windshoppe Loc: Arizona

I'd be interested in hearing from members who have some experience with this product. I'd be using it with an Acratech ball head on a Manfrotto carbon fiber tripod. My gear would primarily be a Canon 7DII with the 100-400 lens with or without the 1.4 extender. It would seem to be a way of avoiding the problem of restricting the use of the tripod with a full Gimbal--assuming that it works well. Any information would be appreciated.

Bob Boner

I have owned the sidekick and the full gimbal. I now use only the full gimbal, mostly with the 600mm and the 100-400 lenses. I wouldn't want to use the heavier lenses with the sidekick.

dylee8 Loc: South Florida

I use the sidekick on a Benro tripod and head, for my Nikon D750 and Sigma 150-600. Easy to carry and no problem whatsoever. But I don't have a full Gimble for comparison.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I am not sure how you are seeing the full gimbal as a restriction. I actually prefer a gimbal to a ball head. I have never used a sidekick but I think you would have to be careful and watch out for unexpected flopping around that can also occur with a ball head alone when adjusting or repositioning. Perhaps purchase from somewhere that allows 30 days to try and return if you don't love it, like B&H.

Goober Loc: Southeastern PA

I have the Sidekick that I use with my Sirui ball head. It works great with my Sony A7r III, Sony 100-400 zoom lens and 1.4 converter. I went with the Sidekick instead of a complete gimbal because of size and weight for my upcoming trip to Kodiak. Trying to pack as light as possible due to weight restrictions on a floatplane and also my back. The Sidekick slips on and off the Arca Swiss style mounting plate on my ball head in seconds eliminating having to swap out the entire gimble and ball head assembly.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I only use the full monty. The full Wimberley.

Lazy J Loc: Pacific Northwest

I use the Induro equivalent to the Sidekick (GHBA Gimbal Head - cheaper but virtually identical quality and function).

Like Goober, I went with this option over the full due to the convenience of both use and packing in my camera bag.

I think the bottom line is, is birding your primary photography interest, or like me just one of many. If primary, go with the full gimbal setup. If occasional, the Sidekick or equivalent works great for me.

As far as a comment by a responder that he/she would not use it with larger lenses, my experience suggests that is a non-issue. The Arca-Swiss plate mounted to my 100-400mm lens carries the lions share of the weight and aides with balancing. Perhaps some balancing issues would arise with some of the crazy large telephoto lenses, but not a concern with the lens you mentioned.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

I use a sidekick with a ball head and it works great for birding and other movement shots. No flopping around at all as the bullhead portion stays tight as I manage the sidekick movement from the sidekick itself. Don't own a gimbal head. I think, as with most things, it depends on the user as to how well it works out. You need to be able to respond quickly to use this type of equipment well.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Hi,

I've been using a Sidekick for around 15 years and it's a very good product. And, yes, the primary benefit is that your tripod can be switched back and forth between use with the gimbal or not, quickly and easily without any tools. The tripod isn't more "long lens only" dedicated, the way it is with full size gimbal that completely replaces the ballhead (unless you carry that head with you too, as well as any tools needed to switch it with the full gimbal head in the field). I use my Sidekick primarily with a Kirk BH1 ballhead on a Gitzo Series 3 Systematic tripod. A second tripod I use has a cheaper Smith-Victor BH8 ballhead, also heavy duty rated for around 50 lb and works fine with the Sidekick (though it isn't as well made as the Kirk head, and wasn't as smooth until I did some work on the S-V). A third tripod I use in the field has a full size gimbal and is "long lens only".... That gimbal is a cheap knock of that works okay, but I'll probably upgrade to a better one some day.

The Sidekick works well with my 100-400mm II, though that lens extends and changes balance slightly when it's zoomed to longer focal lengths. Any gimbal works best with internal zooming/internal focusing lenses that don't change balance, such as the 500mm f/4 and 300mm f/2.8 that I also use on it. I've used those with 1.4X and 2X teleconverters, too... but haven't used the 100-400 II with TCs yet. Really this change in balance is a relatively minor thing with the 100-400 II. It's close enough to equilibrium that the lens and Sidekick combo works well. I can't recall ever using the Sidekick with the original 100-400 or other non-IF/IZ lenses. I have occasionally used it with smaller 70-200/2.8 and 300/4, but tend to use those lenses hand held most of the time.

Another benefit of a "side mount" gimbal such as the Sidekick... something that doesn't get discussed much... is that it also works well to vertically orient a camera when using it with a shorter lens. I've done that with it occasionally, too. In other words, if your camera has an Arca-plate on the base, too (which it probably does, since your ballhead must have an Arca-type QR platform)... with the Sidekick there's little or no need for a bulky, expensive L-bracket too. The Sidekick can serve a similar purpose, positioning the portrait/vertical orientated camera pretty well centered above the ballhead. It's not precise enough for multi-image panorama work, but fine for a lot of things.

I believe the Sidekick is rated for use with up to Canon 500mm f/4 (about 7 lb.)... but not recommended for the 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4, which are among the heavier lenses in the Canon line-up. A full size head with the mounting platform underneath (instead of side mount), is recommended. However, I've seen and read of folks using those bigger lenses on Sidekicks, apparently without problems. The 500mm is about twice the weight of the 100-400mm though, so the Sidekick will handle your lens pretty easily.

Of course, along with the Sidekick you'll need an Arca-compatible lens plate for the foot of the tripod mounting ring on your lens. If it's the 100-400 II, because of the curved shape of the original foot it's difficult to find a good fitting lens plate that won't allow the lens to twist. Also, the foot's knurled knob that can only be finger-tightened isn't too confidence inspiring, let's the foot loosen too easily. The solution with that lens is a replacement foot that has a built-in Arca-style dovetail. There are at least three different companies manufacturing them: Really Right Stuff, Kirk Photo and Hejnar Photo. After comparing them, I got the Hejnar product and it's been working very well for about a year now. But again, AFAIK, this is only a recommendation for the "II" version of the lens... I don't know that it's necessary with the original version (and I've had no problem using various Arca-type lens plates from various manufacturers on my other Canon lenses.)

In addition to the Sidekick and lens plate, some other things you might find very useful are Wimberley's modular flash brackets... With the side-mount platform of the Sidekick you really only need two of the module pieces. The lower module clamps onto the Arca-dovetail of the tripod foot or lens plate, then a second module positions the flash over the lens. Works really well. I even use it sometimes when hand holding the camera, lens and flash... not using a tripod. (With full size gimbal with platform that mounts underneath the lens, the flash bracket is a three piece module.)

Another thing I find very useful with any gimbal head is a leveler. That goes under the head, between it and the tripod leg set, and makes possible to quickly set the head to a level. That can be important for the best panning action. If your tripod leg set and/or ballhead have a sight bubble on them, you can use leg length adjustments to accomplish the same thing... but that's a more time-consuming, fiddly process. Especially if moving around and re-positioning the very often on unlevel ground, it's a lot faster and easier to just roughly set the leg length, then use the leveling platform to fine. The leveler that fits my Gitzo has a short handle the protrudes below the tripod. All it takes to reset level is twist of that to loosen, some slight movement of the head assembly to center the bubble, then re-tighten the short handle. I don't know if the same is possible with Manfrotto tripods.... I think the leveler for them has a lever to unlock and relock it. (I have a big, heavy old Bogen/Manfrotto that I only use for studio work... It has a leveling platform, too. But it's "old school" type with three knurled knobs that are turned to adjust it.)

I have not used the alternatives (they weren't available when I bought my Sidekick 15 years ago): The slightly less expensive Induro GHBA is similar in design to the Wimberley. The Jobu BWG Micro is smaller, rated for less weight (tho probably enuf for a 100-400mm) and it's more vertical, doesn't have the offset design like the Sidekick and GHBA do (which serves to position most lenses more directly over the ballhead's rotation point). There's also a heavier duty and more expensive ProMedia gimbal adapter that mounts without tilting the ballhead off to the side, the way needs to be done with the other three.

Hope this helps!

Rick from NY Loc: Sarasota FL

I have used the Sidekick with my 400/2.8 Nikon and big Nikon bodies for years with absolutely no problem, but I think you do have to consider the weight capacity of the head. I know nothing about the weight rating of the Acratech head - I use the Sidekick with my old (and trusty) AS B-1 head and the combo is solid as a rock. I have used that head for the past 25 years or so and have never been tempted to "step up"(?) to the RRS head that so many of my colleagues swoon over.

By the way - I find that Sidekick and full Gimbal heads with zoom lenses that change length as they zoom are pretty useless unless one is content to keep the focal length of the zoom constant. If you are using any sort of gimbal, the center of gravity changes as you zoom making the exercise sort of pointless. But for a fixed length lens, there is no substitute for a gimbal arrangement of some sort if you are tacking a moving subject.

windshoppe Loc: Arizona

Indeed it does! Thank you for taking the time with such a complete response. Lots of very useful information here. Based on this I believe I'll go for it. Will need to look into an alternate plate, as I do have the 100-400II version of the lens. Thanks again!

windshoppe Loc: Arizona

Thank you to all who responded. I'm never disappointed when looking for help on this forum.

treadwl Loc: South Florida

I have been using the sidekick for about 5 years. It is attached to my Nikon D850 with 200-400 f4 lens. Total weight about 11 pounds. Simply said I love it. I shoot birds, big game and small game with ease. I got it because I backpack and didn't want to carry the weight of a full gimbal plus my ball head for landscapes. I have had no problems, and love using it.

Get it and enjoy it. Larry

windshoppe Loc: Arizona

Will do. Thanks, Larry.