"The Wimberley Sidekick" is it a replacement for the Wimberley Tripod Head?

[lance_krueger]

Just got the current issue of the LL Rue Catalogue #14. They are advertising a Wimberley Sidekick, which attaches to the Arca Swiss QR of a ball head. It uses the panoramic part of the head for panning, and has another Arca Swiss QR which attaches to the QR plate on the big tele's tripod collar. They say that it is compatible with 300 2.8's and bigger (except the Nikon 500 f/4 AF-1). Does anyone out there have one of these yet? How does it compare to the regular Wimberley Tripod Head? I have a Canon 300 2.8 EF I use now, and so have strayed away from the original Wimberley since I have heard it is for 600 f/4's. When I do get a 600 f/4, will the Sidekick work also, or do I need to spend the $450 of the Wimberley? By the way, the Sidekick costs $250.

[pete_dickson1]

I just requested some information about the sidekick. If I understood what they told me on the phone, some of the larger lenses have such a "tall" foot (ie center of lens to bottom of lens foot)that suspending the lens sideways puts the center of gravity too far off to the side of the tripod. You can get more information by calling Wimberly Designs at 540-665-2744. --- let us know what you think if you get a chance to evaluate this thing. Pete Dickson

[bobatkins]

I've only seen pretty poor pictures of this device so I'm not

100% certain how it is supposed to work. From what I saw it

didn't seem as though it would be as adjustable as the "real"

Wimberly, and looked as though it would present a pretty heavy

"off axis" load on the ballhead, which could lead to trouble.

I'm sure all the ball heads are designed for a heavy load vertically

down through the axis of the ball and QR system, not offset.

 

<p>

 

If anyone has a scan of a good photo of the "sidekick" which

shows how it works, please post it, or email it to me and I

will post it.

<p>

There is a picture on page 40 of the Sept 98 issue of Popular

Photography. However, the only way the photo makes any sense is

if they have have printed it with a 90 degree counterclockwise rotation.

I suppose for Pop Photog that's par for the course...

<p>

 

BTW a Wimberly would be fine for a 300/2.8, it's just overkill for

such a "light" lens!

[lloyd_nakatani]

There's a photo of the Sidekick on page 40 of the September '98 issue of Popular Photography.

[mitch_mcconnell]

Lance,

 

<p>

 

I know this is a difficult question since no-one likes to part with

their hard-earned money. IF YOU GET A 600/f4 HOWEVER, my recommendation is to get the "real" Wimberly and don't try to skimp.

I know from experience it is well worth the price. Before I owned

both it and a 600/f4, I really couldn't conceive of why a Wimberly

was needed (and I agonized over whether I should use my Arca B1), but I assure you it is worth it for a large lens.

 

<p>

 

Mitch

[frank_brabec]

I have the "Sidekick". It is not a replacement for the Wimberly. I am using the sidekeick on my Foba Superball. All of the functionality of the big Wimberly is there. It does use the panoramic function of a ball head for horizontal movement. The ball head must also be capable of going into the portrait/vertical mode and have the Arca style QD. The Foba has a notch just for portrait. I checked B&H for views/descriptions of other ball heads but the verbiage and pictures gave no hint which can do the portrait mode.

 

<p>

 

The "Sidekick" will work well for all 300/2.8s and I would think for 400/4.5s and possibly some larger lenses. I shoot Minolta (Wimberly was designed by a Minolta shooter) and even my 600/4 works well with it. For someone who has a ball head that meets the above criteria this is a good way to get to a gimbal type mount. So far I am very pleased with it.

 

<p>

 

I don't have a scanner so can't get a good picture posted. As Pete suggested if there are questions call Wimberly.

[mark_van_bergh]

Following on Frank's comments, in talking to the Wimberly's they indicated that the side kick probably won't work on some of the other 600's because of the size of the distance between the tripod and lens barrel (the tripod mount on the Minolta 600/4.0 is closer to the lens barrel than it is on the Nikon and Canon 600's - yes I also shoot Minolta). The sidekick was generally designed for the smaller lenses, i.e., less than 600, and so that the user could still keep his or her ball head mounted on the tripod and useful for other lenses. The original Wimberly is designed primarily for 600's, replaces the ball head on your tripod, and thus limits your shooting flexibility in situations where you may want to switch lenses. The Wimberly's are really easy going people who are very easy to talk to and try to be as helpful as they can. I understand that the sidekick will work well with an Arca Swiss B1, and they suggested that it would be even better with the B1G, but I haven't yet made the plunge myself although I intend to shortly.

[bobatkins]

You can get a sort of "pseudo" Wimberly head using a regular ball head. Let's see if I can explain. You start out with the head in

the regular position with a telephoto attached. Then you flip the

ball 90 degrees to the left (or right) so the "stalk" of the ball

falls into the cutout for "portrait" mode. Now you use the pan

feature of the head to pan, the ball rotates for up and down, and

you use the tripod collar on the lens to rotate the lens. You can

let go of the lens in any position - it has nowhere to fall!

 

<p>

 

The problem is all the weight is offset, so the load on the ball

is not the way it's designed to take it, plus the weight is offset

on the tripod which may cause a problem. Still, it's an option

with lighter lenses (500/4, 300/2.8) that gives some of the

advantages of a gimble head without having to carry one!

[frank_brabec]

Bob,

I'm confused. Your last post to the Wimberly thread says "You can get a sort of "pseudo" Wimberly head using a regular ball head." Is this with or without a "sidekick"? In reading your description it would seem so.

But the last paragraph says " Still, it's an option with lighter lenses(500/4, 300/2.8) that gives some of the advantages of a gimble head without having to carry one!" This implies the the Sidekick again or I am I just reading this wrong?

 

<p>

 

Also I question why there is a problem with using a ball head in this

manner. If there is a notch specifically cut in to be able to shoot in a vertical mode that would imply some design considerations. Besides in a some ball heads that claim to support 200 pounds a 12 pound lense even with the lever effect of being offset, I don't think would reach 200 pounds. I could be wrong as I don't have the physics background to

validate my assumption. I also don't think the weight offset is a problem on the tripod. At least on mine with the shooting I have done so far it doesn't seem to be. I am shooting with a Gizo 1348 so the strength and stability are there.

 

<p>

 

I tried to send this via your "email" at hotmail and got failures so delete this if it doesn't seem appropiate.

[bobatkins]

I was talking about doing this without the sidekick. I knew I hadn't

explained it well!. As for load, well, whatever claims are made (I don't think any ball heads are rated for 200lbs though!!), there

are user reports of B1 problems used normally with a 600/4, and I

don't think most experts (Kirk, RRS, maybe even Arca-Swiss?) actually

recommend using a B1 with a 600/4 even under normal load conditions.

I just suspect putting the load off to the side might cause problems

under heavy use. However most people probably wouldn't reach the

"heavy use" condition.

 

<p>

 

The difference between normal use and use of the head in the "portrait" mode is that under normal use the load is on the bottom

bearing surface of the ball/head, while in portrait use it is one

the top, plus it is amplified by being on the end of the ball "stalk".

Maybe some heads are engineered well enough to take this. I don't know, I'm just raising a possible concern. Certainly a B1G would

seem to be a better bet than the B1 or Kirk heads in this application.

 

<p>

 

I'm sure Wimberly have done some design studies and tests. I wonder what their recommendations are? For light use, I don't expect there

would be a real problem.

[ShunCheung]

Are we talking about tilting a B1 type ballhead to the side and then hang a fairly heavy lens such as a 500mm/4 off it? I think that is an extremely unstable set up and the whole thing can topple easily, unless your tripod happens to be a very heavy Gitzo 500 series or something like that.

[bobatkins]

I didn't say it was perfect!! Actually even with a carbon fiber

Gitzo 1325, it works OK with a 500/4.5. A 600/4 is pushing things

a lot though. It does enable full control of the lens holding

only the camera, and there is no danger of "ball flop". I can't

say I've ever really found it necessary to use the technique

myself, but then I don't shoot a lot of running/flying critters.

It does put a bit of a strain on the panoramic base rotation. Like

I said, not perfect, but if you really need it and don't have a

Wimberly on hand...

[frank_brabec]

I agree with Bob, it is a reasonable solution for lenses smaller than a 600. The lighter lens does put a much lighter load on the pan function. Using my 600 on it will at some point probably eat my Foba, but until it does I'll use the Sidekick for it. Hopefully at time I can afford the Wimberly with the Arca QD. I am currently shooting hummers with a 300/2.8 with a 1.4TC and a 15MM extension tube. Not a wonderful combo for sharpness but this is playtime to learn fill-flash techniques. I do like the "no ball flop" and it does swing very nicely for moving critters.

[david_mcbride]

It seems to me that no one has answered this concern of import raised by Bob Atkins, "From what I saw it didn't seem as though it would be as adjustable as the 'real' Wimberly, and looked as though it would

present a pretty heavy "off axis" load on the ballhead, which could lead to trouble. I'm sure all the ball heads are designed for a heavy load vertically down through the axis of the ball and QR system, not offset." I would like to know about this before buying one of these items. Thank you.

[bobatkins]

I think the best person to answer questions about design would be Mr. Wimberly himself. I don't know if there are problems, it's just that

the off axis load would be something that I would be concerned about.

From what I've seen the Sidekick is really designed to handle lighter

lenses like the 300/2.8 and 500/4 rather than the big 400/2.8 and 600/4 lenses. I suspect that the ball heads are up to the task OK when used with the recommended lenses.

[pete_dickson1]

In response to a request for a hard-copy brochure (a faxed version was illegible) I got a very nice letter from Wimberley (and the requested brochure). I said it before, if you have questions, call them - the numbers in my last post. The other information you might be interested in is that they have several loaners --- if you really want to know if one or the other will work borrow one! Pete

[terry_danks]

All this talk of tripods and ballheads for 600 f/4's

is disturbing me. Here's why . . .

 

<p>

 

I have just purchased a used 800mm f/5.6 Nikkor. I do

not have it "in hand" yet. I HOPE to use it on my 30

year-old Tiltall tripod. To any "oldguys" out there

familiar with the Tiltall... "Is this do-able or just

hopelessly out-to-lunch?"

[bobatkins]

Doesn't the tiltall have a non-removable 3 way head? If so my guess

is you won't be very happy with it. I'm not sure how sturdy the

tiltall legs are either.

 

<p>

 

I couldn't imagine using anything but a good ball head or a Wimberly type mount with an 800/5.6, but maybe you can. Report back what you find!

[terry_danks]

Yes, the old Tiltall does have a non-removable 3-way head.

I always considered it a great tripod but I have no experience

with any others. Obvious problem is that I have "shot my bolt"

financially on the 800 f/5.6 and just don't want to put out

another grand (or more!) on a new head and tripod. Probably will

have to though.

Much talk here about Wimberly but I have not seen them in the

few mags I have bought recently . . .I don't have Pop Photo.

Seems this company outta have a site but I gather from the

thread that is not so. Couldn't find it with search engines.

[terry_danks]

Answering my own post here to save any one else from

having to do it. I found the LL Rue site with pix of

the Wimberley . . .Thinking about it . . .

[robert_p._boner]

I have the Wimberly Sidekick which I use with the Nikkor AF-S 500mm f/

4. Clay Wimberly made a custom tripod mounting foot for my lens which

moves it much closer to the Sidekick. I use it with the Arca-Swiss B2

head. Both the ball head and the Sidekick are as smooth as butter, so

the combination is much easier for me to use than just a ball head.

Clay also made a flash bracket for use with the Sidekick. It is

modular, so that the bracket can be used on a ballhead without the

Sidekick as well. When I get pictures of this setup, I will try to get

them posted. I have never used the original Wimberly head, so I cannot

compare them. With the ballhead the sidekick is no lighter than the

original, but it is more versatile and cheaper (assuming you already

have a ballhead).

[david_wimberley]

Hello, I realize that I've come into this discussion a bit late, but hopefully I can answer some questions for those who stumble in late as I have. The Sidekick is not simply a cheap attempt at simulating the action of the Wimberley Head. There are, however, a few things to consider. First, the Sidekick uses the panning mechanism of your existing ball head. this means that any unevenness or lack of fluidity in the existing pan mechanism will also be present when used in conjunction with the Sidekick. Second, the Sidekick grabs the lens by the side and thus the position of the center of gravity of the lens varies with the size of the lens and depth of the lens' mounting foot. The key here is that the center of gravity of the lens must lie somwhere directly above the weight bearing circular footprint of the ball head's pan mechanism. The Sidekick is designed so that this is the case for all 300mm F2.8 lenses and many other similar sized lenses. Most larger lenses have a removeable mounting foot (i.e. the Nikon 500mm AF-S and Canon 600mm F4) which can be replaced with a custom low profile foot in order to make them compatible with the Sidekick.

If the two above provisions are met, the Sidekick will give you the same fluid gimbal action of the larger Wimberley Head. I have seen dozens of lenses ranging from a 300mm F4 to a 600mm F4 perform beautifully on my Sidekick/B-1 combo. And I assure you I have very high standards and plenty of Wimberley Heads to compare with.

 

For a dedicated head for strictly big lenses i would recommend the large Wimberley, but for packabilty and versitility the Sidekick is a very viable option for previously reluctant shooters who desire the action of a gimbal head.

We send out loaners for free to anyone who is interested and work closely with our customers to assure that they are satisfied.

Feel free to call or visit our web site if you have any questions: (540) 665-2744 www.tripodhead.com

 

-Clay Wimberley