Manfroto 496RC2 for 5d Mark II & 70-200mm 2.8 IS???

This head says it supports up to 13.23lbs. This set up is a few punds lighter, but I have read on many threads here, that the 498RC2 is more sufficient. So why does Manfrotto say it can support more than 13lbs, and everyone says I should get the next size up balll head?? Does anyone use this head with the 70-200 2.8 IS and a similiar or larger size body?? I know the 496RC2 is only slightly smaller & lighter, but I would prefer to have the smaller & lighter head, even if it is minimal. The panning option of the 498 & price is not a factor for me, just if the 496 will support my gear without any problems. Thanks for everyones time.

One of the reasons people are recommending the 498 is that unlike the 496, the 498 has a separate pan control. The other is that "up to . .. " is in the best possible situation with the load well-balanced in all directions; with a bigger camera and/or longer lens, possibly with a flash as well, the load is anything but well-centered, especially if you're shooting with the camera in portrait orientation.

Dustman wrote in post #10307886
This head says it supports up to 13.23lbs. This set up is a few punds lighter, but I have read on many threads here, that the 498RC2 is more sufficient. So why does Manfrotto say it can support more than 13lbs, and everyone says I should get the next size up balll head?? Does anyone use this head with the 70-200 2.8 IS and a similiar or larger size body?? I know the 496RC2 is only slightly smaller & lighter, but I would prefer to have the smaller & lighter head, even if it is minimal. The panning option of the 498 & price is not a factor for me, just if the 496 will support my gear without any problems. Thanks for everyones time.

I have both the 486RC2 and 488RC2 (fore-runners to the 496RC2 and 498RC2). The 486 is prone to creep with the sort of equipment you want to use while the 488 is much less prone to creep (actually it's quite solid). I would strongly suggest that you go with the 498RC2 and forget the 496RC2 except for use on a monopod where a little creep makes no difference.

Be aware that the "weight capacity" specifications on tripods and heads really does not tell us anything at all about how stable our equipment would be on the tripods and heads. All those specifications really say is that the tripod or head in question won't fall apart and drop the camera and lens to the ground if the camera and lens weighs less than the specification.

Go with Jon and Skip om this one, Dustman.
In my experience it's the geometry of the whole set-up that matters. It's hard to imagine that any reasonable head won't support a given load, but keeping it steady, specially in a breeze, is another matter.
With your longest zoom mounted correctly and set to maximum zoom, tap the far end and see how much shimmer there is...you may be amazed.
I bought a Manfrotto geared head on recommendation to use with my TS-E lens, for better control, and have found that it keeps all my lenses steadier. It's a bit heavy, but does the job. Not that I would recommend it for anyone else...you have to get one that has the best movements for your needs. But whatever you do, go with one that has separate pan movement!

Thanks for your imput everyone, I appreciate it. Has anyone used a 70-200mm 2.8 lens or larger on the Manfrotto 496RC2?? and what where your experiences??

Dustman wrote in post #10313171
Thanks for your imput everyone, I appreciate it. Has anyone used a 70-200mm 2.8 lens or larger on the Manfrotto 496RC2?? and what where your experiences??

I guess I didn't say it specifically above, but I use a 70-200 f/2.8L IS on my 20D. That combination, if offset from being a vertical load, makes my 486RC2 tend to creep. I have not directly compared the 486 and 496 ball heads, but I would expect the 496 to perform about equally to the 486.