Tamron developing 150-600mm VC USD lens

For us a sidekick is the only practical gimbal solution for shooting longer lenses with support. We depend on the BH-55 when we need a tripod. We will not get a second tripod dedicated to a full featured gimbal. The tripod with the BH-55 fits into checked luggage and the sidekick will be in the same checked luggage. Needless to say, the camera bag is in the cabin with us. Can't wait to hang a Tamron on it.

amyandmark3 wrote in post #16630124
Sure thing. As I mentioned, you may end up liking a gimbal style, such as your Opteka, better than the Sidekick style. Probably just a personal preference thing. The Sidekicks don't come up for sale very often. When you decide you want to buy one, it may be faster to post a WTB ad and see if someone will give you a good deal.

Thanks Mark. I will make sure I will do that WTB in this forum when I want to buy.

I have a problem with my wrists which makes handholding problematic at times, and even my walking about combo of 100d and 18-200mm is occasionally too much to hold, so any slight weight saving I can get is going to be crucial.

Tripod and monopod are also going to be pretty difficult to use because of my main planned shooting location being from either a ship or a small zodiac dinghy, and given that on the ship there'll be too much engine vibration and on the zodiac erecting any kind of support is asking for total disaster, not to mention there's a lot of rocking I may have to just take the savings where I can as prior trips have proven that 400mm just isn't enough, and manually focusing with an extender doesn't have great results for me in those time sensitive and rocky conditions anyway. Getting a body that will autofocus at f8 could be one answer, but then any weight savings I make by having the 100-400 +ex and not the 150-600 are totally lost in the body instead.

I have a blackrapid already and love it, but I'm always nervous about using it with total combined weight as heavy as this lens and body will be, as the force is in totally the opposite direction than the tripod screw was designed for. I've also got a holster type affair and am hoping that might be a good way of distributing the weight and should hopefully put less pressure on the camera as my hip will take a lot of the weight.

I do think this is a close to perfect as any lens gets for me though - the price, range and quality look to be at exactly my level and needs, and it's probably too much to ask that it all comes it at a low weight too!

This is what I use. I like it.

IMAGE LINK: http://flic.kr/p/jrN9E​U

fairygen, you might consider a smaller sensor setup. I've seen some pretty amazing shots with a Canon SX50, for example. I know it's not APS-C sensor quality, but it might be a compromise worth making if your health doesn't allow a heavy setups and location does not permit tripods.

tkbslc wrote in post #16630201
fairygen, you might consider a smaller sensor setup. I've seen some pretty amazing shots with a Canon SX50, for example. I know it's not APS-C sensor quality, but it might be a compromise worth making if your health doesn't allow a heavy setups and location does not permit tripods.

It's something I've got in mind as a backup and next step, but for now I just can't quite bring myself to compromise! Eventually someone will come up with the big white quality 10-1000mm lens that weighs 1kg and costs £500 and I'll be set

I'll second the SX50HS suggestion if length is needed. It is *really* light and the superzoom is surprisingly good. It's largest aperture is only F/3.5 or something like that, so not particularly fast, but it does have a hotshoe for flash if needed.

Grizz wrote in post #16630196
This is what I use. I like it.

IMAGE LINK: http://flic.kr/p/jrN9E​U

Looks cool!

I may shock you guys, but I have to admit ( :ashamed: ) that I am using a ball head with my Sigma 120-300. With tc and body that is about 8-9 pounds and I know that I should really buy a gimball. But they are soo expensive (whining smiley here )

fairygen wrote in post #16630261
It's something I've got in mind as a backup and next step, but for now I just can't quite bring myself to compromise! Eventually someone will come up with the big white quality 10-1000mm lens that weighs 1kg and costs £500 and I'll be set

Presume you have tried wearing wrist supports like tennis players sometimes use?
Ie ones with adjustable Velcro straps not just a bit of tubular bandage.

Fairygen: You, might, actually be a good candidate for this one: http://buy.cottoncarri​er.com …VEST-FOR-ALL-p/779ssv.htm

It's a bit bulky, but would take the weight off your wrists and would travel with you without having to install anything on the boats.

Gabe, nothing wrong with using a decent ballhead for most of the shots I've seen you post of static/perched/wading birds. A ballhead is plenty good enough for that application. It's when you get to panning for In Flight shots that the gimbal's advantage starts to show. I've got lots of Bald Eagle fishing photos that I took with the gimbal style setup (mine was a Sidekick + ballhead). Probably wouldn't have had as much luck with just a ballhead. Not that you can't do In Flight shots using a ballhead, it's just easier with the gimbal.

racketman wrote in post #16630269
Presume you have tried wearing wrist supports like tennis players sometimes use?
Ie ones with adjustable Velcro straps not just a bit of tubular bandage.

I have a vast array of exciting different braces and supports which I use, but sometimes you do reach the limit of what a lot of elastic can cope with, I'm just hoping that the 150-600 isn't it!

Snydremark wrote in post #16630287
Fairygen: You, might, actually be a good candidate for this one: http://buy.cottoncarri​er.com …VEST-FOR-ALL-p/779ssv.htm

It's a bit bulky, but would take the weight off your wrists and would travel with you without having to install anything on the boats.

That looks amazing! I'll definitely research and see how well it would fit a girl rather than a guy, but is *exactly* what I could do with.

amyandmark3 wrote in post #16630288
Gabe, nothing wrong with using a decent ballhead for most of the shots I've seen you post of static/perched/wading birds. A ballhead is plenty good enough for that application. It's when you get to panning for In Flight shots that the gimbal's advantage starts to show. I've got lots of Bald Eagle fishing photos that I took with the gimbal style setup (mine was a Sidekick + ballhead). Probably wouldn't have had as much luck with just a ballhead. Not that you can't do In Flight shots using a ballhead, it's just easier with the gimbal.

I see, thanks Mark. Anytime I shoot something in motion, I quickly take the lens off the head and do it handheld.

Grizz wrote in post #16630196
This is what I use. I like it.

IMAGE LINK: http://flic.kr/p/jrN9E​U

Looks nice Craig. I see you have the Manfrotto 393.