Manfrotto 498RC2 or Vanguard SBH-250 or Vanguard TBH-100(

[avinash_balakrishnan]

So finally,

got myself a

tripod and

the tamron

150-600 is

on its way.

The ball head

should be

able to

support the

tamron

150-600 VC

on a canon

70D. Till now

I never

needed a

tripod as I

didn't have

such big or

heavy lenses

( Tamron

70-200 f/2.8

VC was hand

holdable ).

The

manfrotto is

rated a load

capacity of

8kg and the

vanguard tbh

-100 with a

10kg and the

sbh-250 with

20kg. So all

this can

handle my

set

up and costs

about

80-110 $. So

price is OK.

But the

cheapest

option is the

sbh-250 at

80$ (load

capacity of

20kg) and

from the

pictures , I

doubt its

quality. I

would mainly

like to know

how the ball

head handles

the quick

release plate

without

getting

damaged and

lasts for

some time. It

would be

great advice,

if anyone

having an

experience

with these

ball heads

could share

their

experience

and let me

decide on it.

Thank you.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I've had a very similar ballhead from Manfrotto, the 488RC2, and honestly I cannot recommend it. There are some pretty big issues with it:</p>

<ul>

<li>The RC2 plates aren't as ideal as they may seem; when the camera is mounted, and you want to turn the setup, too often the plates simply start to turn instead of the ballhead (and hence unscrew and become less stable). With the Arca-Swiss plates, this is impossible. This makes handling the gear on the tripod a lot sweeter.</li>

<li>The load of the 488 was also indicated as 8kg. This might be true, but not when you put your gear under an angle - any angle. Mine could not hold lenses lighter than your tamron when put under an angle: it would start sagging.</li>

<li>The 488 needed a lot of tightening to stay somewhat stable and fixed; seems the 498 has a friction system so it should be better, though. But this was a clear sign of how stable the solution was.</li>

<li>I found my setup (Manfrotto 055DB legs) with this ballhead to have vibrations at the intermediate speeds (1/15th to 1/125th thereabouts), making handholding pretty often more effective than the tripod. When I changed ballhead, this was solved.</li>

</ul>

<p>So, the Manfrotto ballhead thought me on thing: better spend good money once. It made me bite the bullet, spend far bigger money for a proper ballhead and actually enjoy using it (while the Manfrotto ballhead ruined using a tripod, as it was always a battle against it). The money spent on the 488RC2 is money wasted. <br />I'm using lenses smaller and lighter than the Tamron (80-200 f/2.8, 300 f/4), well below that rated 8kg. The current ballhead I have is rated at 45 and can keep these lenses under any angle rocksteady, as it should be.<br>

I have no experience with the other ballheads you indicate. But my honest advice is: skip all these, and save up for a really good ballhead with Arca-Swiss quick release system. The usual suspects for these ballheads are Kirk, RSS, Arca-Swiss or Markins; they cost 3 to 4 times more than the ones you're looking at now, but they work.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p>That's the opposite of my experience with the 488 but then I've used them with the bigger RC4 and older hex QR plates. The 498 just isn't as robust as the earlier 488 and 490 heads. The RC2 plates will give out and slip before the head will. The contact surface area of the RC2 is just too small for the weight of your set-up.</p>

[al_derickson]

<p>I have the Vanguard ABH-230 ballhead which is rated at 30kg and find it a very high quality piece of gear. It's more than twice as expensive than the ABH-250, however.</p>

[peteraitch]

<blockquote>

<p>The usual suspects for these ballheads are Kirk, RSS, Arca-Swiss or Markins; they cost 3 to 4 times more than the ones you're looking at now, but they work.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1. You might consider a Chinese 'clone', such as Benro. I have a Benro B2, mounted on a set of Benro CF legs and it's great! About 2X what you're budgeting for at the moment. The B3 is hardly any more expensive than the B2 and is rated at 30kg (although it's physically a bit big for my modest requirements).</p>

[avinash_balakrishnan]

Thank you all for your valuable inputs. And the info on quick release plates is really valuable for me,and I'll keep it in my mind. I might be able to push my budget, if I wait 3-4 months, but I want to know if it will have that great advantage. I won't be shooting quite often with a tripod, and if I start doing so , I'll probably invest in a gimbal or at least a joystick ball head that can withstand some weight. I know "get what you pay for" and that's why I decided to go for a Vanguard Alta Pro 283CT for 400$ than waste money with cheaper tripods. And the reviews on vanguard tbh-100 says its a more well built tripod than the SB series. This is going to be my first tripod set up , so I need as much help as possible and sorry if it seems like I'm questioning your thoughts, I'm not. Its just that, should I really invest in high end ball heads for which I would use occasionally ? I don't think my tele lens will change soon unless I win myself a lottery. The 70D + Tamron 150-600 is going to be my heaviest camera set up. So ??

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>WRT quick release plates: try them before you buy one. I much prefer the Manfrotto RC4 plates to the Arca Swiss style QC plate. The latter is very clumsy, especially with heavy lenses/bodies. Hardly worth calling it a quick release plate. And the surface area of a Arca Swiss plate is not much bigger than that of the RC2 plate either.<br>

FWIW: you can find an elaborate test of ballheads here: <a href="http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/ballhead/ballheads.php">http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/ballhead/ballheads.php</a>, at least if you can read German. Or try Google translate :-) The test has some surprising conclusions when it comes to stability.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I did a little <a href="http://www.photo.net/filters-bags-tripods-accessories-forum/00b5rk">review thread</a> of the heads I own a while back. If you can find one, I'm still standing by the Triopo RS-3 (with an Arca plate added) as solution that can easily hold a very heavy lens and locks very hard. It's quite probably less refined than the pricier competition, though. I've tried an Arca Z1 and it wasn't significantly more stable, though - aside from the QR lever mechanism biting me - the ergonomics were a bit nicer. The RS-3 has held my 150-500 Sigma, 70-200 f/2.8 and 200 f/2 quite steadily, though I've never tried with a 500 f/4. My previous Giottos head wasn't anything like as stable. The RS-3 does sag slightly as it takes the weight - but so did the Z1. The only real solution I've found to that is to use a gear head that's already tensioned by the lens weight when you're positioning it.<br />

<br />

I don't really know how big the 150-600 is. If it's really big, and you're using it for moving subjects, I'd consider a gimbal head - one (heavy) budget option being the Manfrotto 393 "long lens support". (I've no idea why they suspend the lens from the base in the product photos - it works fine as a normal gimbal head.) It does have a proprietary clamp, however.<br />

<br />

I get on quite well with the Arca clamps. The area isn't an issue - they're gripped from the side, and they're very solid. I went with knobs, because there are no compatibility issues, unlike the lever clamps (which are admittedly slightly quicker); twizzling the locking knob is fast enough never to have been an option for me. The Arca solutions have the benefit that there are many cheap and/or good third-party options available, so you're not locked into one manufacturer (especially if you later buy a better head). But tripod heads - and tripods in general - are personal, and I certainly support the "try before you buy" (as much as you can) advice. Good luck.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>I just replaced my lost 10-year-old tripod with the Manfrotto 498RC2 <strong>and I LOVE IT.</strong></p>

<p>I use Canon EOS and lens as big as the 70-200 2.8 with it with zero problems, Manfrotto 055XPROB tripod.</p>

<p>Old news better than no news. Good luck.</p><div></div>