Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 use with ball head vs Gimbal head on tripod

skip_wilson · November 28, 2016

I have seen some comments that the Nikon 200-500/5.6 telephoto lens doesn't handle well with a ballhead and tripod vs. a Gimbal setup. I have the carbon fiber Sirui N-2204X , 4 section tripod with a max load capacity of 33 lbs. with the Kirk BH-1 ballhead as well as a heavier Bogen 3221 aluminum leg tripod. Is this lens when used with my Nikon D7100 of sufficent length and weight that it won't balance and move well on my ballhead-Sirui setup or am I ok? I'd like to avoid buying a Gimballed setup if I can and use what I have already, especially since with the exceptional VR gain of 4.5 stops potentially I will be handholding it alot anyway. Thank you for your inputs. Skip Wilson

CvhKaar · November 28, 2016

I think it is not about a specific lens like the 200-500 behaviour on a "norma"ballhead, but more like all long lenses are easier to handle when using a Gimbal, when "fast action" is the subject ( nature, birds, sports).

Both Gimbals and "normal Ballheads" have advantages and disadvantages

Long lenses on a Gimbal, when well balanced, give you a freedom of movement and mostly do not require you to "fix" the position, because when you don't touch the camera stay neatly in position ,

I think a youtube movie like this one shows you better than I can explain the advantages of a gimbal .. :

<a href="

ShunCheung · November 28, 2016

I pre-ordered the 200-500mm/f5.6 and therefore have owned it from the very beginning. That is a lens I mostly hand held and use it a lot when I walk around looking for wildlife subjects.

If I am more stationary at a fixed location, I mostly use much heavier f4 super teles on a big 5 series Gitzo tripod and a Wimberley gimbal head. For a lens that long, 400mm and above, generally speaking, you are much better off using a high-end gimbal as the lens + body just "floats" on the tripod. I have used the 200-500 on a D7200 on the Wimberley, and that combo works great.

If you use that combo on an Arca Swiss (or Kirk, RRS) type ballhead, it will be difficult to keep the set up balanced as the length of the 200-500mm zoom changes a lot when you zoom, and you need to rebalance by adjusting the position of the quick-release plate on the ballhead. The entire setup is fairly heavy for that kind of ballhead and can easily flop down. It may work better if you keep it at 500mm and don't zoom in much.

It looks like you already have the ballhead and tripod. When not just buy the lens and see how it all works out before you decide whether you want to add a gimbal head or not? As I said, I used the 200-500 mostly hand held such that the tripod and head aren't even in the picture.

Hector Javkin · November 28, 2016

As C.P.M. described, a gimbal head makes handling a long lens much easier than a ballhead. I understand the reluctance to buy one, not only because of the extra expense, but because if you are also using shorter lenses on the same shoot, you need to carry two separate heads, and switch between them. With a relatively light long lens like the Nikon 200-500mm, you might want to consider something like the Wimberley Sidekick, a lighter and less expensive alternative which functions with your ballhead to provide the gimbal effect.

You can certainly see whether you are happy using your lens on a ballhead and handholding, and purchase a gimbal or Sidekick later on if you aren't satisfied. I should add, however, that I don't know many photographers who enjoy handholding a two kilogram lens very much, regardless of the efficacy of the VR.

Edit: Shun posted while I was typing, and he is obviously one person who doesn't mind handholding the 200-500mm Nikon.

Andrew Garrard · November 28, 2016

As Shun says, I think the problem using the 200-500 on a gimbal is going to be the change in balance point as you zoom - though I admit I've not tried it on my Manfrotto 393 yet. You can, of course, avoid the problem if you keep it permanently at one zoom setting. I mostly use that lens hand-held too, especially since the VR is very good, although I've locked it down on an Arca d4 (which I could treat as a pan/tilt head by unlocking things and then fine tune using the gears if needed). The gearing on the d4 is strong enough that the zoom doesn't affect much. It's certainly not perfectly balanced like a gimbal, though.

I believe the Sidekick relies on the lens foot supporting everything when mounted at 90 degrees (it clamps sideways rather than underneath, like the full Wimberley). If I'm not confused, I'm not sure how strong the 200-500's foot is for this kind of use - although it's certainly much more robust than, say, the 70-200's foot.

I second the suggestion to suck it and see with the ball head before you shell out for a gimbal, unless you have a once-in-a-lifetime event coming up.

Dieter Schaefer · November 28, 2016

I also use the 200-500 mostly handheld; if I do use it on a tripod (Induro CT414 in my case), then it is with a gimbal head. Like with most zooms, there's only one focal length position in which the lens/camera combo balances perfectly on the gimbal head; in all others, when not held, the combo will flop forward or backward. To follow action with the lens mounted to a ball head, the ball needs to be unlocked and that gives you exactly one - rather unstable - position in which the setup is balanced (lens at a certain focal length and the lens horizontal and directly above the center of the tripod); in all other orientation, you need to hold the combo and overcome whatever friction is applied to the ball when following motion (compare that with the "weightlessness" of a proper balanced gimbal head setup). The other negative of using a ball head is that all your motion comes from the ball as the panning base needs to stay locked (with both the ball and the panning unlocked you don't have control which one will move and they might well interfere). Or to put it differently: with a gimbal head, you get panning from its base and up-and-down motion from the gimbal arm (no matter if side- or bottom-mounted); these are the only two motions possible. With a ball head, you have a too many degrees of freedom (the lens/camera combo can move any which way) and the result is a rather wobbly arrangement.

Wimberley Sidekick: if you go that route, make sure your ball head's panning base is up to the task. Also, as with any side-mount gimbal head, adjusting the position of the lens tripod plate is a bit of a hassle as you need to support the weight of the lens/camera combo during the process.

JDMvW · November 28, 2016

The key question on ball heads is the question of weight and balance.

I found a Manfrotto 222 head on a monopod and a Reflex-Nikkor 500mm to work fine as a walk-around solution. I'm not sure I'd trust that very far mounted on a free-standing tripod.

A Manfrotto 393 'gimbal' U head works fine with up to 1250mm mirror lenses on my heavy "iron boy" tripod.

Of course in either case, do not mount the head and lens to the camera body.

Manfrotto 222

bob_flood1 · November 28, 2016

Whether a ball head will suffice depends on what you want the ball head to accomplish. The VR on the 200-500 is sensational IMHO - I haven't hand-held a long lens in many years (arthritis, but I can hand-hold a 200-500 on a DX body and get a sharp image much to my amazement. So the ball head doesn't have to be used to hold the camera+lens steady for you - it just needs to support the weight. Loosening a ball head enough to allow you to follow a moving subject will still support the weight of the camera+lens, but sharp images will depend on your technique and the virtues of VR. That will work. But a gimbal head will offer what I find to be a better shooting setup - I find that panning horizontally works much better using a gimbal than using a ball head or hand-holding the lens. I also use the Manfrotto 393. It's an old design that works very well, but it's a heavy mechanism, easily the heaviest gimbal design out there. It's not expensive, but that weight penalty is probably too large for someone who likes to hike significant distances with the camera gear. I'm partially disabled, and a consequence is that I don't cover much distance, so the weight isn't a bother for me (but that's just my situation). I don't use a zoom with the 393 any more, but I have in the past. Zooming in and out with an 80-400 caused imbalance, but not enough for me to be troubled by it. A gimbal limitation: there's a limit of the range of motion that can be achieved for any given camera/lens combination - when aiming up and down at considerable angles, one end of the rig or the other can hit the tripod or gimbal hardware, thereby limiting how far down or up you can aim. Those limits are pretty extreme and probably won't be a bother (they aren't for me, anyway). This effect depends to a large degree on the weight of the camera body. The lighter the body, the farther out from the balance point the body will be, allowing more movement before encountering the upward aiming limit. Because of this, I shoot without the battery grip on my D610, even though I much prefer the larger size the battery grip offers (there's that arthritis again). A comment on the Manfrotto 222 ball head - it uses a relatively small (about 1.5" square) quick release plate, and I don't recommend a small plate like that with a long lens. Even when the ball head is tightened down, that small plate allows some small-scale fore-aft movement that affects image sharpness. A head that uses a long plate (in the 3.5-5" range) will make it easier to get sharpness when using long lenses.

ShunCheung · November 28, 2016

As an example, I captured the attached image a few days ago, with the 200-500mm on a D500, @ 500mm, f5.6, 1/1250 sec and ISO 720. I was using auto ISO on the D500 to guarantee a minimum 1/1250 sec shutter speed.

I am sure a 500mm/f4 would have been sharper, and I could have used f4 and a lower ISO for better quality. However, a big lens like that on a heavy tripod wouldn't provide me the kind of mobility I needed, and most likely I would have missed this image.

In photography, there are all sorts of trade offs. To the OP, I would get the lens first and use it for a while to determine what is your optimum usage pattern. If you are going to use the 200-500 on a tripod, a gimbal head would probably be the best approach. However, a good one is not cheap and it is going to add a lot of weight.<div></div>

Matthew Currie · November 29, 2016

I have the 200-500 and a D3200 and as it happens, I have a Manfrotto 3021 with an older Kirk BH-1. I find it works pretty well, though I usually use the lens hand held anyway. It does flop if you're not careful, but the lens is not terribly heavy (or perhaps I should say that though heavy it is not unwieldy), and a head that allows for tension adjustment works moderately well. A long quick release pad can help to fine tune the balance too.

If you like the idea of the lens, I'd buy it first, and see how you end up using it, and how it agrees with your tripod. The VR is so good that you may find you are hand holding more than you expect.

rodeo_joe1 · November 29, 2016

Off topic, but thanks JDM, for the suggestion to use

a Manfrotto 222 head on a monopod. I have a

spare 222 that came with a used 055 tripod - awful

combination. I swapped it for a 3 way pan/tilt.

However I do find the standard ballhead on my

Gitzo monopod a bit floppy and slow to adjust. The

hand grip head might be a better solution. I just

hadn't thought of that combo. Thanks again

CvhKaar · November 29, 2016

if you are also using shorter lenses on the same shoot, you need to carry two separate heads

</blockquote>

mm Shorter lenses are often working perfectly fine on a gimbal, but in those situations just mount the camera on the gimbal. ( attach a good L plate to the camera , increases flexibility even more..)

Andrew Garrard · November 29, 2016

FWIW, I'll second the interest in the suggestion of the

grip head on a monopod. I've never seen the point in grip

heads in general, since they move the centre of gravity of

the lens so far from the pivot point (the opposite of what

a gimbal achieves, and what most ball heads try to

avoid) but I can see how they'd work on a monopod - I'd

not thought of that before either.

Ironically, last I looked, Manfrotto market the 393 as a

monopod head (and also show the lens hanging from it

rather than sitting in it, for reasons I don't understand) -

there's an argument for a pan/tilt head on a monopod,

but the 393 probably outweighs most monopods, and I

can't imagine that's a good configuration. Mine only gets

used on big tripods.

JDMvW · November 29, 2016

I never found the 393 as a MONOpod solution to be all that great, but it is a rather less expensive (and to my mind superior) alternative to the more normal gimbal on a tripod.

Dieter Schaefer · November 29, 2016

I'll second the interest in the suggestion of the grip head on a monopod.

</blockquote>

I owned the 322RC2 which I believe was the successor of the 222. Main difference: the grip is sideways. Looked like a good idea at the time, and I used it on a monopod. Quickly realized that a ballhead on a monopod is not a good idea; the only way to go is to get a proper monopod head (RRS makes one, Sunwayfoto has a decent clone of it, or get the long-lens head from Acratech; the Manfrotto monopod head is too weak). Most infuriating about the 322RC2 was the RC2 QR plate, and the fact that one could not change out the top for an Arca-Swiss compatible clamp. Ended up selling the head, and haven't used a monopod ever since.

What I also didn't realize when purchasing a gimbal head was the almost mandatory need to have a leveling base on the tripod. Adds weight, bulk, and cost. It's not needed if you plant your tripod at one location, level it and then shoot from there. Or if you don't mind constantly adjusting the length of the tripod legs to get the top level; as task that taxes my patience rather quickly.

sebastianmoran · November 29, 2016

Skip -- I'm using the 200-500 with a D7200, about the same rig you are using.

I use a gimbal head on a tripod. Frankly, I have trouble imagining using this long a lens on a ball head, but have seen others do it. Gimbal works great for me.

The VR on this lens (and on the 300 f/4 PF) is great. Makes it practical to hand-hold as far as shutter speed is concerned, and I've got some good bird shots this way. More often, the tripod and gimbal. Here's a sample hand-held bird shot.

Andrew Garrard · November 30, 2016

<blockquote>I owned the 322RC2 which I believe was the successor of the 222. Main difference: the grip is sideways.</blockquote>

The thing that always threw me about this kind of head is that I never saw the benefit of the grip over having a ball head loosened so you can move the camera via the camera's grip. Yes, you can lock down quickly, but you have to take your hand off the head and move it to the camera grip to take the shot (okay, except for a couple of grip heads that have an integrated trigger). I've got plenty of leverage from the camera, thanks. However, on a monopod, I do get that using one with a long lens has merit - left hand on the head, right hand on the camera grip. When the left hand's holding the monopod anyway, it makes more sense.

<blockquote>What I also didn't realize when purchasing a gimbal head was the almost mandatory need to have a leveling base on the tripod.</blockquote>

Yes, that always bothered me. Slightly off-topic: I've been very tempted by the RRS levelling base (for my TVC-34L), but what puts me off is that there's no anti-rotation screw to stop the head unscrewing itself from the base. RRS have suggested thread lock, but since I change heads for different purposes that's not really a good solution for me. I've considered the levelling base with an integrated clamp, then a QR-to-3/8" plate with an anti-rotation screw hole, but I worry that extra stages will make things less stable. I just wondered what others do here, and whether I should look for another base supplier.

JDMvW · November 30, 2016

The Manfrotto 322 can be switched to vertical, but the older 222 is different (see picture above) and better for the monopod application.

Sign In

Nikon 200-500mm f5.6 use with ball head vs Gimbal head on tripod

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in