Advice needed: Things around buying an 600mm Canon lens

[Deleted member 91053]

I didn't like the look of that head either. It is going to get in the way of controls and would get in the way of my left hand/arm which I rest on top of my Canon 800 to help steady and control it. I couldn't see any provision for vertical balance either - that is a definite no go for me. I use the Wimberley 2 and am very happy with it.

Given that it is the Mk2 600 mm then I would suggest the Canon 1.4 Mk3 extender - they are designed for each other. If you are thinking of a 2 x extender then ONLY consider the Mk3 - it is significantly better than the Mk2 regardless of the lens used.

On my 300 F2.8 and 800 F5.6 lenses I use these covers:
http://www.outdoorphotographygear.co.uk/canon-neoprene-lens-covers
I had a Lenscoat when I had my 600 IS Mk1 but prefer these. Note I think the "Woodland Green" is the nicer pattern.

 

[xps]

I didn't like the look of that head either. It is going to get in the way of controls and would get in the way of my left hand/arm which I rest on top of my Canon 800 to help steady and control it. I couldn't see any provision for vertical balance either - that is a definite no go for me. I use the Wimberley 2 and am very happy with it.

Given that it is the Mk2 600 mm then I would suggest the Canon 1.4 Mk3 extender - they are designed for each other. If you are thinking of a 2 x extender then ONLY consider the Mk3 - it is significantly better than the Mk2 regardless of the lens used.

On my 300 F2.8 and 800 F5.6 lenses I use these covers:
http://www.outdoorphotographygear.co.uk/canon-neoprene-lens-covers
I had a Lenscoat when I had my 600 IS Mk1 but prefer these. Note I think the "Woodland Green" is the nicer pattern.

Thanks a lot!

The MKIII 1.4 extenders is ordered.
The coating looks good.
And I just made another decision. My local shop sold me an Sirui PH-20. This Gimbal head was for in-shop-demonstration, so I got for 150€. If it does not work, I can give it back or sell it and get an Wimberly.

 

[krautland]

The Canon case it utter dogshite. They should have put soft foam inside instead of that horrible plastic, which doesn't protect the lens one bit. The extenders rattle in the little holes, which are presumably made for those very extenders they don't fit. The only reason to get the Canon case is the resale value. I think they charge $800 for it.

Do get the drop-in pola filter. I mean, you want a pola anyway, right? There is only one and it is solid.

A third party vendor offers lens covers (the cloth cover only fits when you have the reversed hood attached), you could consider that.

I use it with a nice monopod, not sure you'd need more.

 

[privatebydesign]

And I just made another decision. My local shop sold me an Sirui PH-20. This Gimbal head was for in-shop-demonstration, so I got for 150€. If it does not work, I can give it back or sell it and get an Wimberly.

That is an excellent buy on the head. If you don't get on with it I'll buy it from you, seriously.

 

[LovePhotography]

It should come in a Canon 600B lens case, in a Canon box (and B&H shipped that in another, larger box unmarked box).

I have an all RRS setup (I'll third the recommendation of their replacement foot), also have the PG-02 LLR gimbal and a TVC-33 with leveling base.

Enjoy the lens!!

Call me an idiot, but, I can't figure out the advantage of side mounting the lens, with gravity, sheer and torque forces in effect, and the benefit of axial loading removed. If there is an advantage, please explain.
Also, wondering if, when the RRS mount is used in place of the one from Canon, whether the lens will still fit in the Canon suitcase?
Any insights appreciated.

 

[privatebydesign]

It should come in a Canon 600B lens case, in a Canon box (and B&H shipped that in another, larger box unmarked box).

I have an all RRS setup (I'll third the recommendation of their replacement foot), also have the PG-02 LLR gimbal and a TVC-33 with leveling base.

Enjoy the lens!!

Call me an idiot, but, I can't figure out the advantage of side mounting the lens, with gravity, sheer and torque forces in effect, and the benefit of axial loading removed. If there is an advantage, please explain.
Also, wondering if, when the RRS mount is used in place of the one from Canon, whether the lens will still fit in the Canon suitcase?
Any insights appreciated.

No you are not an idiot, but one thing people new to gimbals miss is that the lens has to swing about the center point of the mass in both horizontal and vertical axes, if it isn't set in the vertical axis then when the knobs are loosened and you let go of the camera the setup will swing to level, if the pivot point is at the center of mass in the vertical axis the lens will stay wherever you let go of it. This centered mass is intrinsic to side mounting as the lens foot is always in the center of the lens, it makes the setup much smaller and lighter and is more efficient. Of course you still need to adjust for fore and aft balance but that is done with the longer lens plates.

The full style gimbals need the vertical adjustment that I talked about earlier which makes them bigger and heavier and more complicated. Incidentally, they also have some kind of vertical clamp arrangement to allow for this vertical height adjustment so you concerns on sheer forces are just as relevant to those style heads too.

My experience of RRS lens feet is they still fit in the Canon lens cases (though I have not specifically used the 600 IS MkII). Though I don't normally use the lens cases for much anyway, the lenses are normally in a bigger roller case or in a smaller or custom soft bag.

 

[Kestrel]

I understand your concerns about the mechanical loading inherent in a side mount versus bottom mount gimbals. I use a side mount gimbal (Mongoose m3.6) along with the low mount replacement foot from 4th generation design. The low mount foot shortens the moment arm on the camera and lens (which is significant considering the weight of the 600 II + teleconverter and a 5dIII). The 4th generation low mount foot is a good compromise between height (tall enough to serve as a handle but short enough to keep the moment arm reasonable and to also pack easily in the backpack). I had tried the RRS foot but found it too tall for the side mount Mongoose (although it was a great handle for carrying). I also tried the Wimberley replacement foot, which was too short to use as a handle and also surprisingly heavy.

Anyway, the I really like the Mongoose because it is light weight, and since I'm carrying my whole rig around a lot that makes a difference. Aside from the care needed when mounting/dismounting the lens, there isn't a disadvantage I can see and the pivot on the Mongoose is more that adequate to handle the shear loading from the camera/lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Call me an idiot, but, I can't figure out the advantage of side mounting the lens, with gravity, sheer and torque forces in effect, and the benefit of axial loading removed. If there is an advantage, please explain.
Also, wondering if, when the RRS mount is used in place of the one from Canon, whether the lens will still fit in the Canon suitcase?
Any insights appreciated.

I prefer the side mount because it's lighter, smaller when disassembled for transport, and allows better access to lens controls. Another significant advantage is that if you use an L-bracket on your camera, you can mount the camera directly to the gimbal for use with a non-collared lens (wildlife is sometimes found in scenic locations, and an bringing along a ballhead in addition to the gimbal 'just in case' isn't my preferred solution).

So, lots of advantages to the side mount. The only disadvantage is that slightly more care is needed when mounting/unmounting the lens to/from the clamp. I don't worry about it, I lift my kids all the time, they weigh more than my 600 II, I value them far more and I haven't dropped them...

 

[privatebydesign]

I understand your concerns about the mechanical loading inherent in a side mount versus bottom mount gimbals. I use a side mount gimbal (Mongoose m3.6) along with the low mount replacement foot from 4th generation design. The low mount foot shortens the moment arm on the camera and lens (which is significant considering the weight of the 600 II + teleconverter and a 5dIII). The 4th generation low mount foot is a good compromise between height (tall enough to serve as a handle but short enough to keep the moment arm reasonable and to also pack easily in the backpack). I had tried the RRS foot but found it too tall for the side mount Mongoose (although it was a great handle for carrying). I also tried the Wimberley replacement foot, which was too short to use as a handle and also surprisingly heavy.

Anyway, the I really like the Mongoose because it is light weight, and since I'm carrying my whole rig around a lot that makes a difference. Aside from the care needed when mounting/dismounting the lens, there isn't a disadvantage I can see and the pivot on the Mongoose is more that adequate to handle the shear loading from the camera/lens.

The difference between the Mongoose style side mount and the RRS side mount is that the RRS setup allows for lateral adjustment to account for varying lens feet height and lens diameter, this is an intrinsic limitation of most side mount setups.

There is little difference in loading on any component in side mount or bottom mount, indeed to get to a bottom mount you also need to hang the weight and moment of the additional mounting to the top bearings, so counter intuitively a bottom mount would give more loads and moments to a gimbal system.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The difference between the Mongoose style side mount and the RRS side mount is that the RRS setup allows for longitudinal adjustment to account for varying lens feet height and lens diameter, this is an intrinsic limitation of most side mount setups.

There is little difference in loading on any component in side mount or bottom mount, indeed to get to a bottom mount you also need to hang the weight and moment of the additional mounting to the top bearings, so counter intuitively a bottom mount would give more loads and moments to a gimbal system.

That lateral adjustment needed to center a side mount is the reason Mongoose, Wimberley, etc. offer the low-profile replacement feet (intended for larger lenses). The RRS solution works with any lens/foot or camera body, the latter allows use as a multirow pano rig.

More loads/moments and a longer connection between gimbal base and lens also increases the potential for vibration (although that's not usually an issue with the high shutter speeds I use for BIF).

 

[LovePhotography]

Call me an idiot, but, I can't figure out the advantage of side mounting the lens, with gravity, sheer and torque forces in effect, and the benefit of axial loading removed. If there is an advantage, please explain.
Also, wondering if, when the RRS mount is used in place of the one from Canon, whether the lens will still fit in the Canon suitcase?
Any insights appreciated.

I prefer the side mount because it's lighter, smaller when disassembled for transport, and allows better access to lens controls. Another significant advantage is that if you use an L-bracket on your camera, you can mount the camera directly to the gimbal for use with a non-collared lens (wildlife is sometimes found in scenic locations, and an bringing along a ballhead in addition to the gimbal 'just in case' isn't my preferred solution).

So, lots of advantages to the side mount. The only disadvantage is that slightly more care is needed when mounting/unmounting the lens to/from the clamp. I don't worry about it, I lift my kids all the time, they weigh more than my 600 II, I value them far more and I haven't dropped them...

I don't have one, so I don't know, but, wouldn't the RRS bracket for my 6D have the camera pointing backwards in the horizontal position?

 

[privatebydesign]

Call me an idiot, but, I can't figure out the advantage of side mounting the lens, with gravity, sheer and torque forces in effect, and the benefit of axial loading removed. If there is an advantage, please explain.
Also, wondering if, when the RRS mount is used in place of the one from Canon, whether the lens will still fit in the Canon suitcase?
Any insights appreciated.

I prefer the side mount because it's lighter, smaller when disassembled for transport, and allows better access to lens controls. Another significant advantage is that if you use an L-bracket on your camera, you can mount the camera directly to the gimbal for use with a non-collared lens (wildlife is sometimes found in scenic locations, and an bringing along a ballhead in addition to the gimbal 'just in case' isn't my preferred solution).

So, lots of advantages to the side mount. The only disadvantage is that slightly more care is needed when mounting/unmounting the lens to/from the clamp. I don't worry about it, I lift my kids all the time, they weigh more than my 600 II, I value them far more and I haven't dropped them...

I don't have one, so I don't know, but, wouldn't the RRS bracket for my 6D have the camera pointing backwards in the horizontal position?

If you have a regular body plate it will orientate your camera in portrait aspect ratio (forwards/backwards in 360º). If you have an L-Plate it will give you both portrait and landscape orientation.

 

[Kestrel]

The difference between the Mongoose style side mount and the RRS side mount is that the RRS setup allows for longitudinal adjustment to account for varying lens feet height and lens diameter, this is an intrinsic limitation of most side mount setups.

There is little difference in loading on any component in side mount or bottom mount, indeed to get to a bottom mount you also need to hang the weight and moment of the additional mounting to the top bearings, so counter intuitively a bottom mount would give more loads and moments to a gimbal system.

That lateral adjustment needed to center a side mount is the reason Mongoose, Wimberley, etc. offer the low-profile replacement feet (intended for larger lenses). The RRS solution works with any lens/foot or camera body, the latter allows use as a multirow pano rig.

More loads/moments and a longer connection between gimbal base and lens also increases the potential for vibration (although that's not usually an issue with the high shutter speeds I use for BIF).

I tried the Mongoose low mount arm but didn't like it and converted it back to side mount. You are correct that the extra low mount arm just reduces the stiffness of the overall system.

 

[LovePhotography]

Okay, so, if for 2016 I wanted the ultimate RRS set up (but not redundant), for EOS DSLR and anything between 8mm and 600 with 1.4 TC, if you don't mind, what would that include?
Would like it to be the heaviest and steady enough necessary to do astrophotography and long exposure river water (Series 3 or Series 4 for EOS plus 600mm?). But, obviously don't want it to be heavier than necessary.
If I get the full enchilada Gimbel, would I also want the BH-55 ball head for "walking around" or wide angle?
What about the Series 4leveling base ( http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/Shop/Leveling-Bases/TA-4-LB-HK-Series-4-Leveling-Base-with-Platform.html ), and the long lens support Y-shaped thing? http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/Shop/Long-Lens-Support-Packages/Lens-Support-Pkg-dual-Quick-Release.html
Which are the best multi-purpose rails to get for Canon EOS, and lenses?

What about giving up the center column for stuff like portrait work where an inch or two up or down gives an entirely different look, and time is of the essence when it comes to sometimes figity subjects? I've always used my dad's 1950's era Quick-Set tripods which I have found to be incredible for the money (free in my case) but also available for under $70 on ebay. They all have center columns, so I'm wondering what portrait work, or certain other work where an inch or two up or down makes a difference (like, perhaps, shooting a softball game through the holes in a chain link fence) would be like...

It sounds like you could pretty easily spend $5000 on a complete RRS tripod rig, which I find rather astounding. It's a little like golf clubs. Golf clubs can't do a damn thing, yet they can cost more than the top-of-the-line Dell home computer, which has enough ability to send a man to the moon... LOL

So, if this is too exhaustive, I guess I can just call RSS, although when I have done this over the years, I usually get upsold to the point that I bought a lot of S___ that I never really needed (think computer network, home audio, business software, yada yada yada...)

Also, I though other people might like to know.

Thanks...

 

[neuroanatomist]

Mr. Bean, your post disappeared but you had asked about the leveling base. It's not a need, per se, but it does make life much easier. It's always best to start with a level platform, makes even pans simpler, etc. That can be done by adjusting the legs, but I find that annoying and time-consuming, especially if you move the rig a few feet for a different viewpoint and have to do it over again. The leveling base is fast and easy.

I know the RRS leveling bases for the 3-series legs were compatible with the larger Gitzo tripods a while back, that's probably still the case but worth checking with RRS directly, their customer service is great. The do (or did, at least) sell Gitzo legs in their shop also.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Would like it to be the heaviest and steady enough necessary to do astrophotography and long exposure river water (Series 3 or Series 4 for EOS plus 600mm?). But, obviously don't want it to be heavier than necessary.
If I get the full enchilada Gimbel, would I also want the BH-55 ball head for "walking around" or wide angle?
What about the Series 4leveling base ( http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/Shop/Leveling-Bases/TA-4-LB-HK-Series-4-Leveling-Base-with-Platform.html ), and the long lens support Y-shaped thing? http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/Shop/Long-Lens-Support-Packages/Lens-Support-Pkg-dual-Quick-Release.html
Which are the best multi-purpose rails to get for Canon EOS, and lenses?

I'll save the 'ultimate setup' for the end.

IMO, the 3-series is plenty robust for a 600mm lens + 2x TC. The 4-series came out after I bought my TVC-33, but I would have made the same decision.

I think the leveling base is a great addition - really makes starting with a level platform a snap. Be aware that the long-handle base precludes the using lowest leg setting (retracted with widest spread), so instead of ~4" minimum height you can only get down to ~13" with the platform slightly tilted (2 legs at widest, one leg more angled, leveling base can't quite compensate for the tilt) or ~23" with all three legs at the same steeper angle setting.

The long lens support system is essentially useless with the side-mount gimbal configuration. It might help with stability with a full gimbal, but the side mount is plenty stable and as I stated earlier, most shots with at the 600 II are at shutter speeds where vibration isn't a big concern.

If you get a rail, which one will depend on your use. I have the MPR-CL II rail as a nodal slide. Was there something else you planned to use a rail for? Or perhaps you were referring to the body and lens plates? If so, for the body I prefer an L-bracket (and I love the 1D X version, since it's modular with an upright portion that can be detached and the hex key stores right in the base). Definitely get the dedicated plate for your camera, note that you need different ones for a gripped body. For the lenses, get the recommended plates either from RRS or Wimberley (both are equally good, I have a mix). Exception is for a supertele, I prefer the RRS replacement foot.

What about giving up the center column for stuff like portrait work where an inch or two up or down gives an entirely different look, and time is of the essence when it comes to sometimes figity subjects? I've always used my dad's 1950's era Quick-Set tripods which I have found to be incredible for the money (free in my case) but also available for under $70 on ebay. They all have center columns, so I'm wondering what portrait work, or certain other work where an inch or two up or down makes a difference (like, perhaps, shooting a softball game through the holes in a chain link fence) would be like...

For normal use, you really don't want a center column. All it does is reduce stability, even when not raised - there's a reason the higher end legs don't have one.

When doing static portraits (I did a series of individual headshots for an entire office group), a center column would come in very handy. RRS does sell one for the 3-series legs, you can swap out the leveling base for the center column (I may pick one up at some point, but only for occasional portrait use).

It sounds like you could pretty easily spend $5000 on a complete RRS tripod rig, which I find rather astounding. It's a little like golf clubs. Golf clubs can't do a damn thing, yet they can cost more than the top-of-the-line Dell home computer, which has enough ability to send a man to the moon... LOL

I've spent right around that $5K figure with RRS. It's an expensive hobby.....

Okay, so, if for 2016 I wanted the ultimate RRS set up (but not redundant), for EOS DSLR and anything between 8mm and 600 with 1.4 TC, if you don't mind, what would that include?

In fact, for me the setup would be pretty much what I have. TVC-33 with leveling base (the one with the clamp, and dovetails on the ballhead and gimbal), PG-02 LLR for the supertele, BH-55 LR, MPR-CL II to use the ballhead for single row panos or the gimbal for multirow panos. MC-34 monopod with the Pro head (screw clamp, the MH-01 now because the MH-01 pro isn't made any more) for hiking with the 600 II. B150-B/LMT Macro Rail, works with collared and non-collared lenses. L-plate(s) for camera(s), lens plates for collared lenses, replacement foot for 600 II. I also have the TQC-14 + BH-30 LR as a travel tripod, which is much easier to get on a plane and plenty sturdy for everything short of the 600 II (and it will even hold that in a pinch, although less stable than I prefer).

 

[Mr Bean]

Mr. Bean, your post disappeared but you had asked about the leveling base. It's not a need, per se, but it does make life much easier. It's always best to start with a level platform, makes even pans simpler, etc. That can be done by adjusting the legs, but I find that annoying and time-consuming, especially if you move the rig a few feet for a different viewpoint and have to do it over again. The leveling base is fast and easy.

I know the RRS leveling bases for the 3-series legs were compatible with the larger Gitzo tripods a while back, that's probably still the case but worth checking with RRS directly, their customer service is great. The do (or did, at least) sell Gitzo legs in their shop also.

Thanks for the response Neuro. I'll contact RRS as you have suggested. This purchase has been a long, drawn out affair for me, and I'd rather get a setup I'm happy with. The post disappeared due to "user error". I think I managed to delete it during an edit. But thanks for picking up on it

 

[DavidA]

Comment on the RRS vs 4th Generation.

I have not used the 4th generation low profile foot, but one thing I really liked about the RRS foot was using it as a handgrip. In the field, I sometimes like to detach the camera and lens from the tripod when changing locations. The RRS provides a nice sized grip to control a heave lens and 1dx. I know the RRS foot will fit in the 200-400 f4 L IS w1.4x case. I always use Gura Gear or dedicated soft bogs to carry my large lenses when traveling. The Canon case is good for storage but not that convenient for travel. It also screams photo gear checked at the airport plus it doesn't have wheels.

BTW - RRS also makes a nice foot replacement for the Canon 100-400 II.

 

[LovePhotography]

Would like it to be the heaviest and steady enough necessary to do astrophotography and long exposure river water (Series 3 or Series 4 for EOS plus 600mm?). But, obviously don't want it to be heavier than necessary.
If I get the full enchilada Gimbel, would I also want the BH-55 ball head for "walking around" or wide angle?
What about the Series 4leveling base ( http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/Shop/Leveling-Bases/TA-4-LB-HK-Series-4-Leveling-Base-with-Platform.html ), and the long lens support Y-shaped thing? http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/Shop/Long-Lens-Support-Packages/Lens-Support-Pkg-dual-Quick-Release.html
Which are the best multi-purpose rails to get for Canon EOS, and lenses?

I'll save the 'ultimate setup' for the end.

IMO, the 3-series is plenty robust for a 600mm lens + 2x TC. The 4-series came out after I bought my TVC-33, but I would have made the same decision.

I think the leveling base is a great addition - really makes starting with a level platform a snap. Be aware that the long-handle base precludes the using lowest leg setting (retracted with widest spread), so instead of ~4" minimum height you can only get down to ~13" with the platform slightly tilted (2 legs at widest, one leg more angled, leveling base can't quite compensate for the tilt) or ~23" with all three legs at the same steeper angle setting.

The long lens support system is essentially useless with the side-mount gimbal configuration. It might help with stability with a full gimbal, but the side mount is plenty stable and as I stated earlier, most shots with at the 600 II are at shutter speeds where vibration isn't a big concern.

If you get a rail, which one will depend on your use. I have the MPR-CL II rail as a nodal slide. Was there something else you planned to use a rail for? Or perhaps you were referring to the body and lens plates? If so, for the body I prefer an L-bracket (and I love the 1D X version, since it's modular with an upright portion that can be detached and the hex key stores right in the base). Definitely get the dedicated plate for your camera, note that you need different ones for a gripped body. For the lenses, get the recommended plates either from RRS or Wimberley (both are equally good, I have a mix). Exception is for a supertele, I prefer the RRS replacement foot.

What about giving up the center column for stuff like portrait work where an inch or two up or down gives an entirely different look, and time is of the essence when it comes to sometimes figity subjects? I've always used my dad's 1950's era Quick-Set tripods which I have found to be incredible for the money (free in my case) but also available for under $70 on ebay. They all have center columns, so I'm wondering what portrait work, or certain other work where an inch or two up or down makes a difference (like, perhaps, shooting a softball game through the holes in a chain link fence) would be like...

For normal use, you really don't want a center column. All it does is reduce stability, even when not raised - there's a reason the higher end legs don't have one.

When doing static portraits (I did a series of individual headshots for an entire office group), a center column would come in very handy. RRS does sell one for the 3-series legs, you can swap out the leveling base for the center column (I may pick one up at some point, but only for occasional portrait use).

It sounds like you could pretty easily spend $5000 on a complete RRS tripod rig, which I find rather astounding. It's a little like golf clubs. Golf clubs can't do a damn thing, yet they can cost more than the top-of-the-line Dell home computer, which has enough ability to send a man to the moon... LOL

I've spent right around that $5K figure with RRS. It's an expensive hobby.....

Okay, so, if for 2016 I wanted the ultimate RRS set up (but not redundant), for EOS DSLR and anything between 8mm and 600 with 1.4 TC, if you don't mind, what would that include?

In fact, for me the setup would be pretty much what I have. TVC-33 with leveling base (the one with the clamp, and dovetails on the ballhead and gimbal), PG-02 LLR for the supertele, BH-55 LR, MPR-CL II to use the ballhead for single row panos or the gimbal for multirow panos. MC-34 monopod with the Pro head (screw clamp, the MH-01 now because the MH-01 pro isn't made any more) for hiking with the 600 II. B150-B/LMT Macro Rail, works with collared and non-collared lenses. L-plate(s) for camera(s), lens plates for collared lenses, replacement foot for 600 II. I also have the TQC-14 + BH-30 LR as a travel tripod, which is much easier to get on a plane and plenty sturdy for everything short of the 600 II (and it will even hold that in a pinch, although less stable than I prefer).

Thanks for the detailed explanation.
I'm gonna print it out and save it for my Xmas or February 2016 after property taxes paid celebration! )