Head for Smaller Telephotos

[schonphotography]

<p>I have found myself in quite a predicament here, and am unable to find the answer anywhere: what head should I buy for a smaller telephoto? Obviously the best choice for the huge lenses (400mm f/2.8, 600mm f/4, etc.) is a gimbal head, and a ball head for small lenses, but I'm somewhere in the middle and have been hearing mixed responses on what to use.</p>

<p>The lenses I'll primarily be using are the 70-200mm f/2.8 (could use a ballhead or just handhold) and a 300mm f/2.8. A gimbal for a 300mm just seems overkill, but when using it with a teleconverter to make it a 500 f/4, make it almost necessary to get rock-solid support.</p>

<p>A thought I had was to use a fluid head to sort of bridge the gap between a ballhead and gimbal, as I have seen it used in the field for the big lenses, and it seems to work pretty darn well for some photographers (for ex., Tom Mangelsen's setup when shooting polar bears: <a href="http://www.mangelsen.com/mangelsen/Images/slideshow/f1003ManitobaCanadaSS9.jpg">http://www.mangelsen.com/mangelsen/Images/slideshow/f1003ManitobaCanadaSS9.jpg</a> and <a href="http://www.mangelsen.com/mangelsen/Images/slideshow/f1003ManitobaCanadaSS5.jpg">http://www.mangelsen.com/mangelsen/Images/slideshow/f1003ManitobaCanadaSS5.jpg</a> )</p>

<p>All thoughts and suggestions are very welcome, as I'm in need of some guidance from people who have used all sorts of support. Thank you very much!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Polar bears are very large mammals so that you can potentially get away with shorter lenses, although you need to keep a good distance from them.</p>

<p>Personally, I think my Wimberley works quite well with a 300mm/f2.8. It may be an overkill for a 300mm/f4. As far as I know, fluid heads are mainly for video capture. For video, you always keep the camera horizontal as there is no vertical for video. As long as you have a tripod collar to turn the camera, you should be fine.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>I use this with both a 300/4 and 300/2.8, and it fits my needs very well:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/599678-REG/Acratech_1152_GV2_Ballhead_Gimbal_Head.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/599678-REG/Acratech_1152_GV2_Ballhead_Gimbal_Head.html</a></p>

<p>The gimbal isn't overkill for a 300/2.8. The point of a gimbal is to make it easier to move your body/lens without the risk of it crashing down.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[curt wiler]

<p>The Wimberley Sidekick fits this range quite nicely for me, on a good heavy-duty ballhead like the original Arca Swiss. This gives me the flexibility of rapidly changing over to shorter lenses without having to change tripod heads. I use it for a 300mm f/2.8 up to a 500 f/4, but it always seemed unnecessary for the 70-200.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Manifrotto 393 gimbal-like head for monopods (works on tripods too, of course).<br>

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=manfrotto+393&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=7666658473964821182&sa=X&ei=VgCSTrjPNfKmsALhuIW5AQ&ved=0CFkQ8wIwAA</p>

[SCL]

<p>If I'm constantly needing to make adjustments in aiming, I like the Sidekick. If I'm pretty much stationary once I focus on a spot, I'll just go with my ball head.</p>

[schonphotography]

<p>So why go with a sidekick if a full-sized gimbal head is just $75 more, and is probably sturdier?</p>

[Two23]

<p>I've just been using my regular AcraTech ballhead with my 80-400mm VR and 70-200mm VR. since they both have tripod collars I just attach that to the head and then don't tighten the head down so it's a bit loose. This gives me some stability while at the same time I can move the lens around. I am careful to tighten firmly if I'm not holding on to the camera, of course.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>I understand your dilemma. My solution was to purchase a regular ball head (Kirk BH-1) and then get a Wimberly Sidekick. It holds my lenses up to the (relatively lightweight) P Nikkor 500 f/4. Then, if I wish to switch to a shorter lens, out goes the Sidekick and I use the ball head only. This gives me the best of both worlds!</p>

[steve_thompson]

<p>I use a ballhead and sidekick and find that combination made my percentage of sharp image increase with a 400 f 5.6.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>A gimbal is not overkill for anything moving fast with any telephoto that needs stabilization help. I used one with my 400/5.6.</p>

<p>That said, I'd hand hold a 300mm.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>So why go with a sidekick if a full-sized gimbal head is just $75 more, and is probably sturdier?</em></p>

<p>The full Wimberley is about $345 more expensive than the Sidekick. And it's about 2.4x as heavy. When you're out and about, you usually need a regular head for shots with lenses that do not have tripod collars. With the Sidekick the ball head is always in place and can be easily utilized by taking off the gimbal part. With the full Wimberley not only will you be carrying the 1.4 kg gimbal head but also your (600g?) ballhead. That's quite a lot of weight. I have the Arca Z1 and the Sidekick which I sometimes use with my 200/2 (+TC-20EIII). I love the ease of tracking with it but the stability is questionable; when taking the actual shot the rig vibrates quite a bit (compared to mounting the lens on just the Arca ball head without Sidekick). So it's a tradeoff. My intuition would suggest that a good fluid head would provide better damping of vibrations than a gimbal head, while still offering smooth movements. No doubt the cost is high though.</p>