linelink

I also use a D500 and ztamron 150-600 lens. I highly recommend the Sirui line of tripods. Other photographers see mine and they flip out because they have gitzo and other expensive brands paying from 600. To $900. The Sirui is better. Center post, extended height, lays flat on the ground with the three legs extended out. The three legs are carbon fiber and only three sections, not four, for greater stability. Holds 45 lbs on top. I travel with it with clips on the outside of my back pack. I have a ball head and a Nest brand gimbal head. The nest gimbal was 99.00 and the
Sirui Tripod was 249.00 just over two years ago. Probable went up a bit by now. I don’t work for Sirui, but I have convinced many people that this is less money, well spent. Good luck with your choice, but with their gear, weight and stability is most important as that camera and lens is heavy. Three section legs are much sturdier then four section. Each leg section will be longer, but will have a larger diameter. The Sirui also has rubber tipped feet and spikes.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Your best bet is a carbon fiber tripod with a ballhead. Those are the most common types of "kits", where you can get the most for your money.

So long as the tripod and head are sturdy enough, you can add a gimbal adapter later, such the Induro GHBA or Wimberley Sidekick. These work in conjunction with a ballhead, rather than replacing it. As a result you can quickly and easily switch back and forth between using the tripod with the gimbal and your long telephoto or with shorter lenses without the gimbal. ("Full size" gimbals replace the head, essentially making the tripod "large telephoto only" unless you swap the ballhead back onto it.) Almost all gimbals and gimbal adapters require Arca-Swiss quick release compatibility. Depending upon the age of your Tamron lens, it may have an Arca dovetail built into the tripod mounting foot. Otherwise you will have to buy and install a lens plate. To use a gimbal adapter, the ballhead you choose also will need to be Arca-Swiss quick release compatible. And for that reason you also will need an Arca plate for the base of the camera, to mount it directly upon the ballhead.

As to choosing a tripod, I recommend the following:

1. Determine how tall you need. Measure your eyeline while standing upright on a level floor. A tripod that's too short gets uncomfortable pretty quickly. But keep in mind that the height is a combination of both the height of the legs and the height of the head on it (some "kits" state the total height... some list them separately and you have to add them together).

2. Look for a tripod that's tall enough without using the center column or at least not needing to raise it very much. Too much center column extension greatly reduces stability. Some tripods now have multiple sections, to make the tripod as compact as possible, but that really compromises stability.

3. Look for a tripod with as few leg sections as possible. I prefer 3-section legs, would consider 4-section but never any more than that. While additional sections can help a tripod be more compact when it's folded up, each section needs to nest inside the one above and any more than 3 or 4 sections makes for awfully small bottom sections. The additional joints also can make things less stable and slower to setup and take down.

4. There are several types of leg locks. For a tripod used in the field personally I prefer one with twist type locks. This type of lock is low profile to keep from catching on branches or cuffs, self-adjusting for any wear, and at least somewhat resistant to dirt getting inside. They are also the most common type used for carbon fiber tripods. A second type are lever latches that can be quicker to use, but protrude a bit to catch on things and can loosen up with wear, requiring adjustment or repair, and can get dirt inside causing problems. Thumbscrews are a third type and can work well, but are the slowest to set up and protrude to catch on things. They are rarely found on field tripods, mostly just on very heavy duty studio and cinema tripods.

5. The weight capacity rating of tripods is not the best measure of stability, but is one of the few statistics that's available for most models from most manufacturers, to use for comparison. Your gear probably weighs 5 or 7 lbs at most, but I'd recommend a tripod and head with 20 to 35 lb. capacity at a minimum. Approx. triple the weight of the gear you'll be putting on it. There are higher rated tripods, but they get much bigger and heavier.

6. I'm not a fan of "gimmicks" such as tripods that convert to monopods (additional joints to come loose or flex) or center columns that rotate to horizontal (can be very unstable).

7. The ballhead needs to have separate vertical and horizontal axis in order to use with a gimbal adapter, so if you hope to use one of those eventually, plan for it now. This usually is not a problem with 20 lb. and higher rated ballheads... but a few use a single locking mechanism. And, once again, in order to use it with a gimbal adapter, a ballhead needs to have an Arca-Swiss compatible quick release platform. Those aren't difficult to find either.

8. Only you can say what you are willing to spend. I do encourage people to stretch their budgets when buying a tripod. A good one can be a joy to use and may serve a lifetime. One of mine is 40 years old and has supported a wide variety of different cameras over the years. Some of my other tripods are around 20 years old and also working just fine... have seen both film and digital cameras... probably 4 or 5 generations of the latter since 2004, in fact. Cameras come and go. We tend to keep lenses much longer.... and tripods even longer still. In contrast, a cheap tripod is usually not much fun to use and often wears out rapidly or breaks... you end up having to replace cheapies fairly often so it's a false economy over the long run to not spend much on a tripod.

9. There are "standard" and "travel" tripods. The latter being more compact and sometimes lighter weight. Many travel tripods today have legs that reverse fold back over the ballhead for more compact storage. With this type of tripod only ballheads are possible AND must be matched to the tripod to allow this reverse folding.

10. I try to stick with long-established brands of tripods.... Manufacturers I know. There are many tripod manufacturers. But I'd rather buy from one who has a track record and will likely still be in business years from now if I need repair parts. Sometimes online searches can find user feedback about the quality of makers customer service. I'd be reluctant to buy from someone who has a lot of user complaints that they are unresponsive to problems.

Using many of the above criteria, websites like B&H Photo can be very helpful. They list well over 1000 tripods there and provide a lot of filters you can use to narrow it down to a much more reasonable number to consider. For example, I limited it to only tripods with heads, ballheads, Arca-type quick release, carbon fiber legs, twist locks, and 20 to 35 lb. weight capacity. I did NOT specify a maximum height or rule out a center column entirely and was unable to limit the number of leg sections. Even so, filtering with the above criteria reduced the number to 59 possibilities. Now it would be a matter also looking at height factors (preferably without needing to raise the center column much, or at all... 7 of the results have no center column at all, as is the case with two of my own tripods). You also can limit the price range (among those 59 prices now range from $120 to over $1500). Next scan the results for the number of leg sections, if center column is one of the multi-section type, etc. Doing these things you can probably narrow it down to a half dozen or fewer for serious consideration.

Once you've really narrowed it down this way, you can search for reviews of the tripod models you've chosen and ask again here on UHH for more input.

Here is the search result at B&H Photo, using the above criteria and sorted from lowest to highest priced: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Complete-Tripods-with-Heads/ci/2635/N/4075788742?sort=PRICE_LOW_TO_HIGH&filters=fct_head-type_4106%3Aball-head%2Cfct_leg-lock-type_4128%3Atwist-lock%2Cfct_material_774%3Acarbon-fiber%2Cfct_quick-release-system_7375%3Aarca%2Cfct_support-weight_4142%3A20-lb%7C22-lb%7C24-lb%7C25-lb%7C26-lb%7C27-lb%7C28-lb%7C30-lb%7C31-lb%7C33-lb%7C34-lb%7C35-lb

Of course, you are free to change those criteria and to purchase anywhere you like. It would be great if you could inspect a tripod in person... But that may not be possible and an online purchase with right of return if unhappy with what you receive also can work.

Finally, it's possible to get more bang for your buck buying used. A quality tripod that's had moderate use and reasonable care can be in good shape and still work very well. The tricky thing is you need to know what you're looking at.... You have to be familiar with the tripod model you're searching for. I was able to buy two older, discontinued Gitzo tripod models (which I knew well) for about 2/3 less than the price of the most similar current models. The newer ones have some additional features and higher weight ratings, but the old ones were more than adequate for me. Both came with accessories that added a lot of value, were in superb condition and work just as well as the 20+ year old Gitzo I paid full price for back when it was brand new. Of course, there's no warranty doing buying used (maybe a short one from some stores, but the price will be higher). But I've never had to repair the one I've used for over 20 years (though, if needed, replacement parts for it are still widely available... a nice thing about buying a high quality, well-established brand).

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Why is a ball head the best?
I find them pretty worthless.

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

Having a center post is less stable than having no center post.

Three sections vs four while theoretically more stable - is not necessarily the case. You will see companies like Gitzo and RRS do not change the load capacity or the recommended longest lens when the number of leg sections change. Their tripods with 4 and 5 section legs are just as stable as their 3 section leg ones.

Three section legs do not collapse as small as 4 section legs.

Nest gimbal is not a current product and hard to get support for.

All of what I have written is easily verifiable.

I like Sirui - but I don't like it for 900mm lenses, which is what the OP is inquiring about. I prefer to have something more stable. With a maximum 29.4mm tube diameter (MT 2204 or the AM 284) it is somewhat comparable to a Gitzo Series 2 Mountaineer, GT2532, which Gitzo suggests that it can be used comfortably with a 200mm lens, and up to 300mm. My guess is that if a ball head or any other kind of locking head or gimbal is used, it will lack the torsional stability to keep a 900mm still and vibration free.

It's unlikely that a Sirui MT2204 which seems to only be available with a K20X head for $350, or the AM284 which costs $200 without a head would perform on par with the Gitzo, which costs $1000, much less match the performance of the correct Gitzo tripod for that lens/camera combo, which would be a Systematic Series 5, which start at $1150 depending on height, and which Gitzo recommends for lenses in excess of 600mm. There is some real benefit to having a tripod that has a top tube diameter of 37mm up to 41mm compared to the relatively skinny legs on the Series 2 or the Sirui tripods.

With tripods, probably more than any other piece of photo gear, many photographers opt for the less costly ones only to find that they would have been better off with a beefier one to begin with.

When I settled on a Feisol CT3472 back in 2006, I had a Gitzo Series 3 that I had purchased based on many recommendations posted in various forums that that was all I needed to support and stabilize a 500mm lens on a crop sensor body - A Nikon D200. Well, I took it out for a spin and found that Gitzo's guidance was spot on - they suggested a 300-400mm lens (on a full frame camera) as a max focal length. With the equivalent of a 750mm lens (500mm plus crop factor), it shook like a leaf on a tree in a windstorm. when I backed the zoom down to 250mm it was much better, with very little camera blur evident in the images. And that was a 10 mp camera. The Feisol has served me well with up to a 1260mm lens (600mm+1.4TC+crop sensor) if I was careful.

I also have a tripod with skinny legs, similar to the Sirui, and found it to not be nearly as stable with a long lens. I use it for landscapes, especially when backpacking, because it folds to less than 17" with the head attached.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I didn't write "ballhead is best".

I wrote that the original poster's best bet was a ballhead... Because they are looking for a compact, reasonably light weight tripod to carry hiking. I'm assuming they will use it with various lenses, not just the 150-600mm. For that reason, I wouldn't recommend a "full size" gimbal head, which they asked about.

A ballhead can be used with a gimbal adapter, allowing the tripod to easily serve various purposes rather than being dedicated to only be used with that 150-600mm.

Due to their popularity, there's a much wider selection of tripod & ballhead kits offered, compared to tripods fitted with any other type of head. Tripod and head bought together as a kit from the manufacturer often gets the most bang for the buck (compared to buying the parts individually to put together a custom rig yourself).

Finally, it sounds as if the original poster might be interested in a "travel" tripod. Today a lot of those are a design where the legs reverse back over the head to be able to fold up as compact as possible. This only works with a ballhead. And even that has to be the right size, matched to the tripod.

I don't consider "ballheads the best" by any means. I do have rather large ones on two tripods (and a small one on a monopod). But I also have a full size gimbal on another that's dedicated to working with big telephoto lenses only (as well as a Wimberley Sidekick gimbal adapter that I frequently use with one of the larger ballheads). And I have pan/tilt heads on three other tripods. I mostly just use those in studio. Recently I've been shopping around a little for a geared head, too, potentially to be used for landscape/architectural photography (there only appear to be 8 or 10 true "geared heads", and only two I'd call affordable, only one of which has an Arca-compatible quick release platform). Other than that, a couple types of tripod heads I'm not using now are "fluid" (tend to be rather heavy for field work and don't need one for still photography in studio, but will consider one if I start shooting video in the future).... and "pistol grip" (insufficient weight support and reliability).

The best type of tripod head for the job... And based on what the original poster is wanting to do, in my opinion a ballhead is likely to be their best choice, along with the possibility of adding a gimbal adapter to it in the future.

bnsf

My Sirui tripod kit has a 50mm Ballhead and works great with my Sony 600mm lenses. It is a 3 piece leg set with no center and the ballhead can take up 50lbs for shooting videos without a problem. Total weight of tripod and ball head is around 11 pounds. The tripod has spikes on the feet that can be removed and the flat shoes used on hard flat ground. I have had many tripods that I have used over 30 years of shooting photos and this tripod has a great job for me compared to the cheap ones I have had. Remember you get what you pay for. In other words you buy cheap you get cheap, buy expensive you get expensive.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Not really with a 150-600mm lens .....especially if you are trying to follow action - which is what we are talking about here .
.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

ShelbyDave Loc: Lone Rock, WI

Once again I am going to recommend a gimbal head that I bought. I have had it almost a year now and I still love it. It is a Yelangu A17. It is well built and works VERY well for me. I get the feeling that most people won't try it because it is one of the least expensive gimbals out there and usually you get what you pay for. It is only $57.60, but don't let that fool you, this thing is well built and very nice to work with. I was leery of it, but decided to try it, and because I bought it from Adorama I could return it. I was so pleasantly surprised when I got it! Try it, at less than $60 you aren't risking much and I think you will also like it. I read a lot of reviews on a lot of different brands of gimbals and the only complaint I could find was a few people thought the grease used was a little stiff. But there are several you tube videos showing how to change the grease. Personally, I found the grease perfect and left it the same. By the way, I have a Sony a7iii with a 200-600 mm lens that I use on this gimbal head.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

You sound bitter and defensive.
You write an epistle justifying your personal preference in order to force it on others.

ShelbyDave Loc: Lone Rock, WI

Nope, not bitter or defensive. I just noticed a lack of response in the past when recommending it and wondered if it was something about my recommendation. I was just trying to be more positive about a good product this time.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

He wasn't responding to you.

C. Loren Loc: MN

Not long ago, I had the same problem with instability and so went into my local camera store. The clerk looked at my carbon fiber tripod, he looked at the head on the tripod and then he said, “the tripod is not the problem it is the weight. “At that point he suggested that I buy a sandbag to hang underneath my tripod. I do have a backpack with camera gear in it that weighs several pounds. I normally carry that with me, so rather than buying more equipment, I simply got a hook for the bottom of my tripod and used a small piece of webbing so I can hang my camera bag under the tripod. With that being done the cost was minimal and the problem was solved.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Similar to what I suggested a plastic grocery bag works great if you need to access the camera bag while set up.
Thank you for the camera bag suggestion, very good.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

There is no single "best" tripod. I bought my first tripod 66 years ago and a photographer scoffed at it and said it was no good and maybe I could tie the legs together and make a monopod. I felt heart. Since then I have gathered a dozen tripods for different uses and capacities---from the light weight Graflex folding ones to the Tiltall which I bought used in 1967 and is still sold in B&H. That can hold up--just about anything to 44lb. If you need one in your back pack, of course you must compromise. Recently, I bought this Agra lightweight folding small tripod from B&H for less than $20. (attached photo) But if you don't mind a six pounder---get a classic Tiltall from B&H.-------ew
Tiltall specs---------------Load Capacity 44 lb / 20 kg
Maximum Working Height 74" / 188 cm
Minimum Working Height 28.5" / 72.5 cm
Closed Length 29.6" / 75.2 cm
Materials Aluminum Alloy
Weight 6.1 lb / 2.8 kg

Agfa back pack tripod from B&H--w-Quick release plate holder--inexpensive

(Download)