Jobu Black Widow and 300/2.8 lens

I have been using a Jobu Jr with my 400/5.6 for almost a year and love the combo. Most impressed with Jobu so will stick with the make for my new lens.

Recently I have got a 300/2.8 lens and need to upgrade the head, the two Jobu heads that fit the bill are the Black Widow LW II which is a side kick or the Black Widow HD II which is basically the same head but a full Gimbal. Price wise there is not a lot of difference but the full gimbal weighs almost 1 lb more, Which would you choose, the side kick or Full Gimbal?

BTW I am not interested in any other make.

Thanks in advance.

I'm debating the full gimbal vs the sidekick myself. I will be watching this thread closely. I apologize for not being of assistance. I am really up in the air as to which one I should get. My biggest lens is the 300 2.8 IS - however, a 500 could be in my future...

The biggest problem with a sidekick as I see it is that it is more difficult to mount the lens in the field. But the advantage is the weight with it being almost a pound lighter than the full gimbal. I have not got to consider a future 500/4 as at my age (a frail pensioner LOL) the 300/2.8 is my absolute weight limit.

I got the HD II version and it's a dream with the 300 2.8 and 1D3. This was mostly because I hope to move up to still longer glass. You could always get the LW II and add the horizontal mount upgrade (making it into the HD II) if you decide you don't like the side mounting. It would cost a little more to go that way than to go straight to the HD II, if you don't like the LW II, but otherwise you're ahead of the game.

Jon wrote in post #8578031
I got the HD II version and it's a dream with the 300 2.8 and 1D3. This was mostly because I hope to move up to still longer glass. You could always get the LW II and add the horizontal mount upgrade (making it into the HD II) if you decide you don't like the side mounting. It would cost a little more to go that way than to go straight to the HD II, if you don't like the LW II, but otherwise you're ahead of the game.

Thanks for that Jon, I got a horizontal mount for my Jr but did not know they did one for the LW II, that seems the logical way to go for me - I just do not want to add an extra pound if it is not needed. Thanks again.

Roy C wrote in post #8577957
The biggest problem with a sidekick as I see it is that it is more difficult to mount the lens in the field. But the advantage is the weight with it being almost a pound lighter than the full gimbal. I have not got to consider a future 500/4 as at my age (a frail pensioner LOL) the 300/2.8 is my absolute weight limit.

I would think that if you're only going to use the sidekick on a certain lens, i.e. the 300 f2.8, or 500 f4L, then why not KEEP the sidekick attached to the lens, then you just have to slip the sidekick into the ballhead's clamp and lock it in. When you're finished shooting, just take the lens/sidekick combo out.

That's one reason why I think the sidekick has an advantage over the full Wimberley Gimbal head. You don't need two tripods...one for a ball head, and one for the full Wimberley. (Unless you want to keep having to remove each head.)

I'm sure there are camera backpacks that can be formatted to fit a 300 f2.8L lens with sidekick attached. Along with a photographer's other equipment. (Or even a 400 f2.8L, or 500 f4L with sidekick attached).

Just seems a lot more convenient to me.

Also according to a few photographers on Fred Miranda, the sidekick handles the 400 f2.8L I.S. lens quite nicely, and SAFELY!!

Just my two cents.

As an update to this thread I ended up buying the new Black Widow HD MkII. It is a full gimbal but this can be taken off and used as a sidekick if preferred so giving you the best of both worlds. So far I have only used it as a full Gimbal and have been very pleased with it - a superb head that is very well made and mega smooth in operation.