Mini Review: HorusBennu LX-2T Traveler Ballhead

*** UPDATED 3/24/2011 ***

Hi everyone, as some of you may know, I've been meaning to do a review on many of HorusBennu's ballheads.

This thread will be about their LX-2T, a traveler sized ballhead.

Price: $50 on eBay

Specs:
Weight: 310g (0.68lb)
Ball Diameter: ??
Base Diameter (self measured): 48mm (1.69in)
Height: 85mm (3.35in)
Max Load: 18Kg (40lb)

This ballhead has two knobs, one for the panning base and one for locking. The knobs have rubber on them for gripping. The knobs feel on, but they aren't really dampened like their LX-5. They aren't loose, just not nearly as sexy feeling as the LX-5. When you lock the panning it has a tendency to rotate the ballhead slightly to the left and up. This is kind of an annoying issue.

When tested with my 70-200 f2.8 IS II with 7D (ungripped) I didn't notice much, if any, droop at 200mm. The screw clamp seems to work fine.

The ball seems to have some kind of grease/lubricant on it when the LX-5 didn't. I am not sure what this means, but I thought I would note it.

It fits the Gitzo 1541T well, but not perfectly. As you can see from the pictures the base of it sticks out a tiny bit. The legs still fold up well (see pictures) but not perfectly.

Overall I am not as impressed with the LX-2T as I am with the LX-5. I guess I can't expect too much for a $50 ballhead. It is relatively light and seems to work decently. My main complaint is panning lock issue described above.

Pictures!

Product:

Knobs:

Folded up with Gitzo 1541T:

so would you recommend this ballhead to others?

khairolnizam wrote in post #12079987
so would you recommend this ballhead to others?

Excellent question. I want to hold off answering that until I get to try out the HorusBennu FX-34Q. it is also a traveler size ballhead but it is suppose to have a higher load capacity and be nicer in general, don't worry, my FX-34Q is in the mail.

Currently, I would say this is pretty decent for $50. I honestly wouldn't test's its load capacity, I don't think this thing could hold 40 pounds of weight despite what the manufacturer claims. I would say if you are on a budget, need a traveler size ballhead, want arca type plates, and don't need to hold more than 15 pounds or so, this is prolly fine.

Again, the main thing that bothers me about it is the panning lock rotates the camera slightly to the left and upwards a little. The FX-34Q is $100 instead of $50, but it might easily be $50 better if it cures the annoyances I have with this one.

I would also like to get my hands on a Markins traveler head so I can do a comparison.

I guess I have been beating around the bush for your question. I am currently using it so I guess the answer is a tentative yes. It is a good deal at $50.

Can't wait for your review for FX-34Q.

I just bought a GT1541T myself. And currently, I have no ballheads to go with the tripod. Contemplating between Acratech GP-S and Markins Q3T.
Decision. Decision.

khairolnizam wrote in post #12087221
Can't wait for your review for FX-34Q.

I just bought a GT1541T myself. And currently, I have no ballheads to go with the tripod. Contemplating between Acratech GP-S and Markins Q3T.
Decision. Decision.

I just got my FX-34Q today. It fits the 1541T PERFECTLY. It feels super smooth, and from playing with it a little, I would say it is a better buy than the LX-2T. I won't post a review until I have at elast some kind of field test, but if you can't wait, I would say get the FX-34Q over the LX-2T.

I have a picture in this thread:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1017625

Just unboxed 7439tt tripod and LX-2T ball head. Nice tripod! The ball head seems fine for my 7D and small lens. I don't have any big glass in the budget so that isn't a concern.

The report that your camera/lens will move up slightly when you tighten the pan lock screw are correct. There is an "if" to this. If you orient the pan screw towards the back of the camera the movement is most pronounced. If you orient the pan screw under the heaviest part of your camera, normally the lens, then the movement is gone. There must be a slight play in the pan bushing and when you take the play out of that bushing with the lock screw you get movement UNLESS the weight on the pan bushing was already biased toward the pan lock screw. Long and short of all this, put the pan lock screw directly under your lens and you will see almost no movement.

I'm 6' 1" and with the center post all the way up I have to crouch a little to see through the viewfinder. Not enough that I'm bummed out, most of my tripod use will be for timelapse, just something for tall guys to keep in mind.

We'll see how things go with some use.

Brent