tripod

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

hello, i am considering purchasing the canon 600mm f/4 "L" IS lens. what tripod and head combo would i need for this lens? i know it is large and heavy and costs a bundle but i have read that it delivers the goods. any advice would be helpful. thank you

-- Joel Hood (jgh78@mindspring.com), June 03, 2000

Answers

The photo.net static content has a pretty long section on this, in case you haven't checked it out. Look under "tripods." They are busy reorganizing the page,and at this moment (late Saturday night) they are down.

-- Paul Harris (pharris@neosoft.com), June 04, 2000.

I don't yet own a BIG lens, but I do know that the Gitzo 1548 CF tripod is often sited as being the gold standard for supporting such lenses. After reading Arthur Morris' recent e-bulletins, it seems he is now recommending the big Wimberly gimballed head (not the Sidekick, which he does'nt seem to care for). Finally, he (like most others) continues to recommend the Really Right Stuff mounting plates. Be prepared to pay about $2000.00 for the above setup.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), June 07, 2000.

Head: buy the Arca B-1 (adequate), the B-1G (probably better) or even the B-2. I personally use the B-1. Get the Really Right Stuff plates for the lens. In terms of tripod, it depends on how far you want to carry the setup and how tall you are. I am 6'2" tall and I currently use a Gitzo 1320 which is a little wimpy for my 600/4. With the B-1 I need a center column for "bird in tree" shots but if I were a few inches shorter I would go for less weight and greater stability in a tripod w/o a column. For instance, a Gitzo 1325 carbon fibre ($650) would be tempting though a 1500 series carbon fibre would be better. If you're not walking far, a 1410 or 1500 might work well for you (and half the price of a 1548).

Anyone who has had their 600/4 roll over onto their hand when mounted on a ball-head will tell you that the Wimberley is very tempting. It is comparatively large and heavy (3 lbs), not all that cheap, but that mostly pales into insignificance compared to the cost of a 600/4 IS. I also suspect the action is much easier for rapid pan (bird in flight) shots. Or perhaps I'm just a little inept with my Arca B-1 - a friend of mine has no problems with his 500/4 IS on a B-1.

-- Phil Jeffrey (pjeffrey@hotmail.com), August 21, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ