2.8 which if I recall is about 12 pounds. Before I switched to the 500 I used the Sidekick with a 10-pound 800 mm lens, and I'd be a bit leery of routinely using it with a heavier lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergey_oboguev Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Using side-loading head for 400/2.8 or 600/4 is a bad idea. Just thing of how you would have to load this mammoth into vertically-oriented clamp, and then, every time you add teleconverter, change body, or substantially change shooting angle, release the clamp to pull the lens (to rebalance the setup) and tighten it again. Just imagine what will happen if one single time you are not careful enough about it and lens falls out of the clamp. And all the attention you'd need to spend on being careful with rebalancing process instead of focusing on a subject. At the same time, 70-200/2.8 cannot be balanced on Wimberley with 1-series body with booster. (It can, I think, if body does not have booster and perhaps with 20D/10D.) So for 70-200, you will have to use ballhead. If you need to track moving subject, consider either Sidekick or Mongoose action head (available from birdsasart.com). There is also Jobu Black Widow (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/kirk-window-widow.shtml). Personally I am getting by using two heads and even carrying two tripods in trunk whenever I expect the need to use two setups simultaneously (one being 600/4; the other for everything else). Changing between them by mounting/dismounting heads is much more of a pain than carrying two tripods in case you expect to work within limited location not too far away from the car. I believe someone in Europe came up with gimbal-type head providing for balanced use of both long and medium telephotos, but cannot recall the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 <I>Just thing of how you would have to load this mammoth into vertically-oriented clamp, and then, every time you add teleconverter, change body, or substantially change shooting angle, release the clamp to pull the lens (to rebalance the setup) and tighten it again.<P> Just imagine what will happen if one single time you are not careful enough about it and lens falls out of the clamp. And all the attention you'd need to spend on being careful with rebalancing process instead of focusing on a subject.</i><P> Sergey's concern about the difficulty of mounting a 12-14 pound lens+camera onto a side clamp-style gimbal is well placed. But I don't think there's much of a problem with adjusting balance once the lens in in the clamp. You just losen the clamp <I><B>slightly</b></i> and slide the rig with thumb pressure. Works well for me, and unless you're stupid enough to open the clamp <I><B>a lot</b></i> (unnecessarily) during balancing, there's essentially no risk of it falling free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian P Bower CamraScapes Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 The benefit I can see of using a shortened lens tripod foot is that it would allow the lens to fit into the hard case much easier. I have trouble closing the case on my Canon 600mm lens, because of the mounted QR plate. While these dovetail plates are only 1/4 inch thick, this extra mass on the bottom of the lens tripod foot is just enough to prevent easy closure of the hard case. In designing the case, the manufacturer should allow an extra 1/2 inch or so for the AS plate that will eventually be mounted on the lens. Every long lens shooter I know uses the AS system, it's about time the camera companies produce a lens tripod foot with the AS dovetail cut right into it. No more plates to buy! Who will be first? Canon or Nikon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now