Ballhead for Canon 500mm f/4 IS lens

[beauh44]

Hello All,

 

I recently took the plunge and bought the Canon 500mm f/4 IS lens and

quickly realized that none of my tripod heads are up to the task of

holding up that bazooka. Now I'd love to be able to spend $600 bucks

on an Arca Swiss, but that's a bit rich for me at the moment. I read

with interest the Acratech review here on PN and noticed that, by the

end of the thread, many of the perceived deficiencies had been

addressed (complete range of movement, better clamping, etc.) It's

also a lot closer to my price range. I've also looked at the Kirk BH-

3. Do any of the esteemed Photo Netters out there think this is too

much lens for either of these heads? They are both rather small, but

that's a plus if they can take it. I noticed that it seems Kirk

doesn't like to rate their heads in terms of weight that they'll

support - which I can understand since there are so many other

factors involved. If not those two brands, any other suggestions

and/or advice in the same price ballpark would be most welcome.

Thanks very much in advance.

[bobatkins]

Last time I looked the AS B-1 was $400, not $600 ($US) and if you give up the panning base it was closer to $315.

 

I use a B1 with my 500/4.5L and it's great. You don't need anything bigger.

 

If you spend $5000+ on a lens, saving $100 on a ball head to support it doesn't make much sense unless you can actally find something better than the B1 - which still seems to be the standard by which other heads are judged.

[erik_loza]

Kirk BH-1: Less than $400 and all you would need. I would not consider a ball head smaller than this size for your rig. It doesn't make any sense to spend the kind of money you did on a nice lens and then scrimp on the head to save a couple of hundred bucks. Just out of curiosity, what type of tripod are you going to be using? Not something that would be a match, size-wise, to the BH-3 or little Actratech, I hope.

[beauh44]

Thanks Eric and Bob. I have a Manfrotto 3021. Probably not the beefiest tripod around, but I think it's a good trade-off in terms of weight and support. Bob, I must've looked at a super-dooper model or got an old, bogus price on the Arca. I was seeing prices in the $500-$600 range. I agree - it would be silly to scrimp on the head and I don't intend to do that. On the other hand, it seemed that paying 1/10th the price of the lens for a ballhead was a bit much since this is the only lens I own that needs so much "scaffolding" underneath it. My next biggest lens is the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, which I end up hand-holding most of the time because of the IS. Just a rhetorical question/thought: If these smallish Acratech and Kirk ballheads are not up to the task of supporting a lens like the 500mm, it would seem they would be very much a niche product, particularly since Image Stabilization is getting more and more popular. The 500mm is just too big for me to hand-hold comfortably. I am attracted to these smaller head's lighter weights since the rig is quite a PITA to haul around as it is. (The images sure are outstanding though) Would it indeed be scrimping to use these smaller heads? Can they "take it"? Thanks!

[jemini_joseph]

I'm sure you will eventually learn that you need a BH-1 or B1. I don't think BH-3 is not good enough. In other words you will eventually buy the best. I've been through these phases

and finally bought a used Kirk Bh-1 for $275. I'm sure I wouldn't be happy with

anything smaller. So try to get one of these. The 600 dollar head may be Wimberly,

that not a ball head, but even better Gymbal head. I also wish if I can buy it :( <br><br>

Another thing you have to notice is that the published capacity of these heards/tripods are not very useful. What it says how much weight it can hold. But to support a 10LB camera+Lens combo vibration free (especially long teles) you will need much more capacity. BH-1's capacity is 90LB I guess. This is not an over kill at all. When you extend the lens with 2X or 1.4X, you will still notice the vibration. <br><br>

<a href="http://www.color-pictures.com" target="w-2">www.color-pictures.com</a>

[beauh44]

Today at the grocery store, I was looking through this month's Peterson's Photographic Magazine. On page 10 were some new products, one of which is a new "Fluid Tripod Head" by Slik - more specifically, the "Tele Balance 6". (I know... Slik isn't exactly the first place one necessarily goes for high quality ballheads) The review says to go to www.thkphoto.com, so I did. They don't even mention it! So I Googled it and came up with a link in German, describing the functions. The link is to a PDF file and is: http://www.hapa-team.de/download/slik2.pdf Trouble is, I can't speak a lick of German. Since I'm not a bad typist, I'll hammer out Peterson's short review: "Slik's new Tele Balance 6 fluid head is a great solution for photographers who shoot action or sports and use long telephoto lenses. This tripod head is designed to deliver smooth camera movements as opposed to the gimbaled-style tripod head, which must be locked down when you want to position the camea at an angle. The Tele Balance 6 features an adjustable Cam Balancer system that counterbalances the camera/lens so that it will stay positioned at any angle without having to hold it in place or lock the movement of the head. The moving parts glide smoothly in a sealed oil-filled head that enables easy movements of long telephoto lenses up to nearly 18 pounds." They then stear you to the website . . . which doesn't even mention it. It's sure an interesting looking critter. Any thoughts? Thanks!

[mark_chappell]

Beau: Congratulations on your new lens, which is an optical jewel. With regards to the

'which ballhead' question, consider this: if you really want a good head for the 500 IS, use

a gimbal head, not a ballhead. No true ballhead lets you handle this lens fluidly and

easily, the way a good gimbal head does. The best is probably the standard Wimberley

head, but there are some 'side-mount' options that also work. These include the

Wimberley sidekick (which is what to get if you already have an Arca-Swiss ballhead), the

Kirk King Cobra, and another one (Black Widow? made in Canada) recently mentioned in a

thread in this forum. I will probably be flamed for saying that a side-mount gimbal works

well, but such has been my experience with the Sidekick and the 500 IS.

 

Warning: none of these are inexpensive, but since you spent $5K on your lens, you will

greatly benefit from the best possible head for it.

 

IMHO, anyway.

[erik_loza]

Maybe just a bit more input, FWIW. Probably like a lot of guys, I went through a couple of tripod/ head combinations before settling on my current rig. In hindsight, everybody sort of needs to do this in order to find a combo they're comfortable with, regardless of price and like my current setup as I do, I still swear at it in some situations. The mistake I made in the beginning was to do all the math regarding specifications, camera/lens weight, try it out in the camera store. Lo and behold, when I brought that rig into field for the first time, it was whole different story. I fought it a lot, it wasn't as stable as I thought because in real-world shooting situations, I found myself needing to articulate and move it different ways than I had planned. Suffice it to say, all that theoretical stuff, fancy ads saying how strong this or that was, helpful sales guy at the store went meant nothing to me when I was knee-deep in the water trying to balance a big lens in the wind. My point is, bite the bullet and go with a proven design the first time because you'll end up deciding you need it soon enough, anyway. The tripod is never sturdy enough and the ball head is never too big, no matter how much you spend, so you might as well go for the best you can right now. I see Studioballs, Kirks, and Kaisers on Ebay or in some of the bigger dealers' used sections all the time. I can only speak for myself but I can make a mediocre lens work on a good tripod all day long but if it were the other way around, I'd probably leave the gear in the car. Hope this helps...

[mark_chappell]

I <B>strongly</B> agree with Erik about the vital importance of a good tripod when using

a big lens.

Regardless of the nuances of vibration (IS or not IS), you want a rig you are confident will

not collapse and drop its fragile, expensive cargo onto a rock or into the drink. 'Penny-

wise and pound-foolish' is highly appropriate here.

[mark_chappell]

With respect to the article on the fluid head, which states that you have to 'lock down' a

gimbal head when using the camera at an angle..... <B>BALONEY! </B> The whole point

of a

gimbal head is to balance the rig (by locating the head swivel precisely at the center of

mass of the lens+camera) so that it has no tendency to move no matter what direction you

point it in. With my Sidekick, I can easily aim my properly positioned 500 IS in just about

any direction

<B><I>by pushing it with one finger</I></B>, and it will stay pointed in that direction

when I let go. You can lock it

down if you wish but 99% of the time there's no need to.<P>

 

The disadvantage of a gimbal head is that it's really awkward (or outright worthless) for

use with a short lens. That's one advantage of the Sidekick: it easly converts a ball head

(great for all your short lenses) into a gimbal head (great for your 500). But if you

<I>only</i> want to use your head with the 500, get the regular Wimberley or one of the

other dedicated gimbal heads.

[bobatkins]

Unless you're regularly shooting flying birds, I'm not sure you need a gimble head. They're big, heavy and expensive. They do work very well for moving targets and I've used one and liked it. However I don't own one. I use the AS B-1 as my standard head. It's under $400 at B&H and I do not regret buying it. It's also usable (and ergonomic)with any lens - from 14mm to 600mm - something you can't say about gimble heads!

 

If I shot flying birds for a living, or motor racing, I'd probably invest in a gimble head, otherwise, a B1 is just fine for me.

[beauh44]

Thanks to all for the advice. I'm still mulling them all over. You make a good point Bob; I won't be shooting too many flying birds or race cars. Anyone care to venture any thoughts on the AS B-1 versus the Kirk BH-1? One advantage of the Kirk - my initials are on every one. ;-)

[mark_chappell]

Not to be too argumentative, but I attempted to use a B-1 with my 500 IS for quite a while.

I found it very awkward. The addition of the Sidekick made routine operations A LOT

easier. It makes a world of difference even if one is not shooting flying birds (incidentally,

much of the time I hand-hold the 500 for flight shots).

 

Perhaps the considerably lighter 500 f4.5 that Bob uses is OK on the B-1, but I didn't

much like how the 500 f4 worked with it.

 

But if Beau gets a good ball head with an Arca-Swiss mount, he can see for himself if it's

satisfactory, and if not he can try the Sidekick (last time I checked, the Wimberley folks will

let you try one for a week or two and you can return it without charge).

[beauh44]

Thanks Mark - any experience with the Kirk? The Sidekick does make a lot of sense, and that's very interesting that they'll loan you one to try out. I bet most people end up keeping them, so it's a smart idea. You've got stronger arms than I do - after handholding that thing for just a few minutes, I'm whooped!

[mark_chappell]

Beau: I also use the Kirk BH-1 (the bigger of the two Kirk ballheads). It seems to work as

well as the AS B-1. And apparently Really Right Stuff has just come out with their own

ballhead. I assume it should work but have heard no reports. <P>

 

I said that hand-holding the 500 IS works. I did not mean to imply that it was necessarily

fun: after an hour or so of on-and-off lifting and pointing that thing, I'm

<B><I>thrashed</B></I>, although it seems to be getting a bit easier with practice. But

the stabilization and autofocus and autoexposure give consistently excellent results as

long as I manage to track the target well. In general, hand-holding is better than a gimbal

mount if the birds are flying past high overhead (if you like those sorts of images) --

aiming nearly vertically is not a strong point of most tripod heads.

[john_kiefer]

I went through the following progresion with my 500mm f/4... 1) Kirk BH-1, 2) Kirk "Gimble" (King Cobra). The BH-1 is great with that lens, but I almost never use it since acquiring the Gimble. The Gimble renders the lens and body "weightless". You can totally control it your little finger. If you shoot for extended time periods and are frequently or rapidly changing composition, go for the Gimble.

[beauh44]

I know what you mean about hoisting that thing, Mark. I don't think I'd last 20 minutes, let alone an hour. In fact, the FOV is so small (and my 10D's viewfinder so dim) that I have a helluva time *finding* a bird flying overhead! When I put my 1.4 TC on, it's even worse. Come to think of it, it's hard for me to find one sitting in a tree before he flies away! LoL... I've shaken my fist at many a bird lately.

John, I am seriously coveting that King Cobra. Is anyone familiar with my tripod - a Manfrotto 3021? It's a lot sturdier than my CF tripod, but after looking at "The King", I'm wondering if that thing will be enough. Jeez - you'd think the hard part would be buying the lens. Noooo... it's what you'll get to *hold* the lens! ;-) Thanks to all and more comments/advice are certainly welcome!

[phil]

The downside with gimbals is that they are large, heavy and require leveling when you set them up. This isn't a big deal if you don't move around much, but if you tend to have the camera over your shoulder and then like to be able to set up in a decently short amount of time, the ball heads are going to be faster. The ball heads let your lens flop if you're inattentive, and you have to pay attention to the balance point, but there's a trade-off with everything. I use a Arca B-1 on my 500/4 IS. The BH-1 would be fine but I wouldn't be inclined to use the BH-3.

[mark_chappell]

I have to disagree with Phil. A properly balanced lens on a gimbal head is much quicker to

set up and aim than with a ball head (I've tried both). Often it isn't even necessary to lock

the lens down when moving with a gimbal, whereas with a ball head, if you don't lock it (or

at least tighten it rather firmly),

the lens will 'flop' vigorously when the tripod is slung over the shoulder. So you need to

lock the head to move it, and that means you have to loosen it again to aim it, and (I at

least) find aiming a lot

quicker and easier with a gimbal head.

 

But it depends on what you're used to.... To my mind the only disadvantage of a gimbal is

its uselessness with short lenses -- and that can be a major issue to someone who likes

working with more than just big telephotos.

[wildpicture]

Most has already been mentioned in this thread, but I just wanted to give you my opinion as I use the 500/4 IS as my main lens.

 

A gimbal type head is very usefull if you shoot flying birds or other moving targets. For all other subjects it is BIG, expensive and akwyard to use. When you want to mount much smaller lenses or the camera itself to the tripod, it is pretty much useless. So it is indeed a great tool, but only for a very specialized application.

 

The head I normally use is the Arca Swiss B-1. I have one with the panorama panning and one (the cheaper version) without it. They are both wonderfull, smooth and easy to use. I use them now with the 500/4 IS and love them. I have also used them with an 600/4 lens and they were also sturdy and very smooth.

 

The only thing with the AS B-1's is that in freezing conditions it sometimes can become a bit sticky. So you'll loose some smoothness, but it is still usable. Don't know if Kirk ballheads suffer from this too.

 

Regards,

Hans

[mike_smith2]

Beau

 

As you can see there are those pro ballheads and those pro pure gimbals and the middle ground "smarties" who use both ie the Sidekick for lenses up to 500mm.

 

Have you considered signing up for a nature photoworkshop, you will find that 99% of people are equiped up to the teeth with big glass and the heads under discussion here. Most people are friendly and will let you play with every combination known under the sun.

 

Mike Smith

London

 

NB I use a 500F4.5, A/S B1, Sidekick, Gitzo 1348CF and the gitzo levellor - it has taken me one year of learning to get to this set up, which works for me, you may have other preferences and shooting style.

 

Also have a look at the neoprene sleeving sold by Art Morris, it will save a lot of the dings and scratches to your new toy!

[jussi_vakkala]

To add even more spices to soup:

I'm using Manfrotto 3460 (503) 252$ fluid videohead with my 500/4 IS. You can quickly lock in lens without too much balancing; if necessary: adjust very quickly the pan and tilt friction and leave it there since the head is counter balanced.

 

Build of videohead is very compact, it has leveling bubble, sturdy panning handle etc. For me this has been pleasant no brainer to use for flight shots, waterfowl, restless Warblers, whatever. Adjustments are really fast and accurate, panning smooth as silk.

Warmly recommended!

 

Jussi Vakkala www.saunalahti.fi/~jusvakk

 

 

 

 

 

For me

[rob_murray]

A lot of good head info has been said here but not much about

those 3021 legs...I have a friend with the 500mm 4.5 L and

he started with the Gitzo 320 which is very sturdy but decided

he wanted more stability and went with the 410 series...

He is also 6ft6in tall and needed a tall tripod.

The 3021 is a bit small and the leg locks frequently slip...

We have one, needs adjusting of leg locks a lot. A slight twist

on a Gitzo leg collar and your locked just fine.

I find the 3021 legs also transmit more vibration than a

comparable Gitzo. Of course Carbon Fiber tripod would be the

ultimate, but very expensive.

[beauh44]

<I>Carbon Fiber tripod would be the ultimate, but very expensive.</i><BR><BR>I was given a Slik Carbon Fiber tripod for Christmas last year. A "Pro 804 CF". (They never say "Amateur" for some reason! :) I'm just curious why CF is ultimate? Is that due to possibility of shock transfer? I just assumed the heavier tripod would be better - am I off base on this? Thanks!

[jay_.]

Beau, bear in mind that a ballhead such as the BH-1 or A/S B1 (I have two of the latter) are not very good for following an erratically-moving subject. I use and prefer and therefore suggest the Arca B2. It resembles a ball head but by locking one axis and keeping the tension set right on the other, as well as on the lens' tripod collar, it can be made to perform as a Wimberely (Gimbal-type)without the need for the enormous clumsy bulk of the latter.