amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I've been using the Wimberley Sidekick for about fifteen years.... mostly with a Kirk BH-1 ballhead that's on one of my tripods (and is probably about the same capacity as your RRS BH-55). WORKS GREAT!

I haven't used the $50 cheaper Induro GHBA, but it appears to be very similar to the Sidekick.

There's also the Jobu BWG adapter that's a different design, and at $109 is less than half the price of the Sidekick. Haven't used that either.

I suspect any of them will handle your 200-500mm just fine. The largest lens I regularly use on mine is a Canon 500mm f/4 that weighs about 8 lb. Pretty sure your Nikkor is lighter than that.

Yes, the Sidekick fits into my tripod bag. But it's a fairly large bag (Hakuba... I forget the model). I often just leave the Sidekick attached to the ballhead and reverse it for storage sort of between two of the tripod legs, where it doesn't take up much space. But it also fits into a pocket on the side of the tripod bag, when not needed.

In the past I saw recommendations that Sidekick be limited to lenses up to 500mm f/4... a full size gimbal was recommended for bigger, heavier 400mm f/2.8, 600mm f/4 and so on. The main reason is how the lenses attach to the gimbal... the adapters are "side mount" (i.e., the lens' tripod mounting foot is swung to either the 9 o'clock or the 3 o'clock position)... most of the full size gimbal heads are "bottom mount" (tripod foot of the lens is positioned at 6 o'clock), where in a sense it "cradles" the lens. BUT, I know folks who have used the Sidekick for bigger lenses for years, without any problem.

You are correct, the full size gimbal completely replace any other head on the tripod and make it "large lens only" for all practical purposes, until you switch the head back out. The adapters allow you to quickly switch back and forth.

BTW, another nice thing I found with my Sidekick is that I don't need a bulky, expensive "L-bracket" on any of my cameras. A standard Arca-Swiss compatible camera plate (much smaller & less expensive) can be used to mount the camera vertically with the Sidekick, when I'm using a short lens on the camera. This keeps the camera well balance above the ballhead, rather than swinging the ballhead all the way off to one side or the other.

You will need a slightly long Arca type lens plate for your 200-500mm. That allows you to slide adjust the lens forward and backward in the gimbal mount to get the best possible equilibrium. Wimberley probably recommends a plate for the 200-500.

If you don't already have one, another accessory I find very helpful with both the gimbals is a leveling platform. I've got one on both the Gitzo I use with the gimbals, makes set up faster and avoids having to fiddle with leg lengths any time the tripod is moved a little. The twist of a handle to loosen, quick adjustment for level, then re-tighten the handle to lock it in place.... done!

petego4it Loc: NY

Without having used a gimbal, still sounds right to me Imagemeister. I quite liked the Manfrotto similar I tried. My main problem actually has rather been the Manfrotto QR. Neither easy nor quick, doubt it's really Arca either. Am considering going RRS connectors or bracket at least, if not their damped (and expensive) pan head; real Arca, greater attention to detail and thereby truly being more QR and stable too.

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

I think RRS has a fluid Pano Gimbal at a slightly higher price than the regular one.

Best,
Todd Ferguson

RonM12 Loc: Washington State

Thanks for all of the input, it's much appreciated and given me additional information to consider.