New 600mm f/4L IS Mk II - availability?

[WesternGuy]

vkiran, congrats on getting the 600 - I am jealous ;D - well not really - well maybe just a bit.

WesternGuy

 

[Richard Lane]

Vkiran, Congrats on the new lens!

One more point to add about the center column is that it also adds some additional weight when hiking and it also doesn't fold down as short, unlesss you remove it, but then it also takes longer to setup, ok so that was two points.

I can also definitely confirm that a leveling base would be nice with the super-telephoto. It's a PITA to adjust either one or two legs when on uneven ground (which is most of the time) with the heavy lens on the tripod, and even then (pun intended) it's still hard to get the tripod level. I don't have one yet but I do plan on purchasing one from RRS.

Rich

 

[Loswr]

neuroanatomist, interesting comment on the levelling base. I have asked a few folks about that, and I have gotten mixed responses - a couple of folks have suggested that it is a "good thing" and others have indicated that it was "unnecessary". I guess time will tell, although, I have no recollection of seeing anyone with a gimbal on a Gitzo that had a levelling base. I will go without for now and see if it does become a requirement as I can always add it later

Yeah, perhaps 'need' is too strong a word. It depends on your shooting style, in part. If you are a 'go out, set up once, take lots of shots, tear down, go home' shooter, there's not much advantage. I often grab the setup and move a few feet (or tens of meters) then set it down again. To have to re-level each time using the legs would be a real pain, as Rich states.

I suppose there are three options:

1) Leveling base.

2) No leveling base, just level the legs each time - that's hard to do with a supertele mounted on the gimbal, and there's a risk of tipping the whole thing over while lifting a leg to extend it.

3) Don't level the platform. Whether or not this matters depends how and what you shoot. If the base of the gimbal is tilted, your shots will be tilted, too. Now, if you're mainly using the gimbal for vertical movements of the lens, you can loosen the tripod ring and rotate the lens to straighten the frame. But if you pan horizontally, you will get progressively more tilt as you pan, unless you're leaving the tripod ring loose and rotating the lens as you pan (possible, but probably not easy to do well). If your framing is loose, you can level in post - but I prefer getting it right in-camera, so you don't find yourself having to crop out something you want as you level the image.

I wonder...of the people who indicated that it's unnecessary, how many of them have used one? I know a few people who have claimed that a gimbal is 'unnecessary' for a supertele, because as long as your ballhead supports the weight, that works fine. Then they actually try a gimbal and.....

Having said that, it does make sense to try without first, then add if you think it would help.

I spent a little while yesterday afternoon at the edge of a copse of trees and bushes with a lot of small bird activity. I had to frequently move the tripod around on pretty uneven ground to get better angles, depending on the activity. The leveling base made that a lot easier to do.

I can also definitely confirm that a leveling base would be nice with the super-telephoto...I don't have one yet but I do plan on purchasing one from RRS.

Rich, do you also have a ballhead that you use with that set of legs? If so, you might look at the RRS leveling base w/ clamp. The TH-DVTL40 plate is sized for the Wimberley II base. The clamp not only makes switching from gimbal to ballhead easy, it also makes setup/breakdown faster. Also, you can get away with no ballhead if bringing a standard lens along - the RRS side gimbal can mount an L-bracket to use a standard lens, but the full gimbal and Wimberley cannot. But, the leveling base clamp is a standard AS clamp, so you can just clamp in a camera base plate or L-bracket - granted, you have limited position control - but it can save weight on a hike...

 

[PackLight]

neuroanatomist, interesting comment on the levelling base. I have asked a few folks about that, and I have gotten mixed responses - a couple of folks have suggested that it is a "good thing" and others have indicated that it was "unnecessary". I guess time will tell, although, I have no recollection of seeing anyone with a gimbal on a Gitzo that had a levelling base. I will go without for now and see if it does become a requirement as I can always add it later

I suppose there are three options:

1) Leveling base.

2) No leveling base, just level the legs each time - that's hard to do with a supertele mounted on the gimbal, and there's a risk of tipping the whole thing over while lifting a leg to extend it.

This is the option I go with using the Gitzo legs. With the quick 1/4 turn lock it is very easy to adjust and level the set up. 3 years using the Gitzo and haven't dropped mine yet. Honestly have never thought "Hey, I need a leveling base".

My comment is from a Gitzo perspective. If you have RRS or other brand, and the lock feature doesn't work as well, I might reconsider my position.

 

[vkiran]

vkiran, congrats on getting the 600 - I am jealous ;D - well not really - well maybe just a bit.

WesternGuy

Thanks, just lucky to get one fast...

 

[PackLight]

neuroanatomist, interesting comment on the levelling base. I have asked a few folks about that, and I have gotten mixed responses - a couple of folks have suggested that it is a "good thing" and others have indicated that it was "unnecessary". I guess time will tell, although, I have no recollection of seeing anyone with a gimbal on a Gitzo that had a levelling base. I will go without for now and see if it does become a requirement as I can always add it later

3) Don't level the platform. Whether or not this matters depends how and what you shoot. If the base of the gimbal is tilted, your shots will be tilted, too. Now, if you're mainly using the gimbal for vertical movements of the lens, you can loosen the tripod ring and rotate the lens to straighten the frame. But if you pan horizontally, you will get progressively more tilt as you pan, unless you're leaving the tripod ring loose and rotating the lens as you pan (possible, but probably not easy to do well). If your framing is loose, you can level in post - but I prefer getting it right in-camera, so you don't find yourself having to crop out something you want as you level the image.

"unless you're leaving the tripod ring loose and rotating the lens as you pan (possible, but probably not easy to do well)." That is the ticket, and yes that is how I do it if I am in a hurry. . With a quick turn you can easily lock it right back to where you need it for a still shot.

 

[vkiran]

Vkiran, Congrats on the new lens!

One more point to add about the center column is that it also adds some additional weight when hiking and it also doesn't fold down as short, unlesss you remove it, but then it also takes longer to setup, ok so that was two points.

I can also definitely confirm that a leveling base would be nice with the super-telephoto. It's a PITA to adjust either one or two legs when on uneven ground (which is most of the time) with the heavy lens on the tripod, and even then (pun intended) it's still hard to get the tripod level. I don't have one yet but I do plan on purchasing one from RRS.

Rich

Thanks to You and neuroanatomist's inputs , I have fixed on GT3532LS. I can see the leveling base is greatly useful but will have to make do, as it is unavailable in this part of the world. Will have to get shipped it from the US.

 

[Loswr]

My comment is from a Gitzo perspective. If you have RRS or other brand, and the lock feature doesn't work as well, I might reconsider my position.

The RRS locks have the same 1/4-turn, and an air cushion in the legs so there's not a dramatic change when you unlock a leg with a load on it.

Out of curiousity, do you adjust the top joint (meaning you've more fully extended the lower sections), or do you drop to near ground-level to adjust one or two of the bottom joints?

 

[PackLight]

My comment is from a Gitzo perspective. If you have RRS or other brand, and the lock feature doesn't work as well, I might reconsider my position.

The RRS locks have the same 1/4-turn, and an air cushion in the legs so there's not a dramatic change when you unlock a leg with a load on it.

Out of curiousity, do you adjust the top joint (meaning you've more fully extended the lower sections), or do you drop to near ground-level to adjust one or two of the bottom joints?

You’re supposed to adjust the bottom joints.
But, do we always do what we are supposed to. :
Usually a person sets up his legs first and levels, then mounts the lens.
Then if you pick up and carry you are forced to re level. I cheat and do the top legs. The Gitzo is so sturdy that I never notice a difference.

I have never had a RSS tripod in my hand, so I couldn't say it would be a good or a wise way. To and individual if it feels uncomfortable at all adjusting legs no matter what brand, then a leveling base makes sense.

Edit; to clarify a bit. My bottom sections are usually not fully extended. About half distance is the standing height I use. Top sections start at full length, I tune with the top leges from there.

 

[Loswr]

Ahhh, well then. I don't cheat. : : :

My bottom sections are usually not fully extended. About half distance is the standing height I use. Top sections start at full length, I tune with the top leges from there.

Makes sense. On my RRS TVC-33, I only need to extend 4-6" of the bottom segment to get the VF to eye level, with the middle section fully extended. Fine if I want to lower a leg, but raising a leg is a bit more of a pain, since that means reaching to 6" off the ground. I could do it, I suppose, but the leveling base means not having to.

I've use both Gitzo and RRS legs, they're comparable in terms of use and sturdiness, but for me the RRS is a bit better spec'd (extends a little taller, collapses a little smaller, is a little lighter - but really, all the differences are pretty minor). The respective heads are a different story - while Gitzo makes great legs, their heads are not that good, IMO. I'll take an RRS ballhead over a Gitzo any day of the week. Seems to be a common viewpoint - some guy has been trying to offload a Gitzo ballhead on my local Craigslist board for close to two years now (too stubborn to drop the price, apparently).

 

[PackLight]

Ahhh, well then. I don't cheat. : : :

My bottom sections are usually not fully extended. About half distance is the standing height I use. Top sections start at full length, I tune with the top leges from there.

Makes sense. On my RRS TVC-33, I only need to extend 4-6" of the bottom segment to get the VF to eye level, with the middle section fully extended. Fine if I want to lower a leg, but raising a leg is a bit more of a pain, since that means reaching to 6" off the ground. I could do it, I suppose, but the leveling base means not having to.

I've use both Gitzo and RRS legs, they're comparable in terms of use and sturdiness, but for me the RRS is a bit better spec'd (extends a little taller, collapses a little smaller, is a little lighter - but really, all the differences are pretty minor). The respective heads are a different story - while Gitzo makes great legs, their heads are not that good, IMO. I'll take an RRS ballhead over a Gitzo any day of the week. Seems to be a common viewpoint - some guy has been trying to offload a Gitzo ballhead on my local Craigslist board for close to two years now (too stubborn to drop the price, apparently).

True fact, IMO Gitzo legs will not do you wrong. Gitzo heads, stay away from.
I have a Wimberley, I am not even sure RRS had an option when I bought it.

 

[PackLight]

TVC-33 is >20cm taller when extended, 1-2 cm shorter when collapsed, and a few tens of grams lighter as well. The RRS TVC-34L further adds another 30cm in height, and is even shorter when collapsed. Overall better specs than the Gitzo 3-series.

As a gear had I am compelled to check the specs out to see if I was missing something.
Working in the Construction Industry I put it in inches and lbs.

Per RRS site compared to the specs on B&H's.

The RRS is 1" taller, .15 lbs lighter and the fold up height is identical (26").

The Gitzo handles 5 more lbs and is $95 cheaper.

From experience I know that my Gitzo is very fat with legs folded. The RRS website lists the plate at 4.5" but I am sure this is plate only.

I didn't see a reason to change tripods, maybe a few to think about if I need new legs.

Anything I am missing?

By my judgment I think the extra weight and supporting 5 more pounds could be a wash. As I am about 6' tall and getting shorter the 1" height is nothing. Looks like a tie from my perspective, for sure a close call.

 

[Loswr]

Whoops - I added a zero where there shouldn't have been one - TVC-33 is >20cm = ~1" taller when extended. :-[

Like I later stated, the differences are really minor (20cm would certainly not be minor!), I'd see absolutely no reason to get RRS legs if I already had Gitzo legs. Since I didn't have a tripod suitable for a supertele, I had to choose between Gitzo and RRS de novo, and the RRS legs were more appealing, and made sense since I was getting a bunch of other RRS gear at the same time. I'm very happy with them, and I'm sure I'd have been just as happy with the Gitzo legs.

 

[Random Orbits]

[Unless you really need the extra height (the TVC-34L provides it, although the Gitzo GT3542LS doesn't), I'd go with a 3-section tripod over a 4-section tripod. You want maximum stability for the 600mm lens (I have a Manfrotto 4-section CF tripod for travel with 'normal' lenses up to 100-400, although I may replace that with the RRS TQC-14 at some point, both fit in carryon luggage).

Neuro, did you look at the TVC-24 as a travel rig? It's 0.5 lb heavier and only 0.9 in longer than the TQC-14, but it has a higher load rating. Not that own either, but I'm looking into the TVC-24 as a general purpose tripod.

 

[Loswr]

Neuro, did you look at the TVC-24 as a travel rig? It's 0.5 lb heavier and only 0.9 in longer than the TQC-14, but it has a higher load rating. Not that own either, but I'm looking into the TVC-24 as a general purpose tripod.

I did, but it's not compact enough. For me, a 'travel rig' needs to fit inside a carryon hard case (Storm im2500). I have a Manfrotto 190CXPRO4 currently, and for that to fit I need to remove the ballhead - I'd need to do the same for the TVC-24 + BH-40 combo. At some point, I might replace the Manfrotto setup with the RRS TQC-14 + BH-30 - the latter setup would fit in the Storm carryon without needing to remove the ballhead for travel. That 0.9" makes all the difference!

The load rating on the TQC-14/BH-30 is sufficient for any lenses I'd likely use, short of the 600 II - the 15 lb rating is actually higher than my Manfrotto setup, and the latter does fine with a gripped body and white zoom (100-400, etc.).

 

[PackLight]

Whoops - I added a zero where there shouldn't have been one - TVC-33 is >20cm = ~1" taller when extended. :-[

Like I later stated, the differences are really minor (20cm would certainly not be minor!), I'd see absolutely no reason to get RRS legs if I already had Gitzo legs. Since I didn't have a tripod suitable for a supertele, I had to choose between Gitzo and RRS de novo, and the RRS legs were more appealing, and made sense since I was getting a bunch of other RRS gear at the same time. I'm very happy with them, and I'm sure I'd have been just as happy with the Gitzo legs.

Maybe it comes down to this, saying you have "Gitzo" legs sounds really cool to say at certain coffee shops, although not the ones I go to.
Saying you have "Really Right Stuff" legs sounds cool if you are in to astrophotography.

Now saying that someone has a “Gitzo” ball head, it just sounds like an insult no matter what.

 

[Richard Lane]

Rich, do you also have a ballhead that you use with that set of legs? If so, you might look at the RRS leveling base w/ clamp. The TH-DVTL40 plate is sized for the Wimberley II base. The clamp not only makes switching from gimbal to ballhead easy, it also makes setup/breakdown faster. Also, you can get away with no ballhead if bringing a standard lens along - the RRS side gimbal can mount an L-bracket to use a standard lens, but the full gimbal and Wimberley cannot. But, the leveling base clamp is a standard AS clamp, so you can just clamp in a camera base plate or L-bracket - granted, you have limited position control - but it can save weight on a hike...

Yes, I have The Markins Q20 ballhead , however I don't often switch from ballhead to Wimberley. But, I'm still very interested in the RRS leveling base w/clamp, and the RRS Dovetail would be a nice bonus purchase for some convenience. It would also be cool to be able to take a landscape shot using the L-bracket and leveling base in a pinch. Thanks!

 

[Richard Lane]

Just a general follow up to the RRS series 3 vs Gitzo series 3 discussion.

Originally RRS was going after the Gitzo 5 series market with the RRS series 3. The Gitzo series 3 states that it's ideal for lenses up to 400mm. The RRS series 3 states in their catalog that it's ideal for the 600mm lens.

Technically according to Gitzo, the Gitzo 5 series is for the 500mm, 600mm, and 800mm lenses. Now, I would certainly agree that the Gitzo series 3 does work well at focal ranges from 500mm to 1000mm. However, Gitzo doesn't promote it that way. So when you compare the specs keep that in mind.

You should really compare the RRS series 3 with the Gitzo series 5 and when you do that then you will see what an accomplishment the RRS series 3 is. Series 3 of one company does not necessarily equate with series 3 of another company.

Also, weight capacity doesn't necessarily translate to stability at longer focal length's. Stability should really be tested separately from weight capacity.

I should also mention that I own the Carbon Gitzo systematic series 3, the 4 leg standard version, which I love by the way. When I bought my Gitzo tripod about 3 years ago, the RRS tripods were severely back ordered and I was hesitant to buy a tripod unseen and untested, so I went with the Gitzo gold standard and I don't have any regrets.

However, if I were buying today I would probably choose the RRS series 3, because I have been so impressed with the quality products that RRS continues to churn out, as well as the interoperability that they offer amongst their own products. Personally, I also find it nice dealing with a local USA company for the convenience if any problems should arise.

 

[PackLight]

Just a general follow up to the RRS series 3 vs Gitzo series 3 discussion.

Originally RRS was going after the Gitzo 5 series market with the RRS series 3. The Gitzo series 3 states that it's ideal for lenses up to 400mm. The RRS series 3 states in their catalog that it's ideal for the 600mm lens.

Technically according to Gitzo, the Gitzo 5 series is for the 500mm, 600mm, and 800mm lenses. Now, I would certainly agree that the Gitzo series 3 does work well at focal ranges from 500mm to 1000mm. However, Gitzo doesn't promote it that way. So when you compare the specs keep that in mind.

You should really compare the RRS series 3 with the Gitzo series 5 and when you do that then you will see what an accomplishment the RRS series 3 is. Series 3 of one company does not necessarily equate with series 3 of another company.

Also, weight capacity doesn't necessarily translate to stability at longer focal length's. Stability should really be tested separately from weight capacity.

I should also mention that I own the Carbon Gitzo systematic series 3, the 4 leg standard version, which I love by the way. When I bought my Gitzo tripod about 3 years ago, the RRS tripods were severely back ordered and I was hesitant to buy a tripod unseen and untested, so I went with the Gitzo gold standard and I don't have any regrets.

However, if I were buying today I would probably choose the RRS series 3, because I have been so impressed with the quality products that RRS continues to churn out, as well as the interoperability that they offer amongst their own products. Personally, I also find it nice dealing with a local USA company for the convenience if any problems should arise.

Rich

I wondered about the Series 3 number earlier.

Something is fishy in Gitzo land and I am not sure what it is.

The specs on the GT3532LS are from what I remember, the same as the Series 5. But the only Series 5 I find on the Gitzo site now are aluminum legs. If you do just the name Gitzo on B&H and choose legs on my search the GT3532LS doesn't appear unless you search for it specifically.

Which makes me wonder, is Gitzo changing there line. What is going on in Gitzo land, it may be that RRS is going to be the only choice before long.

My old Gitzo 5541 is no longer available on B&H.

Edit: I did check the specs, both the 3532 and 5541 support 55 lbs. The Old version is heavier.

 

[Loswr]

Let me just say that RRS is the Right Stuff - Really!