Tripod selection help / ballhead selection help please

[JaGWiRE]

So some of you might had seen my tripod knockoff thread. After some thinking, I've decided when the time comes (probably nearer to the end of the year), I will go with Gitzo and a RealllyRightStuff ballhead.

For the gitzo tripod, I am thinking of the 2540. It extends to about 5 feet, which I think is good for me because I'm about 5'1/5'2, and it has 4 sections, so it folds down to 22" (easy to travel.) It weighs 3.1lb and supports 25lb. I know that's a lot of support, and I could probably get away with a lighter one, but I am planning to add a 70-200 2.8 IS to my setup and a 300 2.8L IS eventually. I figure the 300 2.8, with my body (and or say a future MK II or MK III), has to be atleast 8-10lbs, and my friend said go with whatever you can get that supports the most weight for optimum stability. Any comments on this selection are welcome.

For the head, I'm in a, well, rut. The RRS-40 and RRS-55 are the ones I'm comparing. I plan to keep my Manfrotto 681 tripod, although I'm not sure what I'm going to do with my 486RC2 ball head (once I get the RRS head, I don't want to be switching quick release plates all the time, my friend told me to use the monopod without a ball head for the greatest support).

The 55 seems to be what they recommend if you have a 300 2.8L IS, although they do seem to indicate the 40 can support that, but it's not recommended if your using the 300 as everyday usage. I'm not sure if or if not the 300 will get that much time on the tripod, but the peace of mind knowing I could use it on the tripod if I needed to, and have a stable setup would be nice.
The 40 seems to be recommended for a 200mm lens (so my 70-200 2.8 would be fine), and can support up to a 300mm 2.8 lens (I think that's what the catalogue says.) The 40 supports 18lbs vs the 50lb capacity of the 55.
Now I am not sure what to go with. The 55 would really weigh my setup down, and it'd make the tripod pretty damn large at the top. I'd prefer to have the portability of the 40 (and I could use it on other things like the monopod or if I get some sort of low to the ground tripod), but not if that means I couldn't use a certain part of my setup stably.


Lastly, if I was to go with the 40 for the extra flexibility it offers, would it make more sense to go with a tripod that supports 18lbs and is lighter? If so, would that setup still be okay for a possible 300 2.8 in the future, and still stable with the rest of my gear and soon to come 70-200 2.8 IS?
Thanks, and sorry if this post seems a little long.

[Team Scream]

I have 2 30D bodies, the 300 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS along with some other lenses.
I went through the same dilemma you are going through now.
What to get that will make my life as easy as possible yet afford me the stability in reasonably windy conditions, be quick and easy to set up and be as portable as possible while not sacrificing any of the other conditions.
I do not shoot with my 300 f2.8 all that often yet when I do I want stability.
I chose to go with the Gitzo GT3530 SLV and the RRS BH-55 with LR clamp.
I am so freaking happy that I did not go with the BH-40 that I cannot begin to explain.
The BH-55 is such an amazing head and the really cool thing is that the knobs are bigger and the ball is bigger so the whole set up has a really robust feel to it and it takes such little effort to lock the system down and start shooting that it is amazing.
I would say check out the 3530SLV, it folds up nicely and is easily carried on my back pack or in the ThinkTank Bazooka with the head on perfectly.
If you can afford the BH-55 GET IT do not go with the BH-40 if you are going to get a 300 f2.8, if all you had was the 70-200 I would say you would be safe with the BH-40 but you will be bummed when you upgrade to larger glass.
I cant say enough about the combo that I have, it is absolutely first rate and my photos show the improvement, much sharper and more keepers since upgrading to this package.
Good luck.

[JaGWiRE]

I have 2 30D bodies, the 300 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS along with some other lenses.
I went through the same dilemma you are going through now.
What to get that will make my life as easy as possible yet afford me the stability in reasonably windy conditions, be quick and easy to set up and be as portable as possible while not sacrificing any of the other conditions.
I do not shoot with my 300 f2.8 all that often yet when I do I want stability.
I chose to go with the Gitzo GT3530 SLV and the RRS BH-55 with LR clamp.
I am so freaking happy that I did not go with the BH-40 that I cannot begin to explain.
The BH-55 is such an amazing head and the really cool thing is that the knobs are bigger and the ball is bigger so the whole set up has a really robust feel to it and it takes such little effort to lock the system down and start shooting that it is amazing.
I would say check out the 3530SLV, it folds up nicely and is easily carried on my back pack or in the ThinkTank Bazooka with the head on perfectly.
If you can afford the BH-55 GET IT do not go with the BH-40 if you are going to get a 300 f2.8, if all you had was the 70-200 I would say you would be safe with the BH-40 but you will be bummed when you upgrade to larger glass.
I cant say enough about the combo that I have, it is absolutely first rate and my photos show the improvement, much sharper and more keepers since upgrading to this package.
Good luck.
I see, but your combo is relatively heavy, if I was planning to use the 300 on it constantly (or more like a 400 and 600), I would definitley consider something like that.
So you don't think the 40 will do a subpar job for the 300 2.8? For me, it's not about the money, it's more about the physical weight and all. If I'm going to be carrying around so much gear, I think every pound matters.
Any comments on the 2540?
The 55 would maybe be fine if I took it off the tripod and put it IN my bag, and left the legs on the outside of the bag itself.

[René Damkot]

I'm in the same dilemma, but funds won't allow the purchace this year anyways..... Then again I did do a lot of reading: Gitzo states in the catalog something like that the 2 series CF tripods are recommended for up to 200mm, or 300mm if you are carefull. So I'd say legs and head are fine for the intended use. (RRS also recommends a series 3 tripod with BH55, or series 2 with BH40).
You might also want to consider Markins heads...

[Team Scream]

I see, but your combo is relatively heavy, if I was planning to use the 300 on it constantly (or more like a 400 and 600), I would definitley consider something like that.
So you don't think the 40 will do a subpar job for the 300 2.8? For me, it's not about the money, it's more about the physical weight and all. If I'm going to be carrying around so much gear, I think every pound matters.
Any comments on the 2540?
The 55 would maybe be fine if I took it off the tripod and put it IN my bag, and left the legs on the outside of the bag itself.

Well if you are splitting hairs with weight then I guess the BH-40 and the 2540 is the way to go, to me the 2540 was too short for one thing as I am 6' tall, and the other thing was how spindly it felt, I think it would be fine indoors or at the park on a nice calm day but I use mine in places where there is some wind from time to time and the 300 with the hood on is like a parachute so the torsional rigidity of the 2540 was not there with the BH-40 for that glass.
For anything below the SuperTele's you would be fine.
I am sure there are a lot of people with the 2540 who love them.

The weight difference between a 3530 and a 2540 is not that great.

GT3530 - 1.8 kg / 4.0 lbs - capacity 18.0 kg / 39.6 lbs

GT2540 - 1.4 kg / 3.1 lbs - capacity 12.0 kg / 26.4 lbs

BH-40 LR - Weight: 1.1 pounds (479g)

BH-55 LR - Weight: 1.90 pounds (861g)

So the total difference between these 2 combinations is a little more than a pound, while the load capacity and stability is increased by about 75%
Dont forget to factor in how much weight you will hang on the tripod when you are adding weight for stability as well (i.e. your camera bag or whatever).

Trust me, the 3530 with the BH-55 is almost not noticeable hanging on the back of my Tamrac Expedition 5 which has ALL of my gear in it sans the 300 f2.8
I need to carry all of my gear when I go shoot a race, and I need to be able to stow it all in a hurry and move to another part of the race track on a moments notice so this combination is perfect for what I do.
Good luck with your purchase, whichever combo you choose, you will be getting the best there is period.

One last thing to consider:
The BH-40 is slightly shorter than the BH-55 so if you shoot portrait mode using the drop notch in the head, you may have to reposition your camera in the QR clamp (with the BH-40) to clear the top of the tripod, with my set up I can leave the camera centered on the clamp, but it just barely clears the top of the tripod. I know this sounds like splitting hairs also but when you are in a hurry, one more adjustment can mean missing the shot.

[JaGWiRE]

Well if you are splitting hairs with weight then I guess the BH-40 and the 2540 is the way to go, to me the 2540 was too short for one thing as I am 6' tall, and the other thing was how spindly it felt, I think it would be fine indoors or at the park on a nice calm day but I use mine in places where there is some wind from time to time and the 300 with the hood on is like a parachute so the torsional rigidity of the 2540 was not there with the BH-40 for that glass.
For anything below the SuperTele's you would be fine.
I am sure there are a lot of people with the 2540 who love them.

The weight difference between a 3530 and a 2540 is not that great.

GT3530 - 1.8 kg / 4.0 lbs - capacity 18.0 kg / 39.6 lbs

GT2540 - 1.4 kg / 3.1 lbs - capacity 12.0 kg / 26.4 lbs

BH-40 LR - Weight: 1.1 pounds (479g)

BH-55 LR - Weight: 1.90 pounds (861g)

So the total difference between these 2 combinations is a little more than a pound, while the load capacity and stability is increased by about 75%
Dont forget to factor in how much weight you will hang on the tripod when you are adding weight for stability as well (i.e. your camera bag or whatever).

Trust me, the 3530 with the BH-55 is almost not noticeable hanging on the back of my Tamrac Expedition 5 which has ALL of my gear in it sans the 300 f2.8
I need to carry all of my gear when I go shoot a race, and I need to be able to stow it all in a hurry and move to another part of the race track on a moments notice so this combination is perfect for what I do.
Good luck with your purchase, whichever combo you choose, you will be getting the best there is period.

One last thing to consider:
The BH-40 is slightly shorter than the BH-55 so if you shoot portrait mode using the drop notch in the head, you may have to reposition your camera in the QR clamp (with the BH-40) to clear the top of the tripod, with my set up I can leave the camera centered on the clamp, but it just barely clears the top of the tripod. I know this sounds like splitting hairs also but when you are in a hurry, one more adjustment can mean missing the shot.
Every pound matters though, right?
I'm thinking of getting the 2540, and 55, and putting the 55 in my bag when I am not using the tripod. The biggest factor about me wanting a lighter tripod is that every pound matters, and when I am actually shooting, I'll be carrying the tripod around various areas for short periods of time. That setup I listed will still probably be 5lbs with the 55 mounted.
BTW, I believe that tripod is series 2. Rene states a pretty decent point though. I'm pretty sure eventually (end of year or sometime next year), I'll have a 300 2.8, but I doubt I'm ever going to have something bigger like a 500 or 600.
I thought the 55 weighed a lot more then the 40, like 2lbs. I guess it makes more sense to just get the 55?
Tean, to me, your tripod is a little confusing in the "why" department, considering the setup is not going to weigh even 10 pounds, and the tripod already supports 2.5 times the weight that the setup might be in the occasion something weird is done (i.e. flash on top of camera, or whatever). I wouldn't worry about that setup even with like a 600mm, as the lens and body combo would not be close to topping out on the max supported weight, although I'm not sure if it would be as stable with a 600mm as your setup might be.

[MDJAK]

I have the Gitzo G1157. It's the newer 6x CF with the anti rotation legs.

Be sure not to get one that doesn't have that as it is a major PIA to lock and unlock the legs otherwise.

As to the head, I got the B55 before the B40 was on the drawing board.

If you're really concerned about what will be the right combo for the 300, I'd go with the sidekick (or full Wimberley for that matter.)

There's just not that many occasions where a tripod is necessary with the 300 f2.8 unless shooting birds and that's where the versatility of the sidekick comes into play.

That will be my next tripod head.

mark

[JaGWiRE]

I have the Gitzo G1157. It's the newer 6x CF with the anti rotation legs.

Be sure not to get one that doesn't have that as it is a major PIA to lock and unlock the legs otherwise.

As to the head, I got the B55 before the B40 was on the drawing board.

If you're really concerned about what will be the right combo for the 300, I'd go with the sidekick (or full Wimberley for that matter.)

There's just not that many occasions where a tripod is necessary with the 300 f2.8 unless shooting birds and that's where the versatility of the sidekick comes into play.

That will be my next tripod head.

mark

So I'm looking for one with anti rotation legs? Will it say on the box or catalogue or something? This model I listed is a 2007 model.
Like I said, the reason I am debating between the 40 and 55, is because I don't think it'll be everyday I'll have the 300 2.8 on it. The 300 is probably going to be mainly a monopod or handheld lens for me. If it comes down to a matter of the 40 doing the job, but the 55 being a little more stable to the fact that if I was using it everyday it'd be worth it, I might go with the 40.

[Team Scream]

So I'm looking for one with anti rotation legs? Will it say on the box or catalogue or something? This model I listed is a 2007 model.
Like I said, the reason I am debating between the 40 and 55, is because I don't think it'll be everyday I'll have the 300 2.8 on it. The 300 is probably going to be mainly a monopod or handheld lens for me. If it comes down to a matter of the 40 doing the job, but the 55 being a little more stable to the fact that if I was using it everyday it'd be worth it, I might go with the 40.

Yes Jag, the 2007 models will all have the anti rotation locks/legs.
So you are fine there.
And I agree with you about the 300. I mostly hand hold mine too.
There is the occasion however where I will tripod mount it, and place myself in a corner on a race track and wait for the subject to come into my FOV, and pull the trigger.
I like shooting like that and my results are good.
It is certainly NOT an every day occurence however.
Good luck with your purchase.!

[JohnJ80]

Well if you are splitting hairs with weight then I guess the BH-40 and the 2540 is the way to go, to me the 2540 was too short for one thing as I am 6' tall, and the other thing was how spindly it felt, I think it would be fine indoors or at the park on a nice calm day but I use mine in places where there is some wind from time to time and the 300 with the hood on is like a parachute so the torsional rigidity of the 2540 was not there with the BH-40 for that glass.
For anything below the SuperTele's you would be fine.
I am sure there are a lot of people with the 2540 who love them.

The weight difference between a 3530 and a 2540 is not that great.

GT3530 - 1.8 kg / 4.0 lbs - capacity 18.0 kg / 39.6 lbs

GT2540 - 1.4 kg / 3.1 lbs - capacity 12.0 kg / 26.4 lbs

BH-40 LR - Weight: 1.1 pounds (479g)

BH-55 LR - Weight: 1.90 pounds (861g)

So the total difference between these 2 combinations is a little more than a pound, while the load capacity and stability is increased by about 75%
Dont forget to factor in how much weight you will hang on the tripod when you are adding weight for stability as well (i.e. your camera bag or whatever).

Trust me, the 3530 with the BH-55 is almost not noticeable hanging on the back of my Tamrac Expedition 5 which has ALL of my gear in it sans the 300 f2.8
I need to carry all of my gear when I go shoot a race, and I need to be able to stow it all in a hurry and move to another part of the race track on a moments notice so this combination is perfect for what I do.
Good luck with your purchase, whichever combo you choose, you will be getting the best there is period.

One last thing to consider:
The BH-40 is slightly shorter than the BH-55 so if you shoot portrait mode using the drop notch in the head, you may have to reposition your camera in the QR clamp (with the BH-40) to clear the top of the tripod, with my set up I can leave the camera centered on the clamp, but it just barely clears the top of the tripod. I know this sounds like splitting hairs also but when you are in a hurry, one more adjustment can mean missing the shot.

Good post.

Here's some stuff I wrote for another post that may be helpful:

"A tripod has to deal with damping two sources of vibration - up from the feet (think of stamping your feet alongside the tripod) and twisting or torsional vibrations. These vibrations are on the order of 0.050mm - virtually too small to see with the naked eye looking at the tripod or feel. This amplitude of vibration will give you about 10 pixels of blur and be noticeable in your image.

Up from the feet is managed by materials that absorb vibration and by mass. You can easily increase the mass of your tripod by hanging weight on it. It is, obviously, very difficult to make your tripod lighter.

Of the two, the twisting is much harder to deal with because it is much more of a complicated problem. You need to have a rigid spider on the tripod, and you need to have rigid legs. There can be no play in them or an oscillation can start.

Using just the load rating to asses the tripod's ability to support your camera and lens is not useful. Many of the tripod makers will also suggest a maximum focal length to support as well. For example, my Gitzo 1258 will support 17.6lbs AND up to a 200mm lens. No 200mm lens that I would own and my camera come close to this number.

The reason the lens size is important is two fold - one is that the max level of vibration that can be damped suggests that blur starts to show up in longer lenses with their higher magnification. The other is that lenses of a certain focal length start to get to a large enough size that their windage becomes important in the twisting equation because the camera/lens setup is asymetric with respect to windage and there is more leverage to twist. The tripod has a finite ability to deal with that.

From what I can tell, there isn't a tremendous difference in tripods for the vibration up the legs and this can be greately mitigated by adding additional weight (like hanging your camera bag). However, there is a HUGE difference in the ability of the tripod to resist and damp torsional vibration and this is where the bulk of the engineering goes.

To this end, the design of the legs and the spider are critical. The design and selection of materials to get to max rigidity at a reasonable weight is the tough part and this is really what you pay for. Gitzo pretty much owns this corner in the market with their CF tripods."

The 2540, IIRC, is rated for use up to 200mm and an occasional 300mm. The f/2.8 is a heavy lens and larger windage. I'd also recommend stepping up to the 3540 for this combination. If you do intend to use it with the 2540, I do it with the legs not fully extended (think kneeling or sitting on the ground) if there was pretty much any breeze.

I don't remember who said it but the right size of tripod to use is the heaviest one you will carry all the time.

For ballheads, I think the BH55 would be oversized on the 2540. The BH40 was really designed for that specific size of tripod and would be the best fit. The BH55 would seem to me to make it top heavy and would weigh almost what the whole legset weighs. I don't think that would be a good fit at all.

I have the 1258 and the 3540. the 1258 has the BH40 on it and it is true that that ballhead looks like it was made for that tripod (I believe it was). The 3540 I have with the Markins M20 on it since the Markins M20 is about half the weight of the BH55. While the BH55 is a nice ballhead, it is far too heavy for what I want to use it for and the M20 is really quite nice (i like it very much). That means that the whole weight of the 3540 rig is 3.8lbs + 1.2lbs for the ballhead or 5lbs. You will have to decide if that works for you but that would be a much better choice for that 300mm f/2.8.


J.

[JaGWiRE]

Good post.

Here's some stuff I wrote for another post that may be helpful:

"A tripod has to deal with damping two sources of vibration - up from the feet (think of stamping your feet alongside the tripod) and twisting or torsional vibrations. These vibrations are on the order of 0.050mm - virtually too small to see with the naked eye looking at the tripod or feel. This amplitude of vibration will give you about 10 pixels of blur and be noticeable in your image.

Up from the feet is managed by materials that absorb vibration and by mass. You can easily increase the mass of your tripod by hanging weight on it. It is, obviously, very difficult to make your tripod lighter.

Of the two, the twisting is much harder to deal with because it is much more of a complicated problem. You need to have a rigid spider on the tripod, and you need to have rigid legs. There can be no play in them or an oscillation can start.

Using just the load rating to asses the tripod's ability to support your camera and lens is not useful. Many of the tripod makers will also suggest a maximum focal length to support as well. For example, my Gitzo 1258 will support 17.6lbs AND up to a 200mm lens. No 200mm lens that I would own and my camera come close to this number.

The reason the lens size is important is two fold - one is that the max level of vibration that can be damped suggests that blur starts to show up in longer lenses with their higher magnification. The other is that lenses of a certain focal length start to get to a large enough size that their windage becomes important in the twisting equation because the camera/lens setup is asymetric with respect to windage and there is more leverage to twist. The tripod has a finite ability to deal with that.

From what I can tell, there isn't a tremendous difference in tripods for the vibration up the legs and this can be greately mitigated by adding additional weight (like hanging your camera bag). However, there is a HUGE difference in the ability of the tripod to resist and damp torsional vibration and this is where the bulk of the engineering goes.

To this end, the design of the legs and the spider are critical. The design and selection of materials to get to max rigidity at a reasonable weight is the tough part and this is really what you pay for. Gitzo pretty much owns this corner in the market with their CF tripods."

The 2540, IIRC, is rated for use up to 200mm and an occasional 300mm. The f/2.8 is a heavy lens and larger windage. I'd also recommend stepping up to the 3540 for this combination. If you do intend to use it with the 2540, I do it with the legs not fully extended (think kneeling or sitting on the ground) if there was pretty much any breeze.

I don't remember who said it but the right size of tripod to use is the heaviest one you will carry all the time.

For ballheads, I think the BH55 would be oversized on the 2540. The BH40 was really designed for that specific size of tripod and would be the best fit. The BH55 would seem to me to make it top heavy and would weigh almost what the whole legset weighs. I don't think that would be a good fit at all.

I have the 1258 and the 3540. the 1258 has the BH40 on it and it is true that that ballhead looks like it was made for that tripod (I believe it was). The 3540 I have with the Markins M20 on it since the Markins M20 is about half the weight of the BH55. While the BH55 is a nice ballhead, it is far too heavy for what I want to use it for and the M20 is really quite nice (i like it very much). That means that the whole weight of the 3540 rig is 3.8lbs + 1.2lbs for the ballhead or 5lbs. You will have to decide if that works for you but that would be a much better choice for that 300mm f/2.8.


J.
I think the 300 2.8 will get much much more use on the monopid (maybe without head), then on the tripod. I can't think of that many situations I'd want a huge lens strapped to a tripod. even on a race track or sidelines for a sport, I'd rather have it on a monopod, or maybe something like the low boy mighty tripod (see my other thread.) I can see myself using it for a moon shot with a 2x tele ocne and a while, or if I see a landscape shot that I really want, and is only achievable at a large focal length and narrow fov, or want to do some narrow DOF landscape stuff, but not that often.

I am wondering, if the 300 2.8 on a tripod is going to be a once every few weeks to month occurance, could I get away with the 2540? I think as a tripod it's probably a lot smaller then the 3540 too. Also, could the 40 head be used on a monopod (manfrotto 681) with the 300 2.8, with good preformance?
BTW, the difference between the 3540 and 55, and 2540 with 40, is almost 2 pounds. In reality, when I look at how much all my gear will probably end up weighing, it's not significant, but tripod weight seems to be the one that drives me nuts the most, probably because when I am doing landscapes or whatever, I am walking with the tripod in my hands between each shot I am setting up in that area I'm shooting in, and if the legs are heavy or the head is heavy, I feel it. With the weight I see my bag being in the future, I think every pound will help though.

Also, your post clarified a lot of my questions about why I needed a tripod from gitzo rated for xx load capacity, or whatever. I didn't understand it, but your post clarified a lot of that, and sort of made me think to myself "why didn't I realize that myself"?
BTW, the 1258 looks very similar to the 2540 in specs (min height, max height, closed length, 4 sections, series 2, etc), other then max load capacity. If the 40 works well on that, it should on the 2540 too. Regardless, I don't think this is a purchase I'm making for another several months, but it is worth researching.

[SkipD]

Here's a suggestion - I see you sweating over published specifications, etc. Instead of doing that (which is apparently getting you nowhere), take a trip to a well-stocked photo dealer and try out a few tripods. You will, probably in much less than an hour, be able to make all the decisions you need to make. Find out how the various types of tripods stand up to the equipment you intend to support on them. Find out how they are for carrying.

The bottom line is that you will NOT find a truly lightweight tripod that will both safely and rigidly support a heavy long lens unless it costs way more than most people make in a month.

As to a question in your first post of this thread: You can get a different quick release mount system to put on your 486RC2 ball head, making it a 486WHATEVER ball head. The quick release mount has a female thread (3/8-16, I believe). Just unscrew the existing mount and screw on another.

[JaGWiRE]

Here's a suggestion - I see you sweating over published specifications, etc. Instead of doing that (which is apparently getting you nowhere), take a trip to a well-stocked photo dealer and try out a few tripods. You will, probably in much less than an hour, be able to make all the decisions you need to make. Find out how the various types of tripods stand up to the equipment you intend to support on them. Find out how they are for carrying.

The bottom line is that you will NOT find a truly lightweight tripod that will both safely and rigidly support a heavy long lens unless it costs way more than most people make in a month.

As to a question in your first post of this thread: You can get a different quick release mount system to put on your 486RC2 ball head, making it a 486WHATEVER ball head. The quick release mount has a female thread (3/8-16, I believe). Just unscrew the existing mount and screw on another.

Oh, I see.
Yeah, the tripod, Saturday I'm probably going to go to Vistek and take a look at the various models. With no 300 at hand right now it'll be hard to say exactly though.
What bout the Bigma? I might get one in the future (still get the 300 2.8 eventually too), just thinking of it because it's very versatile. It's 500mm, but it's relatively light. Not sure if any of these tripods would do the trick or not.

[JohnJ80]

I think the 300 2.8 will get much much more use on the monopid (maybe without head), then on the tripod. I can't think of that many situations I'd want a huge lens strapped to a tripod. even on a race track or sidelines for a sport, I'd rather have it on a monopod, or maybe something like the low boy mighty tripod (see my other thread.) I can see myself using it for a moon shot with a 2x tele ocne and a while, or if I see a landscape shot that I really want, and is only achievable at a large focal length and narrow fov, or want to do some narrow DOF landscape stuff, but not that often.

Landscape photography is not confined to wide angle lenses. To isolate an element, a long length lens is often very useable.

If you want to use something slower than 1/600s you probably will want that 300mm on a tripod. You will have a greatly expanded choice of exposure settings if you have that lens on a tripod. 300mm can also make a nice macro lens (I use my 300mm f/4 for that all the time).



I am wondering, if the 300 2.8 on a tripod is going to be a once every few weeks to month occurance, could I get away with the 2540? I think as a tripod it's probably a lot smaller then the 3540 too. Also, could the 40 head be used on a monopod (manfrotto 681) with the 300 2.8, with good preformance?


Looking at the RRS stuff last night, I noticed that they recommend the BH40 up to a 300mm f/4 or 70-200 f/2.8. They recommend the BH55 for 300 f/2.8. I'd go with their recommendations.

I believe Gitzo recommends the 2540 for up to 200mm. For the reasons I posted above, I'd recommend not violating that UNLESS you will not fully extend the legs (kneel or sit) to keep the legs stiffer and shorter. The 300mm f/2.8 presents a very large wind target (sail) AND it is a much heavier weight on the end of a long lever arm. The lever arm, of course, amplifies the effect that it can have on the tripod and therefore on the image.


BTW, the difference between the 3540 and 55, and 2540 with 40, is almost 2 pounds.

But only about 1 lbs with M20 from Markins. The BH55 is too heavy to schlep around in weight critical applications, IMO. I don't think the BH55 offers much (if anything) more than the M20 - they both are excellent - except the M20 is about half the weight of the BH55.

I would absolutely not put the BH55 on the 2540. It is too heavy and I think you would be approaching an unstable topheavy situation. Per RRS own spec, they do not recommend using the 300mm f/2.8 on the BH40.



In reality, when I look at how much all my gear will probably end up weighing, it's not significant, but tripod weight seems to be the one that drives me nuts the most, probably because when I am doing landscapes or whatever, I am walking with the tripod in my hands between each shot I am setting up in that area I'm shooting in, and if the legs are heavy or the head is heavy, I feel it. With the weight I see my bag being in the future, I think every pound will help though.

I agree - weight in an issue. For me, when the tripod and ballhead combo goes over 5lbs then my use of it drops exponentially. The 3540 + M20 is right at that limit but it is FAR more stable than my excellent 1258. I do plan to sell the 1258 shortly and replace it with the 1540 which has the same load limit and lens recommendations as my 1258 but weighs a lot less. That will be my very portable but very, very 3540 light tripod.

The 3540 is a bit heavier than the 1258 but not by much (<8oz). It is just about as long. The difference is that it is somewhat larger around when closed. It is also considerably more stable than my 1258. Don't get me wrong, the 1258 is a terrific tripod and very stable, but the 3540 is a veritable rock and very light to boot.

Also, your post clarified a lot of my questions about why I needed a tripod from gitzo rated for xx load capacity, or whatever. I didn't understand it, but your post clarified a lot of that, and sort of made me think to myself "why didn't I realize that myself"?

Glad to help. Tripods are confusing.


BTW, the 1258 looks very similar to the 2540 in specs (min height, max height, closed length, 4 sections, series 2, etc), other then max load capacity. If the 40 works well on that, it should on the 2540 too. Regardless, I don't think this is a purchase I'm making for another several months, but it is worth researching.

The 1258 and the 2540 are very similar except for the CF layup is different (I think), the locks are stiffer for sure (g-loc) and there may be some other differences. This makes Gitzo able to move the load ratings up a notch for that tripod size.

J.

[JaGWiRE]

Alright, I have no idea what I'm going to go with, but when the time gets closer and I've tested various models out I'm sure I'll know.
For some reason I feel the 300 2.8 would still be fine with the 2540 and 40, maybe not as stable as the other setup, but still pretty decent, cause CDS I believe said in the other thread he has used my current tripod with a 500 F4L, and my tripod right now is only the Manfrotto 3001.
I'll see anyway, who knows what I'll end up with.

[JohnJ80]

It is all going to matter how much wind you are using it in.

Here is a good article on tripod vibrations etc...

http://markins.com/charlie/report4e6.pdf

Gitzo is very conservative in their specs so you do have that in your favor.

J.