BBurns Loc: South Bay, California

The Bogen 3126 is a video fluid head. It is probably the worst choice for a photography application.
That's not your fault, it probably came with the tripod.

The 3021 is a good all round tripod. You will be pushing its limits with really long lenses though.
I, and many others on UHH, would not recommend a ball head with a long lens.
Your lens is only 5lbs. so you are exceeding any boundaries with it.

Temporarily, try mounting your lens perpendicular to the slot on the 3126. This will give you a little more support on the lens foot.
You will most likely need to really crank down on the mounting screw to get it tight enough.

lightyear

I have the heavy Bogen/Manfrotto 3021 as well as other newer carbon fiber tripods. the Bogen 3021 is stiffer than any carbon fiber tripod, because it is made with thick wall large diameter aluminum tubes, a heavy cast top sp,ider and superb flip locks. The locks can be easily tightened if loose. the the top tripod ballhead bolt can be changed to a different diameter if desired. I have the Wimberley gimbal which works perfectly with heavy lenses, but there are other less costly gimbals that also work well. Carbon fiber is lighter than aluminum, absorbs vibrations better, but cannot be as stiff as the 3021.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

My Bogen 3020’s center column has a 3/8-16 stud, but you should be fine with the bushings (Manfrotto also markets them). The 3020 with a Bogen 3063 fluid head easily supports my 500 f/5.6 Kilfitt Sport-Kilar with a Leicaflex SL or SL2, or Nikon F4E, F4S, or F5 (total weight a bit under 9 pounds) at shutter speeds at least as slow as 1/4 second. With the lens’ matched 2X teleconverter, I have to either lock up the mirror (Nikons) or put it on my Ries J600 tripod, using the 3063 or Ries J250 head. This tripod has been a workhorse for me for over 40 years, mostly with my Mamiya RB67 and 140 f/4.5 macro and RB67 PRO-SD and 500 f/6.0 APO.

old poet

Is this like your set-up? I've lugged the heavy thing around a long time for lack of funds for carbon fiber. It supports my 200-500 quite well. My main complaint is that the tripod foot easily becomes loose from the bolt without a really hard twist
.

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

None taken. I was looking for the Bob Atkins page that you posted a link to. The point I was making, which Atkins' chart indicates, is that the 3021, is a light duty tripod, and in comparison, the 3051, which was much heavier duty, was not up to the task of steadying anything longer than 200mm. The likelihood that the 3021 would be a candidate for supporting a 500mm lens (or 750 if on a crop camera) was low to nil. I wouldn't do it.

There is a persistent myth that uses tripod load capacity as a means of determining suitability for a lens/camera combo. The reality is that nearly every tripod made today can support a 6 lb camera and lens. But only the highest end tripods can provide the necessary stability and vibration damping to hold a long lens steady. And carbon has become the material of choice as well primarily for it's inherent damping as well as it's strength to weight ratio. There is nothing that would indicate that a 3021 would work, which is why I suggested that he not waste his money and try hand-holding. That lens has great optical stabilization.

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

It is actually stiffer. But you have to make a fair comparison. And the ultimate test is to aim your tripod-mounted camera at a subject and just tap it gently, and count to see how many seconds it takes for it to settle down. I would put my CT-3472 against almost any aluminum tripod any day. In 2007 I did just that - tested my 3051 against the CT-3472 and seriously, there was no comparison. The 4 lb carbon was so much more rigid than the nearly 13 lb aluminum. Torsional rigidity is a very good measure of tripod "stiffness". Tripod weight is another myth when presented in the form of the heavier the better. Well, the 4 lb carbon tripod has a load capacity of 66 lbs, and the 13 lb aluminum has a load capacity of 26 lbs. So much for that myth. I ended up donating the Bogen to a school as I no longer needed/wanted it.

BBurns Loc: South Bay, California

There is much validity in what is being stated here. Those of us old film guys with tried & true hardware know what we can trust.
I bought and have had a 3051 since 1982, ~$250 then as I remember. Yes, it is a beast and yes, it is heavy. Not really intended for a lot of field use.
I did because I was doing macro stuff in botanical gardens and the like. I have shot a C5 Celestron with a 2X on it. That's the equivalent of 2500mm.

There are old secrets about tripod use that do not seem to be mentioned very often anymore.
1. Never extend the smallest leg sections unless absolutely needed.
2. Never extend the center column more than is needed, if at all.
3. Do not use the rubber feet outdoors.
4. Always make sure everything is locked down tight.

These are all meant to help increase stability.

Each person must work with what they have to figure out what works best with their particular gear.

Most of us wound up buying at least 3 tripods before we figured it out.

I always remember George Lepp saying, "There is No Such Thing As Too Much Tripod"

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Gene 351
this is a very helpful reply. Thank you for the several leads to work on this problem.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

it looks very similar if not identical

lightyear

In addition to the tripod, the ballhead and the camera mounting plate must be rigid enough as a system. In general, a solid metal to metal connection ( e.g.: RRS or Kirk plate, RRS, Arca Swiss, or Kirk or similar ballhead or Wimberley gimbal- or very similar setup). I used the Arca Swiss B2 ballhead, RRS plate, and 3021 tripod with excellent results at 400 mm. The Markins ballhead people did some very involved tests for tripod rigidity and damping using their ballhead and plates> It may still be on their website.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

No long exposures, but usually slow moving or stationary subjects.

Winslowe

How do you determine how hard to tap to produce the exact same amount of vibration as the camera?

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Imagemeister,
I went to the sites and found two suppliers of the lens support. Looks like good engineering idea. however both suppliers (China) had a number of negative reviews. Maybe there's reason why our favorite US suppliers don't carry such an item.

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

You can't. But you can get a sense of how vibration-resistant a tripod is. Clearly, if you tap harder it will take longer, but after you've tapped the camera 10X you'll be able to determine which one is more stable. I suppose if you really needed to be precise, you could screw a lens plate to a couple of 2x4s similar in length to the lens and camera, that are glued/screwed together and attach them to the tripod head. Then mount a laser pointer to the end of the 2x4 stack, and set it up so that it is pointed at a target about 25 ft away - you could use an archery target. Set up a weight that will fall onto the 2x4 stack. Using a second camera in slow motion, you could focus it at the target, drop the weight and watch and actually measure the vibration as the laser point moves off center and returns. But this is not about deciding whether or not a Gitzo Series 5 is more /less stable than a RRS Series 4. But if you want to see if it pays to get a really solid platform, then you will likely see the difference between something like a 3021 and a midrange priced tripod ($600 or so).

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

That support, if you could trust it, would only work to help with a lens that has an inadequate collar/foot assembly, or none at all. It won't make a tripod more stable.