Jump to content

Wimberley head on Canon long lenses?


r._j.

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<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

  • 2 months later...
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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...