Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

Can you tell me what long lens support you have?

ricardo00

I just checked and it is the RRS one:

https://www.reallyrightstuff.com/long-lens-support

For the 800mm lens (I actually mostly used it with the 1.2TC that it comes with), I routinely used it. However when going with just the 500mm f/5.6 (and the Jobu Jr gimbal) and trying to go lighter, I often don't. I am sure it would help then too but it adds to the weight you have to carry. So depending on how far I have to walk I will use it or not.

dean100 Loc: New-Biden did steal 500,000+ votes in OH

I have the same combination of tripod and gimbal but also use a Gitzo 4532 3-section monopod with the gimbal for motorsports with 400 and 600mm lenses.

Jon Erdmann Loc: Kalispell, MT

Things will come in time, I use a Vintage Quick-Set Husky tripod for my camera needs, with a Wimberly gymbal for my Canon 7D Mark II with it's heavy lenses, could easily handle the weight of the heaviest Sigma lens weighing 34.6 lbs. These tripods can be found for far less than the up to date carbon tripods of today. One of the nice things is that if I'm in a crowded situation I can elevate it far above anyone's heads. That is my tripod in my photo there, with the old head on it.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

Thanks for your response.,

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

34.6 pounds?!?! Holy cow!!

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

So, let's see, you want to buy a $16,000 lens... one of the most expensive anyone makes... but are unwilling to spend another $1500 to $2000 on a tripod to safely and securely support it?

I haven't read all eight pages of responses, but I bet some folks will recommend Gitzo Series 4 or even Series 5 tripods, or the equivalent in another good brand, for a lens that large and heavy.

I've been using Gitzo Series 3 Systematics with big lenses for nearly 20 years and those tripods have handled various heavy combos quite well. There's a little, not a lot, of savings of size, weight and cost in using Series 3 rather than Series 4 or 5. Note: Not every manufacturer uses the "Series" designation, so you have to look for other specifications. If I recall correctly, my tripods are rated for 33 lb. loads. I think the modern equivalents are now rated for around 50 lb. Two ballheads I use are rated for 50 lb. Note: The load rating doesn't tell you everything about stability, but unfortunately is one of the few means of comparing tripods. Most "better" manufacturers give load rating. Personally I look for a leg set rated for at least 3X the weight of the gear I'll be putting on it. But I'm the first to admit that isn't really the whole story. Diameter of leg sections and other factors play a role, but aren't always available for comparison purposes.

Rather than tell you a specific tripod to buy, I'll try to give you some idea what to look for in a tripod. There are a number of good manufacturers. Makes and specs I mention typically have equivalent models available under other brands and designations.

Some suggestions...

1. Get a tripod tall enough so that you don't need a center column. The most stable and secure "big glass" tripods only have a platform to mount the head (a center column can be added, but is an option I would not recommend). I replaced the plain platform with a "leveling" platform on both my "big glass" tripods. This will narrow your search considerably, because a lot of tripods utilize a center column (if you get one of those, be sure it's tall enough you don't need to raise the center column at all, when using the big glass on it).

2. Gitzo Systematic and similar from other manufacturers are modular tripods that you can customize to your particular needs. For example, I mentioned using levelers on two of mine. These provide a reasonably safe, quick way to fine tune the tripod level each time it's moved on uneven ground. It's a lot faster and less risky than trying to accomplish the same thing by adjusting leg lengths. There are a number of other common customizing options... even a center column, if you want one. I do use one on a third tripod, but very rarely for added height. It's an extra tall tripod even without the center column extended. My primary use of the center column is reversing it to hang a camera below the tripod for particularly low level shooting. For best stability with a big, heavy lens, I think you especially want to avoid a tripod with a center column that rotates to horizontal. That might work with smaller, lighter gear... but would never be useful with big glass and just adds a possible weakness. For the same reason, I'd also avoid tripods that have a leg that can be removed to serve as a monopod (which often req. combining that leg with the tripod's center column).

3. Avoid lightly built "travel" tripods and tripods with too many leg sections. Most travel tripods simply aren't up to the task, plus they often have add'l leg sections to be able to collapse smaller. It won't fold up as compact, but with that large lens I'd recommend 3-section legs, at most. The problem with tripods that have more leg sections is that each subsequent section is smaller and smaller diameter, to fit inside the section above it. With a lot of leg sections, the bottom most sections end up being way too spindly. Add to that, often tripods with a lot of leg sections are designed to be especially compact, so you actually have to use those spindly sections to raise the camera to a comfortable working height. My extra tall tripod actually has 4-section legs... but because it's so tall, I normally don't need to extend that at all (it's the same Gitzo tripod that has the center column and is close to 8 feet tall with everything at max extension... which is something I almost never need to do). There are tripods with 2-section legs, but those are pretty bulky even when collapsed and mostly used for especially heavy video gear.

4. Consider getting a "gimbal" head instead of a pan/tilt. Gimbal heads are designed specifically to handle large lenses. When set up properly, they allow you to smoothly and quickly move the lens with a light touch, to track moving subjects or respond to one that pops up where you weren't aiming. There are three basic type of gimbal heads: "full size", "heavy duty full size" and "gimbal adapters".

Full size (sometimes called "J type") is probably what you should get and come in two variants... side mounting and bottom mounting platform. With a 10 lb. lens, you would probably want the bottom mounting type.

The extra heavy duty are actually more than you need and there aren't many to choose from. They are "U-shaped", with two vertical standards and a mounting platform in between. They're big and heavy.... and rated for 50 lb. or heavier loads... waaaayyy more than you will need!

Gimbal adapters work in conjunction with a heavy duty ballhead. This allows the tripod to be quickly and easily set up for long lens use or just as quickly and easily converted back for more standard use with shorter lenses and the camera directly on the ballhead. When using the adapter with a big lens, the gimbal provides the tilt axis, while the ballhead provides the panning axis. The J-type and U-type heads completely replace any other head on the tripod, making it "big lens only" until the head is removed and replaced with a more standard type. (A heavy duty ballhead and gimbal adapter ends up weighing about the same as many of the full size gimbals. Nothing gained. However, if you end up with a full size gimbal and carry another head to swap out with it, as well as any tools needed to do so, that would end up quite a bit heavier.)

For almost twenty years, I've been regularly using the Wimberley Sidekick gimbal adapter in conjunction with a heavy duty Kirk BH-1 ballhead on one of my tripods. Back when I bought it, the Sidekick was the only game in town. Today there are several other manufacturers making them. These really aren't rated for lenses as heavy as that 800mm... But I've seen people use them with 10 lb. and heavier lenses (older 600mm f/4 and 400mm f/2.8, as well as 800mm). I've even done so myself a couple times, without any problem. However, gimbal adapters were recommended for 500mm f/4 lenses and lighter, which was about an 8 lb. lens at the time. And that's the largest lens I regularly use on mine. But I often add some weight to it with a teleconverter, use it with a 3 lb. DSLR and often have a flash and flash bracket adding another lb. or two. So, while it might be pushing its limits, a high quality gimbal adapter like the Wimberley would probably be able to handle that 800mm. I'd feel more comfortable using a full size gimbal, though, in part because all gimbal adapters are "side mount" (the way they work, they have to be).

Some people prefer a pan/tilt head... I have one on a fourth tripod I only use "in studio". The longer handles and bulk of the pan/tilt make it a pain to haul around and carry in the field. A ballhead serves me better for location shooting. And a gimbal adapter or full size gimbal works really well for large lenses.

Here's a web page that shows the types of gimbals and provides a partial list of their manufacturers, specs and pricing: http://www.carolinawildphoto.com/gimbal_list.htm

To get a better idea how a gimbal works, watch Steve's videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWAzwWOaXwc and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EI7BCMZaxE

Notice how easily and smoothly the lens can be moved around when it's on a gimbal.

Finally, there are many "full size" (in particular) gimbal knock-offs being offered relatively cheaply by relatively unknown "manufacturers". For a $16,000 lens, I'd probably want to spend more and get a reliable, proven head from a well-known, respected manufacturer.

5. You probably should make a point of getting a carbon fiber tripod. You often hear or read how they are lighter weight than aluminum, for the similar capacity. Less often discussed is that carbon fiber is also good at absorbing some vibrations. Metal tripods are more likely to transmit those vibrations and potentially cause some softening of images. Carbon fiber also can be more comfortable to handle in especially cold weather. Used to be that carbon fiber was uncommon and considerably more expensive than metal tripods. But today there are lots of choices and the prices have come down. Older CF also was only available in limited shapes, with plain tubing being used for tripods. That lead to a problem tightening and loosening leg sections in some cases. It was easy to loosen the wrong section, unless the user took care to do the loosen and re-tighten in a particular order. Today there are tripods that use more specialized types of tubing that have an anti-rotation keyway built in to solve this problem.

6. There is choice of the types of leg locks on tripods. Three primary types are levers, thumbscrews and twist locks. Levers are quick and convenient to use, but subject to wear over time, needing adjustment, and can be released accidentally or cause the tripod to be tipped over if you catch them with a sleeve or cuff or on a branch while carrying them. Thumbscrews are slower to use, not prone to wear or adjustment issues and generally more secure, but slower to use and protrude to possibly catch on something while carrying or using the tripod (my studio tripod has this type of leg locks). Personally I prefer low profile twist type locks for field use. They are largely self adjusting and not prone to wear. They also are low profile and least likely to catch on anything. One complaint about them is the problem loosening and re-tightening them (as noted above), which is largely solved on most newer tripods. Another possible concern is dirt or water getting into the mechanism, causing problems. However, in nearly twenty years extensively using a tripod of this type, sometimes even standing in surf or a stream with it, I've never had any problem at all.

7. A well-established manufacturer is more likely to have spare parts available if you ever need a repair, as well as more convenient and responsive warranty service if it's ever needed. Hopefully neither would ever be necessary, but it can be a consideration when choosing a tripod.

8. How big a tripod do you really need? A lot of the time people say or write that "I'm x feet x inches tall".... but that doesn't really answer the question. Their eyes aren't on top of their head! What's important is your eyeline, when standing comfortably flat-foot on an even surface. Also, the tripod doesn't necessarily need to equal that measurement. Things you put upon the tripod... the head, a gimbal or gimbal adapter, even a leveling platform all add to the height. And even your camera's viewfinder eyeport is a couple inches up from it's base. Add it all together to see if it places that eyeport a little above your eyeline and you'll be set for most situations. There may be the rare instance when you are on a particularly uneven surface and wish you had at least one longer leg... but those rarely happen and there are often work-arounds (such as setting up the tripod lower to the ground and sitting behind it, instead of standing).

9. If you decide to go with a gimbal, in almost all cases you will need to set everything up to be compatible with the Arca-Swiss quick release system. Once you see how a gimbal works, you'll understand why this is necessary... Not that it's a bad thing anyway, to use the Arca system. It's by far the most universal, with devices and accessories for it being made by two or three dozen different manufacturers. There are other proprietary quick release systems, but they are only manufactured by one or a few companies and most don't work fully or nearly as conveniently with any sort of gimbal setup.

10. Much of the above assumes buying a leg set and tripod head separately, possibly some other accessories as well. However, that's not always the case. Sometimes you can find "kits" that include both legs and head, and possibly even certain accessories, that are favorably priced... less costly than buying the components separately. (Note: Possible accessories include the leveling platform mentioned above, but also may be interchangeable types of feet for use on different surfaces, a pad on one or more of the legs to facilitate shouldering the tripod, or a strap or case to carry or store the tripod, etc.)

Using this information, if you choose to do so, you should find it fairly easily narrow down your choices of tripods and heads.

Have fun shopping!

P.S. I considered getting a longer telephoto, but opted instead to stick with my 500mm and good, matched 1.4X and 2X teleconverters that I sometimes use with it. For me, this is more versatile. While not cheap by any means, it's also less expensive. And it weighs less, takes up less space. Sure, there are times when 700mm (500 + 1.4X) or even 1000mm (500 + 2X) isn't "enough". That's when I know I need to get a little closer!

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

Other than taking exception to the first paragraph of your response, I appreciate your lengthy and we'll thought out reply. As you said, not only have you not read all eight pages of responses, you aren't privy to the PMs that have occurred.

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

Paul Diamond Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA

Now some 9 pages of replies. Here's my 'real life' response to offer some helpful advice (I think).

I thought I'd upgrade from my D850 and Nikon 200-500 by "biting the bullet" and getting the 600mm F4. Heavy, long and nowhere near the 7.3 feet close focusing of my zoom. But, if it gave me the results in resolution (with autofocus and VR, it could be worth it). I bought one and took it on 2 nature shoots instead of my 200-500 which sat in the car's trunk. (BTW - The case for the 600mm is huge and extremely obvious with a huge "NIKON" name on several sides, taking up much of the space in the mini-trunk of my sports car. Yes, I don't own a truck.)

The result was extreme disappointment. 14 foot for closest focus. A huge weight to carry. OK to good resolution. But NOT better than my 200-500 at 500mm. I packed it up and returned it. And I no longer have GAS for a longer prime. Certainly disappointing for the price of this lens and no discernable reason to buy and carry it!

So, my suggestion about getting an 800mm is - Rent one and test it with the kind of photos you shoot. It may or may not give you the improvement you think you are willing to buy. It will be worth paying the high rental and shipping cost - compared to getting a mega buck lens that might disappoint you!

Tiny Tim Loc: Forest of the Pacific Northwest

Thank you for your insightful response. It was very helpful.

Nicholas J DeSciose

You might want to consider a motion picture Panhead

MG Audet

Tim,

I have "only" a 500mm not as heavy as an 800mm, but I would highly recommend the Wimberly gimbal vs. a pan tilt for this lens. Can't give you a direct reco on the tripod, but since this is going to be a heavy kit a sturdy well built carbon tripod -- and there are lots of high end to choose from -- Manfrotto, Gitzo and Peak Design to name a few. Good luck.

A. T.

The "Nest". The owner is also a Hedgehog. I have one and it's probably the best CF you will find for the price.