SteveLew Loc: Sugar Land, TX

I to have been checking out the Induro line carbon fiber tribods and am really intrigued since some well known professional photographers use this line of tribods. Also, Induro's ball heads are very well reviewed by people that own them. The professional reviews compare them to Really Right Stuff and considerably less expensive.

PhotosBySteve

Sirui W-1204 Waterproof, lite weight, Travel Tripod.
Wt capacity 33.1 lb
Under $400

NJphotodoc Loc: Now in the First State

Hi everyone. Thanks for all the very useful advice. I'm probably going to go with a carbon fiber tripod with strong, thick legs for the stability and look for a high weight capacity fluid head to match up. Will first do the eBay route (if only to keep my wife from killing me for buying yet another toy). As a side note, I also think a better tripod would be a great addition when I do studio work especially when I load it up with extras.
When I weighed the camera and the telephoto lens , it comes to nearly 7 lbs wiith the weight centered well in front so will be looking for a something rated for at least 25lbs. I'll probably look to see how I can best center the camera and lens on the head to balance it out i.e. determine the center of gravity and try to place it over the center of the tripod to minimize any mechanical moment caused by the lens.
Forgot to mention that I do have a monopod and tried it out today. Very good stability and easy to move around so will probably wind up using both.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Good luck with your hunt. I found a used near mint GITZO GT5541LS Carbon Systematic 6X Tripod Base on ebay for around $675, but it took a couple of months patience until it popped up and I was able to pounce on it.

Here's one option: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gitzo-GT3540LS-6X-Carbon-Fiber-Tripod-Legs-Only-Perfect-/282090182471?hash=item41ade29747:g:osQAAOSwXeJXex~t

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

It's "MT Shooter" (as in "Montana"), not "My shooter".

Google "Camera Cottage" and you'll find his website. He's the N. American distributor of Nest brand tripods and heads, which seem quite good.

Personally I use Gitzo Series 3 Systematic carbon fiber tripods. (The Nest are a copy of these... as are many others.) These have a weight rating around 30 lbs. They aren't the lightest weight, but are very well built and a wide range of accessories are offered to customize them for your particular uses.

The particular model Gitzos I use have long ago been superseded by newer models. I bought the first - a G1325 Mark II - brand new, fitted with a G1321 Leveling Platform and Kirk BH-1 ballhead, at a total cost of about $1500 fifteen years ago. In the past few years I've bought another G1325 Mk II w/Leveling Platform used for $325 and a G1348 Mk II w/G1318 Rapid Column for $400. I fitted the second G1325 with a cheap Chinese-made gimbal head that cost $110 and the G1348 with a cheap, heavy duty Smith-Victor BH8 ballhead that costs $60. (Eventually I plan to upgrade the full size gimbal, probably to the Nest.) When I want to use the tripods with big telephotos, I use a Wimberley Sidekick gimbal adapter (about $250) with either of the ballheads.

For large, long lenses a gimbal head or gimbal adapter is a huge help. The difference between these is that a full size gimbal head basically replaces any other head on the tripod, making it pretty much "big lens only" and less useful with shorter lenses. The gimbal adapter (Wimberley, Jobu and Induro make them) instead converts a heavy duty ballhead for large lens use, but can be quickly removed to return the tripod to normal use.

With either type of gimbal, the leveling platform makes for faster and easier setup. It can be important when panning with a gimbal head that it be set close to level. That can be accomplished by adjusting the tripod leg lengths... but needs to be redone any time you move the tripod, is a bit hit-and-miss and can take some time when adjusting with the leg lenght. Even though they add about a pound of weight and an inch or a little more to the length of the tripod when it's stored, to me the leveling platform that makes setup faster an easier is well worth it.

To use the gimbals heads of either type, Arca-Swiss type quick release plates on lenses and compatible platforms on the heads are necessary. This is the most universal type of QR system anyway. Many manufacturers make compatible items and accessories. So it's what I'd recommend, especially for anyone planning to use a gimbal head with large lenses. The lens and camera plates cost around $50 apiece. Ballheads and pan/tilt heads are available that include the A-S platforms.

Either of these Gitzo models are plenty tall for me (5' 9"), without any center column (which reduces stability significantly when extended). Actually they would be more than adequate for most people. The G1325 has three-section legs and stands close to 60" tall (plus the leveling platform, plus the height of whatever head is fitted, plus the height of the camera itself)... easily positions the camera viewfinder comfortably at or above my eye level. The G1348 has four-section legs and goes well above my head, about 72" on it's own (plus, plus, plus.... same as above). Whatever tripod you get, be sure to check the height (and note if that's with the center column extended or not, if it has one). I've used some too-short tripods in the past, and it's no fun having to stoop down for every shot! Sure, they were lighter and more compact, but my back ended up aching anyway!

I avoid any center column on the G1325s for maximum stability. But I use one on the G1348 because it's reversible, allowing me to "hang" the camera and lens underneath the tripod for low angle macro work. The G1348 is plenty tall on its own, so I never need to extend the center column for added height (and compromising stability) when using it normally.

Now, if you look up the modern versions of these tripods and their accessories bought new, you'll get a serious case of sticker shock! The two I bought recently are the older, "original" models, used but in great condition (near new), at significant savings, and in both cases came with expensive accessories included with the tripod. I "bit the bullet" and bought my first Gitzo new... about fifteen years ago.

Now, even though they are carbon fiber, each of my Gitzo rigs end up weighing around 9 lbs, including all accessories, a carrying bag and protective shoulder pads on the legs. That might be more than you want to haul around, but is lighter than a Gitzo Series 5 rig (their largest) or their aluminum Series 3 models. You have to be careful about going too lightweight with big telephotos. You also don't want an especially compact design that uses more than about three- or four-section legs... additional joints and smaller diameter lower sections necessary to allow the more mulit-section leg tripods make them a lot less stable. As mentioned, I'd also avoid that have center columns, if possible.... or if you do get a center column, be sure the tripod is tall enough you won't have to extend the column very much. Also, for best stability, avoid designs that allow the center column to "rotate" to the horizontal and beyond, for low angle work. When used that way, it's generally very unbalanced.... plus with that design the overall stability can be compromised, even when used "normally". I also am not a fan of tripods with a removable leg, that can be used as a monopod. Might be okay, but also might compromise stability to some extent.

I use my tripods with a number of different lenses, the largest being Canon 500/4 IS (about 8 lb.), 300/2.8 IS (about 5.5 lb.) and 100-400mm II (about 3.5 lb.). The cameras add another couple lbs, typically... plus I'll sometimes also have a flash or other accessories adding weight. Add it all up, at heaviest I might have 15 lb. on the tripod, max. But really, it's more about stability with the big lenses, to prevent shake as best possible and handle the torque that occurs when swinging around and using larger lenses. Carbon fiber does a better job than metal dampening down fine vibrations, too.

Finally, I prefer the leg locks that Gitzo and quite a few others use.... a twist-type lock that is low profile, resistant to dirt and such, and is largely self-adjusting. Some tripods use flip lever locks and others use a thumb-screw or knob to tighten up. Both these latter typically protrude a bit and can catch on branches or cuffs when carrying or working around them. The lever type are fast... but often loosen up over time and need adjustment or replacement parts. My only minor complaint about the twist-type leg locks are that they have to be loosened and tightened in a particular order, largest first, to keep the leg from rotating (some newer ones use a leg profile that prevents rotation). It just takes a little practice, though, to learn to set them up relatively quickly and easily.

Shop around... There are a lot of good brands out there. Most times I recommend folks spend a lot more than they planned on a tripod. It will work better, so they'll be much more likely to use it.... Plus a good one might be the last one they'll ever need to buy in their lifetime. Instead buy a cheap tripod and you'll usually end up replacing it every year or two... probably will end up spending more in the long run, than would if you'd "done it right" in the first place! Cheap tripods also might put camera gear at greater risk... and can end up gathering dust in the closet because they just aren't very much help or fun to work with.

Pkfish Loc: Wilson Wy

Sorry amfoto1 and mtshooter( didn't proof read well enough)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Normally I don't recommend fluid heads. The good ones are VERY expensive and VERY heavy.... and they are intended primarily for video work with large video cameras.

Sure, they'll work for still photography and DSLRs too... but are sort of overkill!

For use with the long lens only, consider a full size gimbal head instead. With this you'd need an Arca-Swiss type plate for the lens, too (a generic one might be included with the gimbal head).

For a more versatile rig that can most easily be used with all size lenses, consider a fairly heavy duty ballhead with an Arca-Swiss type quick release platform and a gimbal adapter you can install for use with the big telephoto. The ballhead simply must be able to adjust to vertical orientation and offer panning axis rotation movement to work with the gimbal adapter (most ballheads include both these features). The adapters all are "side mount" too.... attaching to the lens with the tripod foot off to one side or the other. This also makes the adapter useful for vertical/portrait orientation of the camera, so long as the camera has an A-S type plate installed (cheaper and less bulky than a special, custom fit "L-bracket" for the same purpose).

You will need to factor in the cost of Arca-Swiss compatible lens and camera plates, too. Although they cost a bit more, I recommend the custom fit type camera plates, designed to fit precisely to prevent twist issues. Arca-Swiss lens plates can be found at lower prices on eBay, Amazon and elsewhere. You'll need a slightly longer one for the big telephoto, to allow the rig to be slid forward and backward for ideal equilibrium on the gimbal. The lower price lens plates often are a little heavier and less well finished than the more expensive ones available elsewhere (Kirk Photo, Wimberley, Really Right Stuff/RRS, etc.). But they all work pretty much the same.

If you do any work with macro lenses that have a tripod mounting ring, an extra-long A-S mounting plate on that also can serve as a "poor man's focusing stage", sliding forward and backward to focus the lens.



Yes, a monopod can work quite well with a big lens, too.

If you don't already have one, you might consider installing a monopod head on it. Those are very simple and compact, primarily just providing tilt adjustments to make higher and lower angle shots easier and more stable. Panning isn't needed since simply rotating the monopod itself serves the same purpose.... Plus, because the lens has a tripod ring, there's no need for the head to be able to switch from horizontal/landscape to vertical/portrait orientation. With monopod heads, primarily look for one that's plenty heavy duty for your lens & camera... You don't want it to break... EVER! (Yes. I've seen that happen, dropping a 600mm lens and pro camera into a swamp! Dunno why anyone with a $10,000 lens and $6000 camera would buy and use a cheap, too-lightweight monopod head! )

BBurns Loc: South Bay, California

Lots of good advice here. If you bite the bullet hard once you will never regret it.
You can never have to much tripod.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

There is lots of discussion on here about tripods which you can search. Amfoto has given great advice as well. The only thing I can add is to contact MTShooter snd see what he might have for you, particularly used. You also might want to check out the Really Right Stuff website as they provide great guidance as well. Educate yourself so you only buy once. Best of luck.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I'd like to know where you read that "You need a tripod that has a weight rating of at least double the weight you are putting on it." It's a Zombie Myth that is often used to "help" people make tripod buying decisions, but to the best of my ability, it is a folk legend or old wive's tale, not based on any manufacturer's claims.

That being said, I have a pair of tripods from Feisol - the CT-3442 and the CT-3472. The 3442 is "rated" at 55 lbs, and the 3472 is rated at 66lbs, but I am not happy using my D800 with a 600mm F4 on the smaller tripod - it is too unstable, even though it will "hold" nearly 4x the weight of my camera and lens. I found it similar to a Gitzo series 3 which was fine with shorter lenses but in similar fashion was not stable with a 500mm lens I was using at the time. I upgraded to the Feisol CT-3472 and was happy with the 500, and later then 600 - no stability issues at all. The lighter tripod is used for travel and backcountry, where I am seldom using anything longer than 200mm. The heavier tripod is used exclusively for macro and long lens use - the two most demanding uses of a tripod.

Tripod stability has nothing to do with load capacity, other than a very casual relationship because the more stable tripods also happen to usually have better leg locks, more robust camera platform and connection to the top tubes, etc. But a tripod with a high load rating has nothing to do with stability. Many tripods will "support" a 15 lb load (unless they are complete junk) but only the well-designed ones will do it with stability.

Read this for more information:

http://blog.reallyrightstuff.com/choosing-a-tripod-part-1/

Especially the part where it says:

Note that the focal lengths listed are independent of physical weight or lens speed (aperture). This means that even though a 300mm/f4 lens might weigh only about as much as a 70-200mm/f2.8, you still have the same magnification factor to deal with in terms of “revealing” vibration within the system. This may be emphasized by the lower mass of the lens as well, since a lighter setup has less overall inertia (resistance to outside vibration). Adding tripod ballast by hanging weight from the built-in hook helps offset that difference.

Magnification factor is the killer - and if you have a Nikon Coolpix B700, with it's effective 1440mm lens, you will need a sturdier tripod than if you used a D5 with a 400mm F2.8, even though the D5/400mm weighs 13.3 lbs and the B700 only weighs 1.25 lbs.

If you think this is just one manufacturer's opinion and not necessarily accurate, then start reading on page 14 about how Gitzo rates their tripods. They NEVER mention load capacity, but they do rate their legs based on angle of view. They do not go into as much detail as RRS, but the concept is the same - the top tube diameter is the most reliable predictor of tripod stability.

Sorry to be a little harsh on you, but someone looking to make a substantial purchase should use relevant data to make such a decision, not amazon reviews (or similar opinions found in numerous forums) written by completely unqualified people.

Gitzo Catalog
Attached file:
(Download)

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Once again, Gene51 has provided a great, detailed explanation of what one needs to know. The only thing I could possibly add is the warning that if you choose to not take this advice you will not get what you want and you will have another tripod in the back of your closet. Take it from someone who has a pile of them, although I do sometimes use them to hold small flash units when doing portraits. Save up and spend the money to get it right the first time!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

My experienced observation and opinion : Not all of us want - or need - huge expensive tripods. Most of us have to get - A. what we can afford and are willing to carry and B. what matches our gear and intended usage - but some of us also want C. something to impress our peers.

Your mileage my vary ......

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Did I say Huge or Expensive? Besides, those terms are both relative and subjective. What i did say, is stable. You can measure that, so it is not at all subjective. In today's world, the difference in price between a Gitzo Series 5 at $1400 and a worthless piece of crap Dolica at $70 indicates that the median price is $735. Suggesting that the OP consider a $500 tripod, or $235 below the median price of a new tripod is not unreasonable. It actually makes it a sound economic decision. Suggesting that he buy a $150 tripod that I personally know from experience will be totally inadequate, only to have him end up spending another $500, for a total of $650 when he could have simply cut to the chase and just made the wiser, more economical choice of getting the right tripod in the first place, well, that's just totally irresponsible. But he, and everyone else, is free to do with their money as they please.

If you and a companion weigh a total of 450 lbs, and you have 300 lbs of gear, does it make any sense to by a canoe that has a maximum capacity of 700 lbs, just because it only costs $500, or are you better off spending the $1100 for an Old Town canoe that can carry 1000 lbs.

Remind me to never go canoeing with you . . .

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I tend to agree with Gene here. Which is why I have several tripods. Horses for courses kind of logic. I think about what I need for any specific scenario, or what I can get away with. I'm delighted with my used GITZO 5 at half the price Gene referenced. It just took a little judicial ebay hunting. On the other hand, on a business trip to Paris I just took a Joby Gorillapod/ballhead X which was highly portable and verstatile and did the job.

Why does everyone want a one size fits all approach?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The OP's question was about stable support for a 500mm lens. That was the only size inquired about.