Manfrotto 055MF or Feisol CT-3371

I'm not looking for so much a lightweight tripod as much as a more rigid tripod. ATM, I own a Manfrotto 3001 with a 488RC2. I thought I had a pretty rigid setup until I got my 40D and started using live view with my 70-200mm. Using manual focus the thing jiggles like jello and makes it difficult to get focus (once I remove my had it stabilizes nicely). I thought it was the norm since this is the most stable tripod I've ever owned... That is until my buddy let me use his GItzo GT3530 with RRS B55 LR ballhead from work. While it was susceptible to shake as well it was MUCH less than my setup. I had already ordered a RSS LR II clamp so I called RRS and had them cancel that and send me the B55 LR ballhead instead (I wanted it mostly for the L bracket). While I would like the Gitzo tripod there is no way I can justify paying that much.

So, no $600+ tripod for me I've set my limit at around $300-$350 for the tripod legs. For those who have had experiences with carbon fiber legs what would you pair with the RRS B55 ballhead? I've narrowed it down to two choices. The Manfrotto 055MF and the Feisol CT-3371. I'm leaning towards the Feisol but I trust the Manfrotto brand. Thoughts?

Its probably a toss-up between the two. The Feisol, IIRC, is rated for a heavier load. But either way, I hope you don't plan on doing much hiking...each of those tripods, with the RRS BH-55 head attached (2#), will weigh in at about 7 pounds. My assumption is that you have the gear that requires such heavy-duty support (it may be overkill for the 40D/70-200 that you mentioned). If not, there are better, lighter, and less-expensive options available.

Wait until you get the ballhead.
I suspect the Arca vs. RC2 QR might make quite a difference...

I had the 055MF3 for a couple of years. It is a solid CF tripod and affords the versatility of a horizontal center column. In addition, the center column splits into two sections. You can use it with the short adapter and reduce the overall weight by about 9 oz. If you want the additional features of the MF3, then it is an excellent choice. The negative is the weight. You don't save much as compared to the aluminum version.

You can save additional weight by choice of a Markins ballhead rather than the RRS head.

Thanks for the replies. I really liked the RRS B55 ballhead and am going to build my support system around that. I don't have the gear ATM that would necessitate that ballhead but I do plan on getting the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS in the future.

So does everyone agree that it's pretty much a toss-up between the two?

René Damkot wrote in post #5167744
Wait until you get the ballhead.
I suspect the Arca vs. RC2 QR might make quite a difference...

I thought it might be the ballhead but my buddy thought it was a combination of the two but might be more because of the aluminum legs.

Post your findings, we all are curious

I have the Bogen 055MF3 and really like it. I think the BH-55 is a lot of overkill though.

I like the horizontal position of the center post on the Bogen. For macro, it will be very useful (once the snow melts and the bugs come out).

I'm using an $89 Cullman Head with RRS Clamps and that is working quite well with my lenses (largest is the EF 70-200 F4L).

Rey;
I went thru this process about a month ago...I purchased the Feisol CT3371.

Totally satisfied; rock solid and it comes eye level (I'm 6'1") w/a Manfrotto 488rc4 (future holds a Markins for me). Total wt. 6.5 lbs., a little heavy but not so much I'll leave it behind.

I have a 40D and the 100-400IS is on the camera 95% of the time.

Great customer service by Michael at Feisol.net.

bikejanitor wrote in post #5174363
Rey;
I went thru this process about a month ago...I purchased the Feisol CT3371.

Totally satisfied; rock solid and it comes eye level (I'm 6'1") w/a Manfrotto 488rc4 (future holds a Markins for me). Total wt. 6.5 lbs., a little heavy but not so much I'll leave it behind.

I have a 40D and the 100-400IS is on the camera 95% of the time.

Great customer service by Michael at Feisol.net.

my manfrotto 055MF + 488RC2 without center column extension weighs 5 lbs.

ed rader

so are all feisol tripod made from CF? i take a look at their products and they are really light weight, around 2.6 lbs or so, and cost the same as some alloy brand name's tripods.

considering between the CT-3301 standard tripod + column and the Gitzo G2220
the feisol has the larger load capacity (10kg, gitzo is 6) but i don't think it's a big deal. just because i love the light weight of CF with the same price and have read some bad experiences with g2220 online lately seems like it it is not durable enough..

someone help me out?

Ed;

My priorities were height and sturdiness, for you to raise your manfrotto to 61"s (feisol height w/out center column) you need to raise (if you had one) the center column 8"s (according to manfrotto specs; height 53"s w/out column raised).

He asked about the ct3371, so I'm assuming he’s also referring to the manfrotto w/the center column.

So, to me, your comparison comment of 5 lbs. w/out the center column is a little misleading.

tripod to tripod according to respective site specs;

feisol 4.85 lbs. vs Manfrotto [COLOR="Red"]w/center column 055mf 4.4 lbs. 7.2 oz. difference

Head vs. head;
rc2 1.5 lbs. vs. rc4 1.76 4.1 oz. diffence.

total for all manfrotto combo 5.9 lbs. vs. feisol/manfrotto combo 6.6 difference; .7 or 11.3 ozs. more for the feisol combo.

I can't speak from experience of using the manfrotto, so I have to go by the common mantra; raising a center column will decrease a tripod’s stability.

So if he wants/needs that extra 8"s in height and purchases the manfrotto for and extra 50 bucks or so, he’ll be spending more money for less stability and 11 ozs. less in weight.

Regards
Bill

bikejanitor wrote in post #5176435
Ed;

My priorities were height and sturdiness, for you to raise your manfrotto to 61"s (feisol height w/out center column) you need to raise (if you had one) the center column 8"s (according to manfrotto specs; height 53"s w/out column raised).

He asked about the ct3371, so I'm assuming he’s also referring to the manfrotto w/the center column.

So, to me, your comparison comment of 5 lbs. w/out the center column is a little misleading.

tripod to tripod according to respective site specs;

feisol 4.85 lbs. vs Manfrotto [COLOR="Red"]w/center column 055mf 4.4 lbs. 7.2 oz. difference

Head vs. head;
rc2 1.5 lbs. vs. rc4 1.76 4.1 oz. diffence.

total for all manfrotto combo 5.9 lbs. vs. feisol/manfrotto combo 6.6 difference; .7 or 11.3 ozs. more for the feisol combo.

I can't speak from experience of using the manfrotto, so I have to go by the common mantra; raising a center column will decrease a tripod’s stability.

So if he wants/needs that extra 8"s in height and purchases the manfrotto for and extra 50 bucks or so, he’ll be spending more money for less stability and 11 ozs. less in weight.

Regards
Bill

Bill -- i was only saying what my set-up weighed. there was no ulterior motive .


i'm 5' 10" and my 1 d mark III's viewfinder is right at 62" on center without center column and standing erect my eye is 65" on center. you'd have to be 7' tall if the tripod was 8" taller .

ed rader

C'mon Ed, all of us non-manfrotto tripod users know how evil you manfrotto tripod users are.

I'm 6'1" ...the 40D view finder w/my set up comes to 69"s and inch higher than my eye level.

The 8"s is in addition to the base height of the manfrotto 53"s to reach the base height of the feisol's 61"s.

I apologize Ed for my clarification of the weight issue. It obviously came across to you as argumentative, hostile and insinuating a conspiratorial attitude ...that's the problem w/emails....you can't see the person's face and sometimes a totally innocent comment can be misunderstood.

Question for you Ed; how smoothly does your rc2 move?

My rc4 is a little sticky when I have the tightness set so I can move my setup and not have it fall when I remove my hands.

Rey, I apologize to you for causing this digression from your topic. But I do hope Ed and I have helped you.

Regards
Bill