Gimbal head with shorter lenses?

Hi. I have been frustrating myself for years whenever I shoot with my 300mm f/4 on a tripod. It is very awkward

on either of my ball heads, especially with the 1.7x teleconverter attached. I mostly use this lens for shooting

wildlife and was wondering if anyone has any experience using a lens this size with a gimbal type head, more

specifically, <a

href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554099-REG/Bogen_Manfrotto_393_393_Heavy_Duty_Gimbal.html">this head</a>

<br>

I know that it is designed for much much bigger glass but I am attracted to it for the freedom of movement it

seems to allow. I have never used a gimbal type head so I don't know if it would be possible to balance one with a

smaller telephoto like my 80-200mm f/2.8 or the 300mm f/4. Someday in the future (far future) I will own a 600mm

f/4 (crossing my fingers too) but until then I am trying to make the most out of my 300+teleconverter combo which

yeilds a 510mm f/6.7. The biggest problem I have is with handling. Does anyone think that the gimbal head would help?

Nick, there was some discussion about this gimbal only a couple weeks ago. Do a photo.net search and you may come up with something.

 

FWIW, I have a 300 f/2.8 with 1.4 t/c and I use a Wimberly Sidekick. Yeah, my lens is a bit larger than yours but the gimbal is very helpful, particularly with moving wildlife. Very secure with a good tripod. Works perfectly for me with this lens as well as my 80-400.

 

http://www.tripodhead.com/products/sidekick-main.cfm

I've never had any real issues with a 300 + TCs on a ball head (Arca Swiss B1). It handles just fine for me. Even a 500/4.5L isn't bad on a B1.

 

I did try a 600/4L on it for a while, but that was just too much lens. It would hold it and you could move it around, but it wasn't much fun at all and control was difficult at times.

I have no problems as I use a panning head. also the stage turns, so I can always maintain the horizon if I am on an uneven surface without having to adjust the legs.

Nick, I use that Manfrotto/Bogen long lens support regularly with a 300/4 + x2 TC (TC-301, a large TC) and it's rock steady and certainly not over-kill. I also use that lens support with a 200/2 + TC, also works well. Excellent value for money. Use it until and unless you find the equipment you use is too muc for it and then maybe consider more expensive supports.

Thanks for the replys everyone. Sounds like it wouldn't be a bad idea to get one.

I don't care to use a gimbal with anything shorter than a 300. That is why I use the Sidekick on my ball head. (Not bald head!) It's easy to switch out the Sidekick when using a shorter lens like my 70-200 or a macro then go back quickly wnen using my 300 or 500. Best of both worlds!

I considered the sidekick but I don't think that my ball head is sturdy enough for that. It is a Gitzo G1275M. When I purchased it I didn't have the 300mm and I had a lighter body (N6006).

I could use a bean bag on my bald head, but it would be difficult to see through the viewfinder.

Hi

This is maxi,I have never used a gimbal type head so I don't know if it would be possible to balance one with a

smaller telephoto like my 80-200mm f/2.8 or the 300mm f/4. Someday in the future (far future) I will own a 600mm f/4

(crossing my fingers too) but until then I am trying to make the most out of my 300+teleconverter combo which

yeilds a 510mm f/6.7. The biggest problem I have is with handling. Does anyone think that the gimbal head would

help?.

==========================================================================

maxi

 

<a href=http://www.gov-auctions.org>Car Auctions</a>

I don't think a 300mm f/4L + 1.4 TC would need a gimbal head. You can shoot hand-hold, because the combo is still light. With 300mm f/2.8L and above, a gimbal could be a good idea, since once the rig is balanced, you can leave it alone and rest (sit down, for example.) One thing about the gimbal head that you showed: It deosn't have a clear view at the top part, where the collar hooks to the gimbal. You can reverse the arrangement though. If you are thinking of getting a big gun later on, I think it may be better if you could get a Wimberly or a King Cobra now. Anyway, whatever gimbal head that you get, try to get a long plate, so that you can move the camera + lens up/down to balance them on the gimbal. The sidekick is cool, light, but not so convenient since it is harder to balance: The camera (with battery) tends to be heavier than the lens, and sometime you have to push the camera + lens all the way up (away from you) in order to balance the rig. I have these lenses (300mm f/4L, 300mm f/1.8L, 400mm f2.8L) and these heads (Wimberly, sidekick, Wimberly B1, and even a video head) so I have some experiences with them.

Hello Nick,

 

Take a look at the Acratech GV2 ball/gimbal head here: http://acratech.net/product.php?productid=9&cat=1&page=1

 

I use one with a 300 f/4 + 1.4X TC and it works very well as a gimbal mount. It is about twice the price of the Manfrotto but only a third of the weight.

"I don't think a 300mm f/4L + 1.4 TC would need a gimbal head. You can shoot hand-hold, because the combo is still light." While it is true that the 300mm f/4 is a fantastic lens to shoot hand-held, you need to remember that I have the Nikon so the lens doesn't have IS. With the teleconverter attached, the combo can only be hand-held in bright sunlight. I ended up buying the manfrotto head and after one day of trying it I must say that I am very satisfied. Of course I won't know for sure how well it works until I have had more time with it but it is much easier to use than my ballhead.