Good head for 400/2.8 lens

I have a Bogen 3036 (now 475) tripod and am about to recieve a Canon 400 f/2.8 II L lens. The ballhead on this tripod is a bit aged, and really doesn't lock down as well as it should. So, I'm looking for a sturdy, moderately priced ballhead or other type of head that can support this lens (approx 13-14 pounds) along with the 5D & the occasional teleconverter.

I'd love something like the Manfrotto 468MG Hydrostatic ball head with the RC3 rapid-connect plate, but it might be a bit expensive. If anybody knows of something very durable, locks down good, and can be adjusted to deal with changes in weight distribution, please feel free to post information.

TIA.

Canon's heaviest lens?

Depending on your styke and subject,. either a Gimble head like the Wimberly or the Manfrotto cheap version,...

Or a SuperSolid ball head like the RRS or Markins. In all cases go Arca QR.

I would seriously want a Wimberley for that monster.

Thanks, you two. Sounds like I'll be investing in a new head soon enough.

That lens is way too heavy for a ball head. As recommended, buy a Wimberley or, if your budget won't stretch that far, the Manfrotto gimble mount will handle it, just not as well.

Looks like the Wimberly - the budget will take the hit. But I'll hang on until after the holidays so that I can save up a bit.

The lens isn't quite in my hands yet, though I drool in anticipation.

Tom,

I can't knock the Wimberley suggestions, but give this a look:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …EG&addedTroughT​ype=search

It is a Manfrotto Fluid head with a 13+ pound capacity. The 400 f2.8 puts you close to that, but I'm liking this head very much for motorsports, and I think it would work well for nature. Manfrotto recommends it for long lenses and spotting scopes. It doesn't have the 'look at that!' appearance of the Wimberley, but between the mount points on the foot of the lens and the sliding QR plate you can adjust it to be balanced, rear bias, or front bias. The motion is very smooth, and the drag can be adjusted. And the best part is that it is way cheaper than a Wimberley. I'll be investing in my second one shortly, and I couldn't be happier with the results.

All of which is one man's opinion. . .

Have Fun,

I just checked the Canon museum - this version of the 400/2.8 weighs 13.2 pounds (if my conversion is right - 28 grams to the ounce, 16 ounces to the pound). It's the II version, and is a bit heavier than the newest IS rendition. I don't think that head is going to be strong enough, or at least not rock-steady which is what I want.

The one Manfrotto/Bogen ballhead I looked at seemed promising, though it is a bit expensive also, but it does use the sliding RC3 plate which is a big plus for getting balance. This is that one:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ghType=category​Navigation

I don't know that it competes with the Wimberly, though. I don't want to overspend, but I really don't want to buy a head twice. The old Model 168 ball on this 'pod, while looking a bit rough, is pretty stout but not rock-solid (and it's a bit worn). Even the 300/4 with 2X and the 1D2 was a little less than steady on it. It certainly wasn't going to fall, but it didn't have the strong locking that I'm looking for.

Tom,

Here's the 17.6 pound version (that should cover the lens and whatever you put on the back of it):

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ghType=category​Navigation

Keep in mind, these are not ball heads, but rather pan and tilt heads - mostly used for video, but very usable for still photography. This one is still less than half the cost of the Wimberley, and I don't think you'll have to worry about buying it twice.

But if you are already sold on the Wimberley, there's not much I can say to sway you. Good luck with your search.

Have Fun,

I'm not quite sold on the Wimberly, though I like it and it is on the short list. I just want to make sure that I have something that, when I lock it down, won't creep, drift, sag, or otherwise move. I've had some sag issues with heads that were carrying well below their rated weight.

Another reason I balk is that I'd heard from a couple of people that you should select a head with a capacity of 1.5X the actual weight of the equipment that you'll be putting on it. I really don't know if that's good advice or not, but it doesn't hurt to overbuild a bit.

This Bogen gimble is at least as strong as the Wimberly,. since it's "double sided"

http://www.bogenimagin​g.us …?sectionid=103&​itemid=349

the Wimberly is more refined,. slicker and more adjustable. It's made of cast metals,. with a hollow centre which makes it lighter,. The Manfrooto is made from solid bar stock,. definitely stronger,. but probably heavier.

I would not however be surprised if the Wimberly superior locking hardware meant that it could be more rigid when locked down. though there is nothing inherently weak about the Manfrottos,. it's not as well made as the Wimberly,. and locking surfaces are smaller.

As for ballheads,. I don't recomend them for this application,. but there are a few that are certainly tough enough to ahndle the weight. Just read there ratimgs and your see,. as much as 35-90 pounds in some cases. But tough enough to handle the weight does not equal easy to use,. thus my recomendation for a gimble head.

Check out Markins' website and see it used with a Nikon 800mm lens
http://www.markinsamer​ica.com/MA5/M10.php

If the 'package' (lens plus camera/grip, whatever) is balanced on the head, there should be very little concern for sag, droop, whatever from the head. My 501 has a very solid lockdown for pan/tilt.

I don't know about the design criteria for tripod heads, but for things like ladders the rated capacity is usually conservative - if it is rated at 200 pounds, it can handle 250 pounds. I understand overbuilding, perhaps to permit growth to a larger lens - but I think you've probably topped out unless you are thinking of procuring a Canon 1200mm.

But if you really want to bulk up, go for the 22 pound version:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ghType=category​Navigation

It is still $100 cheaper than the Look At Me! Wimberley.

It's funny - a year ago, I wouldn't have taken a fluid head for free since it is only a 2-way head (same as the Wimberley), but now I find myself defending them against the highly hyped, highly priced, and much more flashy Wimberley. I guess I'm just more interested in results than looks.

Have Fun,

How about when you point the lens a bit skyward? I do that on occasion.

I don't know about the design criteria for tripod heads, but for things like ladders the rated capacity is usually conservative - if it is rated at 200 pounds, it can handle 250 pounds. I understand overbuilding, perhaps to permit growth to a larger lens - but I think you've probably topped out unless you are thinking of procuring a Canon 1200mm.

LOL - that isn't very likely. Had this not been a good deal, I wouldn't have splurged for it. The next long lens I get will be something more akin to a Takahashi telescope.

But if you really want to bulk up, go for the 22 pound version:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ghType=category​Navigation

It is still $100 cheaper than the Look At Me! Wimberley.

It's funny - a year ago, I wouldn't have taken a fluid head for free since it is only a 2-way head (same as the Wimberley), but now I find myself defending them against the highly hyped, highly priced, and much more flashy Wimberley. I guess I'm just more interested in results than looks.

Not too concerned about the looks either. If you saw the worn look of the big old Bogen tripod that I'll be using for this, you'd know that I wasn't too worried about the cosmetic appeal of the equipment. Probably my best bet would be to take the camera and lens into a big camera store and try the combination on several heads.

Always having fun!

Thanks, y'all, for your input. I have time yet. Won't be buying until after the holidays anyway.
There's still time to get me steered right.

Tom W wrote:
How about when you point the lens a bit skyward? I do that on occasion.

Probably my best bet would be to take the camera and lens into a big camera store and try the combination on several heads.

All three of the heads I pointed out will tilt up 60 degrees and down 90 degrees. While it is true that the head pivots on an axis that is below the center of gravity of the lens, the pivot point on the 501 is only about 2 inches below the deck where the QR plate sits, so I don't think weight shift is a huge issue. But I might be wrong.

Trying them out would be an excellent move. I would like to try a Wimberley to see what all the fuss is about. Come to think of it, Wimberley's headquarters is less than 15 miles from one of my favorite race tracks. Perhaps I can get them to hold a 'demo day' at Summit Point next year.

Have Fun,