Check out The Dynamics of Photographic Lighting section of our forum.
Anybody with BIG glass?
Sep 22, 2020 11:47:43 #
I have a 600/4 that weighs in at a svelte 11 pounds. I have an Induro CLT404L tripod that is rock solid. I like the fact it is almost 75 inches tall (without a center column). It makes shooting up into the trees much easier. I use an old Manfrotto 393 gimbal head. It's a beast, but adds tremendous stability to the system. A Wimberly head is on my current wish list.
Sep 22, 2020 11:53:12 #
No matter what you choose, it will wind up being heavy and expensive, so don't scrimp' or the cost will go thru the roof. I have a D4 with a Nikkor ED AF-I 600mm f4 D, so it is heavy. Because I am 6' 4" tall, I finally settled on a Gitzo GT3541XLS tripod with a Jobu gimble head and a long lens support brace. I am 74, so long hikes with this rig is not realistic for me, so I have to drive fairly close to where I plan to use this. I like that it is a tall enough rig to shoot standing up instead of being stooped over, and it still has enough leg length to shoot from the side of a hill with one leg down the slope to still be comfortable. This is not the only setup that will meet your needs, but it works for me. Whatever you choose, good luck with it and happy shooting.
Sep 22, 2020 12:00:05 #
Basil_O wrote:
I have a 600/4 that weighs in at a svelte 11 pounds. I have an Induro CLT404L tripod that is rock solid. I like the fact it is almost 75 inches tall (without a center column). It makes shooting up into the trees much easier. I use an old Manfrotto 393 gimbal head. It's a beast, but adds tremendous stability to the system. A Wimberly head is on my current wish list.
Canon RF 600mm is a hair over 2 pounds.
Check out Wedding Photography section of our forum.
Sep 22, 2020 12:06:27 #
Tiny Tim wrote:
Thank you for your reply. Which Wimberly gimbal do you have?
The original, so it didn't have a number.
---
Sep 22, 2020 12:25:27 #
Sep 22, 2020 12:27:06 #
Larryshuman wrote:
Is it the 600mmF:11 lens. Totally different from the Nikon F:5.6.
A whole lot lighter and smaller and far easier to carry into extreme places with the same IQ as the Nikon.
It is the RF 600mm.
Sep 22, 2020 12:30:31 #
Its really useless at F:11. I have a older Nikon 1000mmF:11 and very specialized because of its F:11 max aperture. So F:11 is really bright sunny sea side beach kind of lens.
Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.
Sep 22, 2020 12:39:41 #
Tiny Tim wrote:
I'm considering eventually buying a Nikon 800mm lens, which is a little over ten pounds. I'd like some suggestions on a sturdy tripod and pan/tilt head that will handle this size of lens. I'm not looking for the most expensive, by all means.
Unless you are working for Nat-Geo, alternate solutions are BETTER IMO. Like using a crop frame camera with a 500 and 1.4X. Working with an 800mm is highly IMMOBILE ! But, if you do get the 800, you will need the BEST of all the supporting and transporting equipment $$$$.
.
Sep 22, 2020 12:46:19 #
LEWHITE7747 wrote:
Why don't you go mirrorless--Canon has the new R6 and R5. They have a 800mm lens for $899. I am 6'2" and 250#. I going to lighten my load of heavy glass . I am going with the R6 and the 800mm lens $3400. Now you can eliminate the tripod and acutally move around without needing a Mac truck to haul your stuff. The R6 has IBIS and togther with the lens has 8 stops of VR. 20 frames per second. PROBLEM SOLVED! LOL
Sep 22, 2020 13:24:05 #
Tiny Tim, It doesn't matter if you can afford twenty of the most expensive tripods available. You are right to look into the VALUE of any purchase before spending. Accusing someone of scrimping because they don't just follow like sheep in thinking that because something is more expensive it must be better is ridiculous. Obviously when you buy an expensive lens you want a good tripod. But you'd want a good tripod anyway. It makes perfect sense to evaluate the various tripods available BEFORE buying one. In just the way you are doing.
Sep 22, 2020 13:27:21 #
Larryshuman wrote:
Its really useless at F:11. I have a older Nikon 1000mmF:11 and very specialized because of its F:11 max aperture. So F:11 is really bright sunny sea side beach kind of lens.
If you say so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiB5QE0sp2U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZMou9ei2yY
Sep 22, 2020 13:32:38 #
Tiny Tim wrote:
I'm considering eventually buying a Nikon 800mm lens, which is a little over ten pounds. I'd like some suggestions on a sturdy tripod and pan/tilt head that will handle this size of lens. I'm not looking for the most expensive, by all means.
Bought a Manfrotto 3051 years ago for my Canon 1 d MK II to use with a canon L 500 and a Canon 300 2/8 L. Heavy stuff. The 3051 has some neat features, quick drop legs by pushing a lever, unlimited leg positions. I like it because it has the legs that drop quick so you don't have to muscle it setting up the legs one at a time. There is one on E bay for $ 99.99 which is a good buy. check it out you might like it. You can park a car on this thing. Good luck.
Sep 22, 2020 13:42:41 #
Larryshuman wrote:
Its really useless at F:11. I have a older Nikon 1000mmF:11 and very specialized because of its F:11 max aperture. So F:11 is really bright sunny sea side beach kind of lens.
Mirrorless EVF, state of the art focusing and high ISO has made cheap f11 lenses viable !
.
Sep 22, 2020 13:48:49 #
So sorry--didnt know this was Nikon--I still would sell the Nikon stuff and get the Canon setup. Still versatiliy and money ahead.
Sep 22, 2020 13:51:27 #
This is a new area with the mirrorless and the digital sensors. Supposedly with this setup the F/11 looks good even at high iso's Have to be see' but for the price and weight
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out The Dynamics of Photographic Lighting section of our forum.