# Tripod and head for Canon L 100-400 lens



## Mike K (Mar 21, 2012)

I don't have the lens yet but plan to. I don't want to do the tripod and head dance again down the road so, despite the high cost, I want to get the right stuff now.

I'm looking at the Gitzo GT-3531 tripod and RRS (ouch!) and other ball heads. Any recommendations?


----------



## Joey_Ricard (Mar 21, 2012)

Dang, I did this twice yesterday in other threads 

Manfrotto ball head with the Q2 plates along with a their legs. I keep a plate on all bodies and a plate on my long lenses

I have a metal (heavier) set that I use in creeks and rocks for the sturdy construction 
Manfrotto 190XDB Tripod Legs (Black) - Supports 11 lbs 190XDB


and then I use a lighter Manfrotto 055CXPRO3 3-Section Carbon Fiber Tripod 055CXPRO3 B&H


----------



## Overread (Mar 21, 2012)

On the head front its a bit overkill in terms of weight limits, but the Acratech GV2 Head might be worth considering:
Acratech GV2 Ballhead*::*Ballheads*::*Acratech

You get the ballhead performance, but you can also use the recess and the tripod collar on the 100-400mm to get a gimbal simulated effect.


----------



## analog.universe (Mar 21, 2012)

I use a Gitzo GT-3531 and it's great, highly recommended!  You pick it up and immediately know that it represents decades of engineering genius.  I would recommend an upgrade to the spikey feet however (they still have rubber caps you can put on them for when you're indoors).

I'm using a Markins Q-10 head, which I also like.  I looked at RRS, and they are not any more capable than Markins, but they are a little more finished off ergonomically, and plastic free (my markins has a couple plastic parts).  I chose the Markins because they have the best strength to weight ratio.  I carry my tripod around a lot, and didn't want however much weight for the fancy machining on the RRS.  Both companies' products are extremely accurate and strong however, and well capable of dealing with a 100-400.

I did end up getting my QR L-bracket from RRS however, they had more options than Markins.


----------



## Scuba (Mar 21, 2012)

Joey_Ricard said:


> Dang, I did this twice yesterday in other threads
> 
> Manfrotto ball head with the Q2 plates along with a their legs. I keep a plate on all bodies and a plate on my long lenses
> 
> ...



Not trying to be an ass but both of those tripods are listed at the same weight.  1.6kg.  I guess if you look at the pounds it is 3.5 vs 3.6 lbs but I don't know if you could feel that difference.


----------



## Joey_Ricard (Mar 21, 2012)

Scuba said:


> Joey_Ricard said:
> 
> 
> > Dang, I did this twice yesterday in other threads
> ...



Yeh, I don't have a scale at home but the metal one feels like about 7-10 lbs itself


----------



## Buckster (Mar 21, 2012)

My 100-400 flopped over one too many times after forgetting to lock it down after freestyle shooting birds or something. The pinched fingers and thumbs were no fun either when it happened!

Thus, I really dislike using my Canon 100-400 L on any of my ball heads, and have found it much better to use a Gimbal head.  They're generally more expensive, but you'll be glad you did.  Reviews look good on this one, and it's about the least expensive I've found: Amazon.com: Manfrotto 393 Heavy Telephoto Lens Support for Monopod - Replaces 3421: Camera & Photo

I actually DIY'd my own, and it works well for me:


----------



## Mike K (Mar 21, 2012)

analog.universe said:


> I use a Gitzo GT-3531 and it's great, highly recommended!  You pick it up and immediately know that it represents decades of engineering genius.  I would recommend an upgrade to the spikey feet however (they still have rubber caps you can put on them for when you're indoors).
> 
> I'm using a Markins Q-10 head, which I also like.  I looked at RRS, and they are not any more capable than Markins, but they are a little more finished off ergonomically, and plastic free (my markins has a couple plastic parts).  I chose the Markins because they have the best strength to weight ratio.  I carry my tripod around a lot, and didn't want however much weight for the fancy machining on the RRS.  Both companies' products are extremely accurate and strong however, and well capable of dealing with a 100-400.
> 
> I did end up getting my QR L-bracket from RRS however, they had more options than Markins.



What camera are you using? I'm using a Canon 60D but want to move up to a full frame some day.

Do you absolutely need an L bracket to mount the camera vertically?

Thanks everyone. Very helpful!


----------



## Buckster (Mar 23, 2012)

Here's another gimbal head that's less expensive than the first one I posted, and looks very capable: 

Amazon.com: Opteka GH1 Pro Heavy Duty Metal Gimbal Head (Supports up to 30lbs): Camera & Photo


----------



## usayit (Mar 23, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Here's another gimbal head that's less expensive than the first one I posted, and looks very capable:
> 
> Amazon.com: Opteka GH1 Pro Heavy Duty Metal Gimbal Head (Supports up to 30lbs): Camera & Photo



That's the one I have for my vintage 500mm Takumar.   Its probably one of the better of the cheap Chinese copies of the real thing and not up to par with the quality ones.  The price difference between the "real" ones and "cheap" ones is 3-4x... so cost vs benefit to be considered.   Its also not exactly lightweight.  I have only used it a few times (got it in December) and so far I am happy with it.  Eagerly waiting for the weather to warm up and some wing'd subjects to arrive.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 23, 2012)

Yes, for a telephoto lens, a Gimbal type head does seem to be the best option.  

As for they legs, they will be less important than the head, but you'll want something strong and stable.  Height and weight will be major things to look at.  Weight is an easy one, Carbon fiber is lighter weight, but a lot more expensive than aluminum.  For height, look for a tripod that will be tall enough to use without raising the centre column.  You greatly reduce the stability of the camera when you raise a center column.  Many of the higher end tripods won't even come with a center column.


----------



## Mike K (Mar 24, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Here's another gimbal head that's less expensive than the first one I posted, and looks very capable:
> 
> Amazon.com: Opteka GH1 Pro Heavy Duty Metal Gimbal Head (Supports up to 30lbs): Camera & Photo



Thanks. Looks like I'll end up with a ball head (thinking the Acratech GV2 or GP) for short lenses and something like this when I get  a "honker". Who knew the photo hobby would be so costly?


----------



## analog.universe (Mar 24, 2012)

Mike K said:


> analog.universe said:
> 
> 
> > I use a Gitzo GT-3531 and it's great, highly recommended!  You pick it up and immediately know that it represents decades of engineering genius.  I would recommend an upgrade to the spikey feet however (they still have rubber caps you can put on them for when you're indoors).
> ...



I'm also using a 60D with the intent to go to a 5D III at some point.  You don't absolutely need an L-bracket, most ball heads have a notch cut out so you can just tip the camera into portrait orientation without remounting it.  This is nice for an occasional shot, but you lose some of the maneuvrability.  Mounting the camera in the head vertically gives you the full range of the ball's movements to work with, so you're not confined to the little notch.  Having an actual vertical mount allows more options for doing stitched panos as well.

Whatever direction you end up going, the main thing to keep in mind is stability.  Make sure each component is as strong and precise as you can afford (or are willing to carry).


----------



## Overread (Mar 24, 2012)

Mike the GV2 would be more than enough for smaller lenses, I've even read of people putting big medium format cameras on it to hold them so its certainly a strong, light head. Plus the vid I linked doesn't show it that well, but if you recess the ball in its side mount and then rotate a lens in its tripod collar you've got a simulated gimbal effect (if somewhat offcentre on the tripod legs so not perfect, but more than enough for light general use).


----------



## Tony S (Mar 24, 2012)

Hey Buckster, now make a video on how you made that and a good parts list....


----------



## Mike K (Mar 24, 2012)

Tony S said:


> Hey Buckster, now make a video on how you made that and a good parts list....



Better yet, the video and SELL a parts kit.


----------



## pedalmasher (Sep 6, 2013)

Do you think an Induro 200 series would be enough tripod for that lens or would you recommend the 300 series?  Thanks.


----------

