recommend ballhead for 70-200 2.8L on XTi/400D

i'm thinking about this

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

my opinion is, when you already invested you money in suck a lens like that, you shouldn't put it on risk.
you need something that can hold up to at least 11 pounds, not 5.5. and don't buy anything under 100 'cause you're gonna throw it away to get a better one soon.

I have this lens and a 30D. I just bought the Giottos MH1302 w/the MH655 QR plate which supports 18 lbs. Your camera and lens weight about 5.3 lbs. This is a light ballhead that will do the trick and bear the valuable load. This combo is $120 from B&H. Here's the link:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …H_1302_Pro_Seri​es_II.html

The Manfrotto 488RC2 will also do quite well at about $100. It is a little heavier, but works quite well with the heavier lenses.

To get lightweight equipment that performs like a heavyweight, expect at least the pricing to be heavyweight. You cannot get something for nothing.

SkipD wrote in post #5031200
The Manfrotto 488RC2 will also do quite well at about $100. It is a little heavier, but works quite well with the heavier lenses.

To get lightweight equipment that performs like a heavyweight, expect at least the pricing to be heavyweight. You cannot get something for nothing.

i second that motion, i have a 488rc2, and the thing is a tank. the midi (panning?) base makes it great for panoramas as well.

I opted for the Manfrotto 488RC2 as well.

I was first thinking about the 486RC2 (RC2 stands for the rapid connect system) as being sturdy enough, but then I felt that having one single lock for both the ball and the panorama movement would not be very practical. Setting the drag with the main lock on the 488 is fast and confortable.

Ballheads with a separate thumbwheel for the drag setting are generally more expensive and I suppose you have to reset the drag when you change lenses anyway.

The rapid connect system is a fine thing to have.

I agree, 488RC2 all the way. Skip doesn't know it but I also bought mine from reading the posts he has recommended it on. I figured by this one now and then when the bigger lenses are bought I still have a ballhead I can use on monopod as well as tripod with just changing the head since I already would have the quick release. Just my 2 cents.

i forgot to mention i'm new at using a monopod, so i don't know if i'll even need a ballhead and after looking up several sports shooter setups i decided to try going without. thanks for all the replies.

sneakerpimp wrote in post #5033352
i forgot to mention i'm new at using a monopod, so i don't know if i'll even need a ballhead and after looking up several sports shooter setups i decided to try going without. thanks for all the replies.

I was going to ask that. Why do you want a ball head on a monopod? I have a Gitzo monopod with a Manfrotto 3232 tilt head, and its great. A ball head is too much for a monopod, in my opinion.

tgara wrote in post #5035852
I was going to ask that. Why do you want a ball head on a monopod? I have a Gitzo monopod with a Manfrotto 3232 tilt head, and its great. A ball head is too much for a monopod, in my opinion.

Yep...I'm using the 3232 also, with a RRS lever clamp attached. Didn't see the need for a ballhead...

Agreed. The ballhead on a monopod is overkill...

arca swiss z1

Some like to use ballheads on monopods as they might put the monopod horizontal and the ballhead would allow them to keep the camera oriented as they like. All depends on your needs.

Plus when things are tight you can get by with one (488RC2) and then use it on Mono or Tri as needed. Works for me.

is the 3232 on a monopod strong enough for the 70-200 2.8L ?