mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Likewise the nest is Grade AAA :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

jldeichman Loc: Rogers, Arkansas

I bought a while back the Promaster Gimbel Head and do like it. The cost was $149.95 at my local camera store. Here is a link to it: http://www.promaster.com/products.asp?product=5111

It is not as heavy duty as the Manfroto but it is not $500 + either.

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

I've seen it, and based on what I saw, I would stay away from it. Build quality is poor, movements not smooth, and it is on the small side, limiting the possible locations for the camera and lens. There is a lot of cheap plastic, especially the knobs, that look like they won't last. Also, when it is "locked down" it still slips. Cannot imaging this being used for birds in flight, and I question it's stability even with a 400mm lens.

If you only need it for movement and don't need to rely on locking it, then take a look at the Manfrotto 393 - I use that with a small modification - I added an Arca-Swiss clamp to it - and have gotten great shots with a 600mm F4. For birds in flight, however, I like a shorter lighter lens, or something like what Imagemeister has rigged up.

redhogbill Loc: antelope, calif

I am afraid some posters on this thread are correct!! I bought this EXACT gimbal head last year { and apparently paid $49.oo to much},
it feels quality enough, but there is a problem with creep, and not being real smooth,
I will sell this at some point and buy a GOOD gimbal head,
I use this with my d800 and 150~600mm , if you are patient and don't have the money to buy a real good gimbal head , this will work!!{but if I had it to do all over I would have spent more for a better head}
I would suggest going to a local camera store with your equipment and see what one feels and works good for you

good luck

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

I would not touch the Opteka. It is an inferior product. The tensioner did not work very well, the construction is rough & loose. the tripod is fine but to get quality from a gimbal you will pay as much as you did for the tripod.

raferrelljr Loc: CHARLOTTE, NC

Hey Big Sky, are you going to have any nice equipment comming off line anytime soon? Eventually will be interested in a long lense. Have you had any experience with the Sigma 300-800 zoom? Thanks.

Bob Boner

Most of the ones I see are knock-offs of the Wimberley. In my opinion, the Wimberly is the best.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

These are heavy and the tripod is also heavy as it needs to be to hold the heavy lenses. There are carbon fiber gimbal heads out there that deserve consideration. I have a SIRUI, can be found on Amazon. It is one of the most beautifully crafted heads I have ever seen and own. It is big and strong and moves with precision. The tensioner works and it rotates smoothly. NO wobble!!!

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Actually I just got done selling off my updated rental gear.
The Sigma 300-800mm F5.6 is a good lens, but at 300mm the F5.6 is slow and the lens is heavy. I prefer the Sigma 800mm F5.6 prime for image quality in long glass. The Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm lenses are a better choice for shorter focal lengths in most cases, but they will never replace good, fast primes for wildlife.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

OP,

Frankly, for a relatively small rig such as a 70-200, even with 2X on it, a full size gimbal head is a bit of overkill.

Have you considered something like the Wimberley Sidekick? Instead of replacing your ballhead entirely, a Sidekick fits into it, making it very quick and easy to switch back and forth between using the ballhead or the gimbal rig.

The Sidekick also attaches to the lens plate/tripod foot with it swung off to the side (rather than underneath, the way full size gimbal do and is needed for really big/heavy lenses). Thus, the Sidekick provides the vertical tilt, while the horizontal action relies upon your ballhead's panning axis.

I've used a Sidekick for many years with lenses up to 500/4 with teleconverters. Works great with 300/2.8, 500/4 and 800/5.6, so long as it's used in conjunction with a fairly heavy duty ballhead (mine is a Kirk BH-1, but there are many good ones).

Some people use Sidekick even with the biggest lenses, but I'd think twice about using one with larger/heavier lenses such as 400/2.8, 600/4... For those I'd want the full size gimbal head with the under-the-lens attachment.

One unexpected benefit I've found with the Sidekick is that thanks to its side mounting method it doubles nicely to put a camera with a short lens into vertical/portrait orientation (so long as the camera also has an Arca-Swiss style mounting plate). This eliminates the need for a bulky, expensive L-plate on the camera itself.

(In contrast, with a full size, under-the-lens mounting gimbal head you cannot mount a camera w/short lens directly to it without additional accessory such as Wimberley M-8 Perpendicular adapter... Without that you have to remove the gimbal head from the tripod and replace it with your ballhead.)

More recently I got a couple more tripods and now have one dedicated to long lens work and fitted with the Bieke full size gimbal... haven't had any problems with it at all... it seems to work just fine. I've had it less than a year, will have to wait and see how it works over the long run.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Agree, gimbal for a 70-200 with a 2x is overkill. That is still likely under 10 lbs. A good gimbal and tripod should hold 40 lbs or more.

raferrelljr Loc: CHARLOTTE, NC

Thanks. I think that I will go with the Tamron or Sigma 150-600 zoom when I master that I will look at a longer lense, keep a good one ready for me. Thanks.

Fat Gregory Loc: Southern New Jersey

I have both the Nest and an English Lens Master, another very fine Gimbal. Both are exceptional value and performance for their price point.

Push comes to shove and I could only have one I'd give MT's Nest the node... It does every thing I need exceptionally well and I like to support start up bricks and mortar camera stores that rent great gear. And MT sure shares his quality advice with we Ugly's frequently, honestly and asks for nothing in return, sooooo let's support him when we can.
Greg

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

I'm not a wildlife/bird photographer. I think it's really neat, as a good friend is a birder and always sharing his work with me. I appreciate the effort that goes into it. I'm more into landscape and there are times that I just want to get out there further than 200mm. Getting to 400mm is expensive regardless of camera brand. I've asked Carter for his advice in that area, as well. I settled on just getting the TC-20e III to get me out there further and for now, it's working fine. I just want a head that will "hold my camera for me". A ball head just doesn't give me confidence. My panning opportunities come along rarely, so smoothness is not critical (yet). I readily admit my criteria could change.

Nonetheless, I've ordered the Opteka, with a two-screw Arca Swiss mounting plate. I have an upcoming opportunity to test the setup. I'll give my impressions.

I want to say Thank You to all who replied. I read every message and followed every link. I value all of them.

Thank you.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

[quote=brucewells]Does anyone have any experience with the Opteka GH1 Pro gimbal head? I use a Manfrotto 055PROB tripod, and am looking for a better solution to using my 70-200 VRII w/TC20e than a ball head (which actually doesn't work at all).

[/quote I use my 70-200/f2.8 II (Canon version) on a ball head and I can't find any issues, for me, using a gimbal with that small of a lens would be overkill.