Which Ball-Head for 400/2.8 ???

[michaelbrochstein]

I will be renting a Nikon 400/2.8 for use with a Nikon D200 and

probably a tele-converter and intend to use this combination for

wildlife (and some landscape) photography. The combined weight of

these items is about 13 lbs. I will be using a Gitzo 1258 tripod

which is rated for 17.6 lbs. Heretofore, I�ve been very happy with

using a Bogen/Manfrotto 484RC2 or a 486RC2 ball-head with lenses

weighing up to 3.5 lbs. As the 400/2.8 is much much heavier (10lbs)

than any lens I�ve used before my dilemma is which ball-head to

use??? I see a few choices and would like some feedback.

 

1. Bogen / Manfrotto 488RC2 ($100) � Rated for 17.6 lbs and uses the

same QR plates that I already have and use and is very reasonable in

cost.

 

2. Bogen / Manfrotto 468MGRC2 Hydrostatic Ball-head ($295) � Rated

for 22lbs and uses the same QR plates that I already own. The new

National Geographic NGEH1 is an interesting alternative to this ball-

head ($350). BTW, the 468 also comes in different versions with

different sized QR plates.

 

3. Kirk BH-1 / Arca-Swiss B-1 / Really Right Stuff BH-55 with

appropriate QR plates. � Certainly heavy duty enough but even more

expensive (and larger and heavier) than the other options above ($350

+ QR plates = $500?). Any opinions within this category are also

appreciated if you think this option is the only way to go.

 

4. Your idea?

 

Your thoughts (and thanks ahead of time)?

[alex_lofquist]

Don't get too concerned about the weight ratings given by the manufacturer. These are originally stated in kilograms, so 17.6 pounds is really 8 Kg, and 22 lbs is really 10 Kg. So you can see that they are stating this to only one significant figure and not three as the importing gurus imply. Also the limits are derived by whatever means the individual manufacturer decides, and should only be used to compare between models of the same brand and not between manufacturers. While I use the Kirk BH-1 for my 500 f/4, I think that the BH-3 would have worked OK.

 

Now, for wildlife, you may wish to consider the Wimberley Sidekick on a ball-head. In that case the larger and stronger ball-heads are the way to go as they are canted at 90 degrees to the side instead of vertical positioning.

[mark_chappell]

I strongly concur with Alex' recomendation of a gimbal head, like the Wimberley Sidekick + a

SOLID ball head, or the 'full' Wimberley head, for a lens this big. It will be FAR easier to use

for moving subjects (like most wildlife) than a ball head. If you do go for a ballhead, go with

the Kirk BH-1, RRS BH-55, or Arca-Swiss B1.

[ralph_jensen]

I agree with Alex and Mark (if you go ball instead of gimbal, I prefer the RRS 55).

 

You don't say why you're renting instead of buying, but assuming it's for a one-time trip, an option is to "rent" the ideal head by buying it and selling it upon return. Any of the options in #3 (or a gimbal setup) will retain almost all of their value if they're in good condition. Since you're happy with your current heads for your current gear, it's not worth spending $400 or more on a head that's overkill after you turn in the rented lens.