Pondering super telephoto/tripod/tripod head

[oceanrhythms]

I am pondering which super telephoto lens to get.  The lenses I am considering are:

400mm f/4 Canon DO with a 1.4 teleconverter

300mm f/2.8 Canon 2.8 l IS II USM with a 2x teleconverter

Sigma Telephoto 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO HSM Autofocus

My budget is less than $6,000 for a lens like this.

I mostly shoot Nature/landscape & surfing photography.  What do you think......which lens would you get?  I am hearing really good things about the Sigma lenses.  Not sure if I want to deal with e-bay on an item like this.

Also,  I would like to get a carbon tripod.  Do you have a favorite?  Gitzo is great, but I don't want to pay their price.  Adoramma has a tripod very similar to Gitzo.  Anybody have any experience with Adoramma's Flashpoint tripods?  Or What tripod do you like that will support a Canon Mark 4 + a 12lb telephoto lens?

Lastly Do I really need a Gimbal head for a super telephoto lens?  Some say no......some say it's a must.  What do you think and which one to buy?

Thank you!

John

[Marlyn]

If your spending that much on a lens,  get a Gitzto or RRS Tripod.  Carbon Fibre with a Gimbal Head.     A gitzo should last you 10+ years or more, same for the head.  (and the lens for that matter).
Shooting top glass, off a low quality tripod and head, is,  IMHO, 'less than ideal' and potentially wasting money.

I personally use a Gitzo 3541XL with  Mongoose 3.6 head for my  Canon 800mm Lens.   Its a side mount Gimbal head,  very light,  works a charm.   


Regarding Lens, well, exactly what do you shoot in 'nature'.  Big animals, birds, somethign in between ?.  based on the focal length, I'm assuming not birds.

300mm 2.8 is a spectacular lens, and does work well with T-Con's.   I suspect that would be a good choice for what your saying above, and you prob don't 'need' a gimbal with that,  (but it will make life MUCH nicer for tracking moving targets like surfers).

I'm not a Sigma fan as a rule BUT, do check out the Sigma 120-300 f2.8,   I recently borrowed one for Homer trip on Bald Eagles, and whilst its a bit heavy to hand hold for long periods, results were excellent.  with and without t-con's.


For the list you put below, the 300 II f2.8 would be my choice.  However, also consider a second hand 500 f4 mk I, which should be available second hand soon as the mk II's hit the shelves.   Keep an eye on B&H second hand store.


Hope that helps.

Regards

Mark Farnan

[Brian Hirschfeld]

When your putting 10k + on a tripod and head combination, get the best. Gitzo's cost a lot, but they are totally worth it, I have a 3 series and a 5 series and they work like a charm. They are ultra light (because of the CF) and ridiculously well made and absolutely sturdy.

If your using a long lens, get a gimbal head, you might not NEED it, in that you could get by without it, however your life will be much easier if you do have one.

Also, Monopods never killed anyone...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My experience is mainly with Minolta 400/4.5 APO + extenders, so it is up to 800 mm (400 + 2X) but lightweight.

The tripod I use mainly is the Gitzo GT3541LS, but I'm not really impressed by the quality, so I would go for the RRS alternative.

I have never used a gimbal head, and for what I do I need precision. My present head is the Arca Swiss D4, the geared version. I have a small video describing it here:

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/53-arca-swiss-d4

Please note that I don't say that Gitzo tripods are not OK, my main tripod is actually a Gitzo, neither do I say that the Arca Swiss head is preferable to a gimbal head, I just say the it works for me.


Best regards
Erik

I am pondering which super telephoto lens to get.  The lenses I am considering are:

400mm f/4 Canon DO with a 1.4 teleconverter

300mm f/2.8 Canon 2.8 l IS II USM with a 2x teleconverter

Sigma Telephoto 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO HSM Autofocus

My budget is less than $6,000 for a lens like this.

I mostly shoot Nature/landscape & surfing photography.  What do you think......which lens would you get?  I am hearing really good things about the Sigma lenses.  Not sure if I want to deal with e-bay on an item like this.

Also,  I would like to get a carbon tripod.  Do you have a favorite?  Gitzo is great, but I don't want to pay their price.  Adoramma has a tripod very similar to Gitzo.  Anybody have any experience with Adoramma's Flashpoint tripods?  Or What tripod do you like that will support a Canon Mark 4 + a 12lb telephoto lens?

Lastly Do I really need a Gimbal head for a super telephoto lens?  Some say no......some say it's a must.  What do you think and which one to buy?

Thank you!

John

[Ellis Vener]

The lenses I am considering are:

400mm f/4 Canon DO with a 1.4 teleconverter

300mm f/2.8 Canon 2.8 l IS II USM with a 2x teleconverter

Sigma Telephoto 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO HSM Autofocus

My budget is less than $6,000 for a lens like this.

I have no opinion on the Sigma lens as I have never used one. Optically a telephoto is a pretty easy lens to optically design and correct very well so I'm not surprised by people saying it is a great performer. My concern is build quality and durability but on a high end Sigma lens that might be no problem at all.

 My experience with the EF 400mm f/4 DO is shooting motorsports and you get  fantastic circular rainbow chromatic aberrations around specular highlights with this lens so that may be a problem with your surfing photos. It has however quite sharp and much lighter than a 400mm f/2.8.

The Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM is of course terrific.

he Gitzo and Really Right Stuff tripods are indeed massively expensive. is your only reason for getting a carbon fiber tripod a weight issue? The CF wrappings and wefiberweave is critical so I am not sure I'd really want to skimp here. My aluminum Gitzos on the other hand (I have a 300 series and a 410C) are both over 20 years old.

Lastly Do I really need a Gimbal head for a super telephoto lens?

A good gimbal head certainly makes life easier with a super telephoto  but it is not a necessity. Which gimbal heads are you looking at? if you are going to spend some money here get one that is more versatile than just  a dedicated big telephoto support Item. I like the Really Right Stuff PG-02 Gimbal package for this reason as it's components can be repurposed for other uses (macro work, still life, stitched panoramas) as well as combined with other RRS components.

[stever]

what kind of nature? also assume not birds

i like the 4th generation designs gimbal for this size class.  am not so sure you have to spend so much of your budget on the tripod - the heavy Feisol is pretty good.  but if you want to i'd go all the way for the RRS and skip Gitzo, have met too many people with Gitzo reliability issues

i rented the 400 DO for a couple trips and was quite disappointed with 1.4xII performance and not overly impressed with the lens itself (sharper than the 100-400, but not vastly)  - the 1.4xiii may make a difference, but i'd want to test the combination before making a decision.  i ended up with 400 f5.6 which is sharper but not IS (usually okay on tripod) - the 1.4x works with d and ds cameras, and CD autofocus on 5D2 and 7D but is very slow - would certainly not work for surfing.

the 300 is a really sharp lens, but with the 2x (even III) it doesn't have the large-print sharpness of a 500 or 600, but much lighter and more versatile

Sigma makes some lenses with reasonably consistent performance and reliability (and several that aren't) don't know about the 500.  Lensrentals.com doesn't stock it - unfortunate from the testing standpoint and a negative recommendation.

when the new Canon 500 arrives, there should be quite a few 500s on the market

[JohnBrew]

I recently bought an RRS-33 tripod and frankly I'm overwhelmed with its quality, sturdiness and light weight. Its a three section tripod and with a good ballhead I'm able to stand upright (I'm 6') and look through the viewfinder. OTOH, the bag they provide is absolute crap.
Note: I've since exchanged emails with RRS about their bag. I was told the included bag is just for storage and you are supposed to buy a separate bag (which they offer). I still think it is shortsighted of them not to include a bag with a strap.

[Tony Jay]

If one is only shooting static scenes with a super telephoto lens then any robust tripod and head combination will do.
However, with wildlife and birds, and the kind of action photography referred to then only a good tripod and a gimbal head will really suffice.
A gimbal head can make several kilograms of camera and lens almost weightless and panning in any plane is a cinch.
The only disadvantage of using a gimbal head to control a large heavy lens is that the photographer has to move with the camera as he pans.
A gimbal head is well worth the outlay but does take practice to use efficiently - not least because of the limited field of view of the lenses used with them.
I own more than one make of gimbal head but am only prepared to recommend one make - Wimberley. The mark II version is magnificent. That said the makes mentioned in this thread may be as good but I don't have any experience with them.
I have also used monopods extensively with large supertelephoto lenses and they definately have their place and so should be part of your toolset.
Nonetheless, gimbal heads are easier to use.

Another point worth making is that I do a lot of bird and wildlife photography from within a vehicle. In this situation I rest the lens on the window with and without a beanbag. I have captured many stunning shots this way essentially using my 4X4 as a monopod.
There are also brackets available that can be attached to ones vehicle and a gimbal, or any other head, attached to it. This is a useful option when shooting wildlife that may eat you or otherwise shorten ones lifespan.

Yours

Tony Jay

[stever]

i'd go farther than this - once you shoot with a long (or intermediate lens) and a gimbal, you're not going to enjoy shooting with a ball head

if you don't have any experience with these lenses, you will be money ahead to rent, test, and use for the subjects that are important to you

at a given effective long focal length, my testing and experience is that i'm somewhat better off with a crop-frame than full-frame and 1.4x - so i use a combination of 5D2 and 7D

[oceanrhythms]

Thanks for your replies!  I am not sure if everybody see my reply or just you Mark.  Either way reading all the replies is exactly what I wanted to hear....I need to invest it right and get the good stuff......the really good stuff.  It might mean waiting a bit and save for it.  It will be worth it.

BTW......with this lens I will be shooting many things in nature including birds, but not specializing on birds.

Thanks again!

John

[Marlyn]

You are welcome.

Birds you will need (IMO), longer than 300/400.  As a general rule,  You can't have too much focal length when shooting birds and good quantity of wildlife !  ( A 300 2.8 with 2x is just long enough).

I'm addicted to my 800mm f5.6.   And even that is very often, not long enough.

Regards

Mark

[Ken Bennett]

If you're wanting to shoot birds at all, the Canon 500/4 with a 7D or a 1D Mark IV would make a pretty good choice. Add the 1.4x converter as needed. The 500 is a versatile wildlife lens overall, especially if, as noted above, you can mount a combination of full and crop frame cameras on it.

The 300/2.8, which I own, is a spectacular lens, but I think you'll end up mounting a teleconverter all the time, at which point the 500 starts to look better. For larger/closer animals, a 70-200/2.8 works well, even with the 1.4 converter attached.

Good luck!

[telyt]

Birds you will need (IMO), longer than 300/400.  As a general rule,  You can't have too much focal length when shooting birds and good quantity of wildlife !  ( A 300 2.8 with 2x is just long enough).

YMMV.  Good field technique can often substitute for many mm of focal length.  I'm addicted to my 280mm f/4.

[24x36]

I am pondering which super telephoto lens to get.  The lenses I am considering are:

400mm f/4 Canon DO with a 1.4 teleconverter

300mm f/2.8 Canon 2.8 l IS II USM with a 2x teleconverter

Sigma Telephoto 500mm f/4.5 EX DG APO HSM Autofocus

My budget is less than $6,000 for a lens like this.

I mostly shoot Nature/landscape & surfing photography.  What do you think......which lens would you get?  I am hearing really good things about the Sigma lenses.  Not sure if I want to deal with e-bay on an item like this.

Also,  I would like to get a carbon tripod.  Do you have a favorite?  Gitzo is great, but I don't want to pay their price.  Adoramma has a tripod very similar to Gitzo.  Anybody have any experience with Adoramma's Flashpoint tripods?  Or What tripod do you like that will support a Canon Mark 4 + a 12lb telephoto lens?

Lastly Do I really need a Gimbal head for a super telephoto lens?  Some say no......some say it's a must.  What do you think and which one to buy?

Thank you!

John

Your lens budget is a bit shy...I'd recommend that you save a few more $$ and then get yourself a "Sigmonster." The flexibility it offers (at 300-800 f 5.6) makes it infinitely more attractive than a prime lens, and you'll have no complaints with the performance. Plus, it will provide you with the reach you need AND still allow you to back off if you find yourself too close to the action as it comes towards you.

As for heads, if you can get your hands on an Arca-Swiss B2/Z2, then no, a Gimbal head is not required - but is still a good choice. Otherwise, I'd say yes, go with a Gimbal head (I'd suggest the Wimberly II). You'll also want a sturdy leveling base, so that your shots don't go cockeyed as you pan. I can't speak for carbon fiber tripods, I went with aluminum for ruggedness and a reasonable price. I also didn't want a heavy rig on top of a tripod that was very light, since I wanted it to be stable in windy conditions (don't want that big glass being blown over. 

[Tony Jay]

If panning is important to get the shot ie birds in flight, motorsport, etc then a gimbal head will be far and away the most productive.
A monopod will also allow some flexibility in shooting.
A ballhead is next to useless in these situations.

If you are shooting static scenes albeit with telephotos then a ballhead will get you by but again a gimbal head is so much better and easier.
As mentioned in a previous thread started by you there are many good sets of legs that could be used with a gimbal head and the biggest telephoto lenses.

I do a lot of bird and wildlife photography so I do have an idea here.

Regards

Tony Jay

[Scott O.]

I gimbal head would be extremely useful for surf photography also.  I suggest you get a spend some time on the RRS web site.  Not only do they offer a very large selection of products, but their tutorials are top notch.  Even if you decide to purchase other brands the information you will get will help you in your quest.  Also, check out Tom Hogan's tripod article...http://www.bythom.com/support.htm