Is a gimbal head worth the money?

I had the opportunity to use a quality gimbal head while photographing the Diamond Cup hydroplane race in North Idaho. I was using a 400 mm F2.8L lens and a 300mm F2.8L lens. The head worked great and I would definitely get one if I used these big lenses more often.

My question is, are these gimbal heads useful when using smaller lenses such as 70-200mm and 28-135mm? I do mostly drag racing photography, landscapes and general pics.

My carbon fiber tripod has a ball head.

If you're tracking subjects with fast angular motion and you can get the camera/lens combo balanced, yes, gimbals are worth it. Just remember that if your lens doesn't have a tripod mounting ring, a gimbal won't be as easy as it is with a big lens balanced. The 28-135, for instance, doesn't have a tripod mounting ring, so you'll have to mount the body to the gimbal. That combo might work better with some other rig.

Jon is right, a gimbal head is really only useful with mounting rings. I would say for the two lenses you listed, it wouldn't be needed. You'll also want a fairly sturdy tripod. If your CF tripod is a budget model, it may not work well. My travel tripod is Dolica CF that I grabbed for $90 or so. It works in a pinch and is light as a feather, so perfect for travel, but I wouldn't ever mount my gimbal on it.

All that said, if you want to try a gimbal, look at the Opteka version. It's far less expensive than the Wimberley and it works quite well. I use it and have had no complaints. Another option would be to watch for someone selling a Wimberley Sidekick. I picked one up in the Sell section here for short money and it works well with my ballhead.

I'm partial to the Manfroto 393,

If you have a long mounting plate, you can often get your rig balanced even if the lens doesn't have a tripod foot. You just slide the camera back in the plate, and/or the plate back in the tripod head, so that you get to the balance point.

In a few words, yes... Definitely worth the $$$ if you have long glass... For your 70-200 and 28-135, it honestly wouldn't be worth the investment...

I find they are only useful for lenses you don't want to hand hold.

ie, they are a tool that you use when you want to work from a tripod, but need to maintain as much fast point-ability as you can.
The best point-ability is hand holding.

You mentioned using one with a 70-200mm IS, I'd never restrict myself to a tripod with that lens, i'd use IS and shoot hand held.

I find ball heads great but when you move up to lenses like the 300mm F2.8 and bigger I find them to be a liability. If I am putting a Supertele on a tripod it goes on a Gimbal, I have tried all sorts of heads but have found nothing else to be satisfactory.
Just my 2p.

I bought a Wimberly head for my 500mm and 300mm. Had the lenses for almost a year and used the Wimberly once...to shoot the moon with a 2x TC on the 500mm.
I've handheld for everything else with those...the 70-200 is a feather and the IS works too well to limit on a tripod.

The only lenses I would ever use with a gymbal head are the superteles. I use the gymbol on lenses 300mm f2.8 and greater. I use one on my 500mm lens. The 70-200 lens would be better handheld, since it is so light. If you want to mount the lens I recogmend the RRS BH55 Ballhead.

Thanks to everyone who put forth their thoughts and recommendations. You saved me $$$ as I'll wait till I have a much bigger lens before getting a gimbal head.

marchboom wrote in post #16292746
Thanks to everyone who put forth their thoughts and recommendations. You saved me $$$ as I'll wait till I have a much bigger lens before getting a gimbal head.

You could buy a gimbal head now and use that as a excuse to upgrade