What tripod telephoto gimbal are you using with the Sony 200-600 (or other telephoto)?

[ronp]

I'd appreciate hearing what tripod gimbals others are using with their Sony 200-600 (or other telephoto) for capturing wildlife, as well as any experiences or recommendations too. I have watched a lot of online reviews, however I am interested in longer term real life users information vs. a quick online review of an assortment of different gimbals. I genuinely appreciate any information shared. Thank you.

 

[pmenear]

If you intend to shoot video with 200-600 then fluid head is the way to go, I'm using the Manfrotto Nitrotech 608 which has continuous counterbalance, I don't recommend fluid heads without this feature.
For my big primes I use the Jobu Pro 2 gimbal on a rigid tripod Feisol CT-3372 but that is a lot more than you need.
For my smaller lenses like the 200-600 I use the lightweight Lensmaster RH1 or RH2 gimbals on a lightweight tripod or ground pod. They are bullitproof and I use them in mud and sea water, the RH1 and Feisol CT-3342 are my walk around setup for the 200-600.

 

[ronp]

If you intend to shoot video with 200-600 then fluid head is the way to go, I'm using the Manfrotto Nitrotech 608 which has continuous counterbalance, I don't recommend fluid heads without this feature.
For my big primes I use the Jobu Pro 2 gimbal on a rigid tripod Feisol CT-3372 but that is a lot more than you need.
For my smaller lenses like the 200-600 I use the lightweight Lensmaster RH1 or RH2 gimbals on a lightweight tripod or ground pod. They are bullitproof and I use them in mud and sea water, the RH1 and Feisol CT-3342 are my walk around setup for the 200-600.

Thank you pmenear. This is why I find this forum to so useful. You can get information about gear from experienced shooters who've actually used the equipment vs. a youtube review by someone who's been given the gear to briefly test. Also, in all of my online searches about gimbal heads, for some reason lensmaster didn't show up. I am seriously looking at one of their models now. Just a quick follow-up question - I see you opted for the rh1 as your go-to walk around set-up for the 200-600 vs. the traditional double bracket with cradle. Any particular reason for that - or is that mainly because it's is smaller and lighter that way? (p.s. I have the Manfrotto on order).

I'd appreciate hearing what tripod gimbals others are using with their Sony 200-600 (or other telephoto) for capturing wildlife, as well as any experiences or recommendations too. I have watched a lot of online reviews, however I am interested in longer term real life users information vs. a quick online review of an assortment of different gimbals. I genuinely appreciate any information shared. Thank you.

 

[Clix Pix]

I use a Wimberley WH-200 gimbal on a Gitzo tripod. I found that I really need to use the 200-600mm (which I call "the bazooka") on a tripod rather than trying to hand-hold it. This makes all the difference, as the Bazooka is just a bit too unwieldy for me to handle. I often use a 1.4x TC with the 200-600mm as well, which of course adds to the length and awkwardness of it.

For a walk-around lens I use the 100-400mm and that one I do usually hand-hold, although sometimes I have put it on the tripod as well, depending upon the situation.

 

[pmenear]

Thank you pmenear. This is why I find this forum to so useful. You can get information about gear from experienced shooters who've actually used the equipment vs. a youtube review by someone who's been given the gear to briefly test. Also, in all of my online searches about gimbal heads, for some reason lensmaster didn't show up. I am seriously looking at one of their models now. Just a quick follow-up question - I see you opted for the rh1 as your go-to walk around set-up for the 200-600 vs. the traditional double bracket with cradle. Any particular reason for that - or is that mainly because it's is smaller and lighter that way? (p.s. I have the Manfrotto on order).

2 reasons I prefer the RH1 for the 200-600, the first you have identified (smaller and lighter), the second is balance, because the RH1 is a side mount the centre pivot point is automitically correct where as cradle mounts have to be height adjusted to match the lens or they swing back to horizontal. The RH1 I like for smaller lenses the RH2 for larger lenses and Jobu Pro 2 for big lenses or when I need extra stability.

 

[Hank]

I use the Wimberley MH-100 and I am very happy with it after about a year. It is small and light but incredibly strong. It is a quality product. The arca swiss base makes moving from monopod to tripod a snap (I put an arca swiss mounting plate on the monopod.

It's great on top of my monopod if I am doing a walk or onto my tripod if I am being less mobile. I thought the offset nature of the mount would take some getting used to but it hasn't been an issue for me. The offset mount actually makes it very easy to carry on a monopod as you can lay the camera and lens across your shoulders with the leg of the monopod out in front.

It won't suit everyone but it's another option to consider depending on your use case.

 

[MrFotoFool]

I know you need a gimbal head for monster telephotos like a 400 f2.8 or 600 f4. But I am curious if people find it necessary for the FE 200-600? While this is by no means a small lens, it's also not massive. I often shoot it handheld but when I do use a tripod I use a sturdy ball head which works fine for me. Mine is Really Right Stuff BH55, which is Arca Swiss compatible. I also replaced the stock Sony tripod foot on the lens with a Really Right Stuff foot, which makes it possible to mount without having to screw on an extra plate.

Since I have never used a gimbal head, I am curious to hear from experienced users if this is preferable to a ball head for even medium telephoto lenses like this. If so, in what ways is it better?

 

[Merlinator]

I've had the lens for over a year and had never used a tripod with it until I went to Galveston, Texas a couple of weeks ago. I use a wimberley gimbal when I need a tripod and then only used it because I was in a blind for a few hours each day. Having said that I found that the gimbal was overkill for this lens and would recommend a lighter alternative. I used it because that is what I use with my 600 F4. I would look at the flexshooter for example.

 

[pmenear]

I know you need a gimbal head for monster telephotos like a 400 f2.8 or 600 f4. But I am curious if people find it necessary for the FE 200-600? While this is by no means a small lens, it's also not massive. I often shoot it handheld but when I do use a tripod I use a sturdy ball head which works fine for me. Mine is Really Right Stuff BH55, which is Arca Swiss compatible. I also replaced the stock Sony tripod foot on the lens with a Really Right Stuff foot, which makes it possible to mount without having to screw on an extra plate.

Since I have never used a gimbal head, I am curious to hear from experienced users if this is preferable to a ball head for even medium telephoto lenses like this. If so, in what ways is it better?

The main advantage of a gimbal is balance, they don't rely on friction to make them stay on target/upright or hand contact, this makes them safer over ball head or similare.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I'd appreciate hearing what tripod gimbals others are using with their Sony 200-600 (or other telephoto) for capturing wildlife, as well as any experiences or recommendations too. I have watched a lot of online reviews, however I am interested in longer term real life users information vs. a quick online review of an assortment of different gimbals. I genuinely appreciate any information shared. Thank you.

For my action/wildlife shots i usually handhold my long lenses with a sufficiently elevated shutter speed for flying birds, including my Sony 400mm f2.8 and Nikon 500mm f4 before that.

On those few occasions when i need to use a tripod I will use a strong ballhead and similarily with my monopod.....other than that I have a Waverly gimble which is a bit outdated even though its carbon fibre, but as I rarely use it these days haven't seen the need to upgrade.

 

[Tim Mayo]

@garuda compiled a helpful list of gimbals over in this thread:
https://www.alphashooters.com/community/threads/tripod-gimbal-comparison-for-large-lenses.2568/

I use a mix of handheld, monopod and gimbal depending on what I'm shooting. I use the Jobu Design BWG-J3K Jobu Jr.3 with my 200-600.

 

[TerryL]

I know you need a gimbal head for monster telephotos like a 400 f2.8 or 600 f4. But I am curious if people find it necessary for the FE 200-600? While this is by no means a small lens, it's also not massive. I often shoot it handheld but when I do use a tripod I use a sturdy ball head which works fine for me. Mine is Really Right Stuff BH55, which is Arca Swiss compatible. I also replaced the stock Sony tripod foot on the lens with a Really Right Stuff foot, which makes it possible to mount without having to screw on an extra plate.

Since I have never used a gimbal head, I am curious to hear from experienced users if this is preferable to a ball head for even medium telephoto lenses like this. If so, in what ways is it better?

Yes

 

[jav_eee]

I know you need a gimbal head for monster telephotos like a 400 f2.8 or 600 f4. But I am curious if people find it necessary for the FE 200-600?

I like it because i can leave it pointed to a spot that might be "busy" but if i need to pan over or point further up or down its very easy (and stable) to do.

That being said I use the Magnus GH-M1. It's by no means a high-end gimbal head but it gets the job done.

 

[ronp]

I use a Wimberley WH-200 gimbal on a Gitzo tripod. I found that I really need to use the 200-600mm (which I call "the bazooka") on a tripod rather than trying to hand-hold it. This makes all the difference, as the Bazooka is just a bit too unwieldy for me to handle. I often use a 1.4x TC with the 200-600mm as well, which of course adds to the length and awkwardness of it.

For a walk-around lens I use the 100-400mm and that one I do usually hand-hold, although sometimes I have put it on the tripod as well, depending upon the situation.

Clix Pix - Appreciate your thoughts. I'm okay using the lens for shorter periods (basing this upon a previous 150-600 I was using with a Nikon befoore I changed to Sony). However I would defintely use a gimbal if I was using the lens for an extended time. I also shoot a lot of video, so that's why I'm also looking at the fluid heads as well. Your point about using it with the converter is also good. At that level of magnification even very small movements become significant. Thanks again!

 

[ronp]

I use the Wimberley MH-100 and I am very happy with it after about a year. It is small and light but incredibly strong. It is a quality product. The arca swiss base makes moving from monopod to tripod a snap (I put an arca swiss mounting plate on the monopod.

It's great on top of my monopod if I am doing a walk or onto my tripod if I am being less mobile. I thought the offset nature of the mount would take some getting used to but it hasn't been an issue for me. The offset mount actually makes it very easy to carry on a monopod as you can lay the camera and lens across your shoulders with the leg of the monopod out in front.

It won't suit everyone but it's another option to consider depending on your use case.

Thank you Hank. I really like the combination of lightweight portability! I'll be looking closer at this option too. Much appreciated.

 

[ronp]

I know you need a gimbal head for monster telephotos like a 400 f2.8 or 600 f4. But I am curious if people find it necessary for the FE 200-600? While this is by no means a small lens, it's also not massive. I often shoot it handheld but when I do use a tripod I use a sturdy ball head which works fine for me. Mine is Really Right Stuff BH55, which is Arca Swiss compatible. I also replaced the stock Sony tripod foot on the lens with a Really Right Stuff foot, which makes it possible to mount without having to screw on an extra plate.

Since I have never used a gimbal head, I am curious to hear from experienced users if this is preferable to a ball head for even medium telephoto lenses like this. If so, in what ways is it better?

How well would a ball head work for wildlife video work? I would appreciate any information or clarification in this regard.

 

[MrFotoFool]

How well would a ball head work for wildlife video work? I would appreciate any information or clarification in this regard.

I have never shot video, so I have no input on this.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

A ball head will work, sturdy one, but for video particularily it should ideally have a self levelling function for panoramics/panning if this is your thing........

The Arca swiss PO range work well but maybe are on the more expensive side......

Outside of this I tend to favour the Benro range of simple/medium sturdiness

ballheads such as the VOE range.......this has serviced me well over time.

 

[ronp]

A ball head will work, sturdy one, but for video particularily it should ideally have a self levelling function for panoramics/panning if this is your thing........

The Arca swiss PO range work well but maybe are on the more expensive side......

Outside of this I tend to favour the Benro range of simple/medium sturdiness View attachment 21147ballheads such as the VOE range.......this has serviced me well over time.

Good info! That's why I had asked about video. I wasn't sure if anyone ever used a ball head for video work. I imagine if you can control the smoothness and if they self levelled too - a ball head would work. I just wasn't sure about vibration when using a larger lens like to 200-600. The fluid heads compensate for a lot of vibration and dampen movement to make it smooth. On the other hand a ball head is much more compact to carry in your bag, than something like the manfrotto 504. So there you go, just when I rhought I had an idea of what I needed - I end up with more options to think about!

 

[cjskyler]

I like it because i can leave it pointed to a spot that might be "busy" but if i need to pan over or point further up or down its very easy (and stable) to do.

That being said I use the Magnus GH-M1. It's by no means a high-end gimbal head but it gets the job done.

i have been looking at this gimbal as a affordable solution myself

 

[Paul stuart]

None if i can help it ,but occasions i use the wimberely monopod gimbal ,and in hide i use sirui with a base plate made by a tool maker at work or my gimpro hide clamp ,only use these when i know i will be holding subjects for long durations ,i do also use a benro fluid head and mach 3 tripod for video work ,but when i tried to photograph the red footed falcon recently the tripod and fluid head were to limiting to get in flight action ,and hand held is just more reactive with fast subjects ,if i had a big prime the use of a tripod or monopod with gimbal would be more critical and even more so with t/c and big prime .

 

[TerryL]

Leofoto

 

[TerryL]

i have been looking at this gimbal as a affordable solution myself

Leofoto

 

[TerryL]

It’s well worth it. I would buy any of their gear.