Will this tripod be ok for my new (used) 300 2.8 is?

I just picked up a 300 2.8 is an my current tripod is a manfrotto 055xprob with a 498rc2 ball head. Since this isnt one of the really heavy lenses will this be ok or do I have to get a gimbal?

i have that tripod and its a beast and the head is rated for 17lbs, so yeah, i think it would suffice.

mike_311 wrote in post #14104698
i have that tripod and its a beast and the head is rated for 17lbs, so yeah, i think it would suffice.

That is what I thought, but I always hear people who have a ridiculously beefy tripod. I didn't want to have to buy a new one since this one has been good.

I found the Manfrotto 681B monopod is great for the lens when you don't want to set up a tripod or hand hold either.

i wouldn't get a new tripod, i would worry more about whether you should get a collar for the lens so it balances better on the tripod.

your tripod is good enough. you might need a new ballhead though

My two cents, you need to try it, a few exposures should tell you. Perhaps lock the mirror up and try a longer exposure to ensure you are okay. Perhaps take some exposures that you normally would take as well.

I use an old Medium Format Chicago Magestic with geared head (about $100 used) but it is heavy to move unless in the the trunk of a car.

I did get it out on a hike on a mountain stream once and got this exposure with a Mamiya 645 N 150 3.5 medium format lens on a Canon XSI. A lighter tripod would have probably worked as well.

The 055 is easily sufficient. I think the 498 is Manfrottos larger ballhead, and it will technically support the weight.

The real problem is how much it will move. You'll probably find that are longer focal lengths the vast majority of ballheads will show noticeable "droop" after you tighten the head which can be a pain (300mm not too bad, but with extenders you'll hate it).

I think the most wise investment would either be moving to a gimbal head, or if you don't want to go that far then at the very least change the QR clamp. I have a strong dislike of the RC2 style QR clamps, and you could swap it over to a good arca-swiss style clamp plus a couple of plates (including a nice long one for the 300) for < $150. It will allow you to shift the 300mm lens back and forth quite a bit to pick a much nicer balance on the ballhead.

mike_311 wrote in post #14104800
i wouldn't get a new tripod, i would worry more about whether you should get a collar for the lens so it balances better on the tripod.

What do you mean by collar? I came with the factory collar, are you referring to one of he longer plates that go on the tripod foot?

stover98074 wrote in post #14105083
My two cents, you need to try it, a few exposures should tell you. Perhaps lock the mirror up and try a longer exposure to ensure you are okay. Perhaps take some exposures that you normally would take as well.

I use an old Medium Format Chicago Magestic with geared head (about $100 used) but it is heavy to move unless in the the trunk of a car.

I did get it out on a hike on a mountain stream once and got this exposure with a Mamiya 645 N 150 3.5 medium format lens on a Canon XSI. A lighter tripod would have probably worked as well.

I wish I could. I live in San Diego where it rains 5 times a year and the weekend that I get this, we end up having a crazy storm the whole weekend. Typical luck I guess.

Yes, it's a good tripod... but as with any tripod, avoid raising the center-column at all costs. It gets wobbly quick..IMO.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #14104795
I found the Manfrotto 681B monopod is great for the lens when you don't want to set up a tripod or hand hold either.

+1
This is what I use for sports.

tripod is fine, try it with that head and see if it works. i had that same setup and would get creep after framing up the shot. drove me crazy.

phreeky wrote in post #14105185
The 055 is easily sufficient. I think the 498 is Manfrottos larger ballhead, and it will technically support the weight.

The real problem is how much it will move. You'll probably find that are longer focal lengths the vast majority of ballheads will show noticeable "droop" after you tighten the head which can be a pain (300mm not too bad, but with extenders you'll hate it).

I think the most wise investment would either be moving to a gimbal head, or if you don't want to go that far then at the very least change the QR clamp. I have a strong dislike of the RC2 style QR clamps, and you could swap it over to a good arca-swiss style clamp plus a couple of plates (including a nice long one for the 300) for < $150. It will allow you to shift the 300mm lens back and forth quite a bit to pick a much nicer balance on the ballhead.

Which ones are you referring to so I can look at them. Thanks

skater911 wrote in post #14105324
Which ones are you referring to so I can look at them. Thanks

Here are the RRS ones: http://reallyrightstuf​f.com …px?code=ClampsP​ro&key=cat

Markins, Jobu, and others should also have clamps. There are also cheaper ones on ebay, the better ones being pretty damn good but it's a bit of a gamble. I believe the Sunfoto ones on ebay are supposed to be very good but are not cheap either. Just have to make sure it's the appropriate fit for your ballhead, I think the RC2 ones will have a threaded stud into the ballhead so a threaded centre hole is what needed but you'll have to check that.

You can get HEAPS of arca-swiss QR plates on ebay of all different lengths and designs.

FYI I have a Jobu clamp plus heaps of cheaper ebay ones. The Jobu one didn't like the ebay plates much (didn't tighten down quite enough so I had to modify it). I have tonnes of ebay plates for both tripod collars on lenses as well as one that is nicely shaped to fit the 7D.

You will find that almost all of the Gimbal options online as well as heaps of macro brackets and panarama heads use arca-swiss style clamps and plates, so it's not a bad path to go down.