300mm plus Lens Club: discuss your long lenses

CarbonR · 08-05-2010, 01:45 PM

I've also looked the Manfrotto, till now I'm not sure, but the tripod is not a thing I need quickly and I will need my money soon for other things. I already have a tripod, that is not sufficiant for the 500/4.5 and the 1000/8 (can't get a shot of the moon wihtout shake blur, and that's not the moon that moves vertically) at slow speeds but I rarely use long lenses at slow speeds

BTW :

Two 500/4.5 and the 1000/8 :

Who did say a 300mm is long ?

kacansas03 · 08-05-2010, 02:01 PM

CarbonR that is just not fair at all! You have Two 500 4.5 lenses? Not Fair! But, I can't afford to buy one from you so just color me green, oh so green with envy! I do have a collection of tripods from a couple of ? brand thingys that I let my wife use or use for body support for macro of flowers etc. up to my good ones from Manfrotto which will soon be 3 units. I was quite surprised when I disassembled the Manfrotto's to discover why my 'best' one could not handle the weight of the really heavy lenses. The blasted 3 way 'Pro' head weighed almost as much as the aluminum tripod by itself using up half the tripods weight capacity. Light Bulb in the head time when I realized that if I reduce that weight the legs can handle it, but how do I attach it? So I ended up getting the next step up in aluminum legs with the cross support and stuff. I am thinking of building my own gimbal to the size I want, meaning bigger than the 393, with parts I would make plus some Manfrotto parts but like you it is not the most important thing right now. it's summer and the outdoors beckons!!

CarbonR · 08-05-2010, 02:16 PM

I have the one on the right since nov. 2009, it is actually remplaced by the one on the left, which I received yesterday and is almost in near mint condition (and at a very low price), I won't keep two copies, the other one will be sold

SteveM · 08-05-2010, 02:17 PM

Hi kacansas03. I haven't tried the Manfrotto 393, but I did some research and came across some threads where some folks had problems using the 393 with 600mm and I couldn't really find a review with anyone using it with anything above 600mm.

The Wimberly balances my A*1200 where I can track birds in flight using my fingertips. I can place some drag to dampen any shake via the horizontal and vertical adjustments. The Wimberly is a little more expensive, but I think it is worth it.

Originally posted by kacansas03

CarbonR I too am working on my plans for a gimbal. I have looked at all the brands I could easily find and I am still impressed with the simplicity of the Manfrotto 393. It looks a lot like the gimbals I see as a sailor with one axis removed. I have read the complaints about difficulties getting the balance, this is solved by getting the correct length out of 3 of quick connect plates for the mount inside the gimbal or even changing the mount to the one with the vernier adjuster. It is also easy to add a 'brake' to the center swivel. It also makes me more comfortable to know that my lens is being cradled in a U shape bracket rather than hanging from an L were I could easily fumble the QC and have the whole thing fall. To date I have not had a lens fall but I have had multiple times that I forgot to lock the QC or it looked mounted correctly only to have the lens wiggle and tell me that I had not done my connection correctly and that is just on a typical 3 way head where the lens is on top with the QC highly visible. The other brands such as the Wimberley and Benro look stunning but from an engineering point of view I wonder just how well and how long one could handle the weight of some of the extremely long lenses. I have bought one of Manfrotto's heavier tripods to support a gimbal for my existing 400, 500, 800 lenses and my dream for the future of a 1000 or longer. I have a telescope eyepiece converter that I use with the long lenses. It knocks my Celestron telescope right out of the ball park. There is a big difference to the eye when viewing planets or stars between f5.6 and the slow f16 of the Celestron.

8540tomg · 08-05-2010, 02:21 PM

Managed this Goldfinch shot while waiting for my wife.

Tom G

**dadipentak** · 08-06-2010, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by smc

Hi kacansas03. I haven't tried the Manfrotto 393, but I did some research and came across some threads where some folks had problems using the 393 with 600mm and I couldn't really find a review with anyone using it with anything above 600mm.

I use the 393 mounted on a Manfrotto 3036 tripod for my SMC 1000 f8. I got the tripod used--I think it's discontinued--and it's worked out very well. I'm not enamored with the 393--it's not an elegant piece of engineering--but it does the job and the Wimberley was simply out of my price range.

Mike.P® · 08-06-2010, 12:50 PM

Sigma 100-300mm f4 @ 300mm on a K20D.

kacansas03 · 08-06-2010, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by dadipentak

I use the 393 mounted on a Manfrotto 3036 tripod for my SMC 1000 f8. I got the tripod used--I think it's discontinued--and it's worked out very well. I'm not enamored with the 393--it's not an elegant piece of engineering--but it does the job and the Wimberley was simply out of my price range.

I agree with "out of my price range". A Wimberley with quick connect can easily be 4 to 5 times the cost of the 393. I would like to try all the various gimbals as my Christmas wish so that I can find out which I would feel good using. On the issue of comments about the 393 I have seen that many people do not take the U shape of the upper and turn it over so that your lens rests inside the U instead of hanging in the manner that Manfrotto shows for the 393. Biggest complaint I read was that you could not get a balance with the stock QC that comes with it. I have done my research and found a much longer QC plate that would give the user more distance for balance. Also one can spend more and obtain a step larger QC system with even longer plates available. Another complaint about the 393 is that it is not wide enough for some of the really big lenses like a 1200 mm. That is why I am thinking of using some of the aluminum stock that I already own and creating a wider version then use some parts from various companies to give me the same damping controls available with the Wimberley and others. I do believe that these pieces of support equipment are not for every photographer and that having choice from several suppliers is a good thing.

SteveM · 08-06-2010, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by kacansas03

I agree with "out of my price range". A Wimberley with quick connect can easily be 4 to 5 times the cost of the 393. I would like to try all the various gimbals as my Christmas wish so that I can find out which I would feel good using. On the issue of comments about the 393 I have seen that many people do not take the U shape of the upper and turn it over so that your lens rests inside the U instead of hanging in the manner that Manfrotto shows for the 393. Biggest complaint I read was that you could not get a balance with the stock QC that comes with it. I have done my research and found a much longer QC plate that would give the user more distance for balance. Also one can spend more and obtain a step larger QC system with even longer plates available. Another complaint about the 393 is that it is not wide enough for some of the really big lenses like a 1200 mm. That is why I am thinking of using some of the aluminum stock that I already own and creating a wider version then use some parts from various companies to give me the same damping controls available with the Wimberley and others. I do believe that these pieces of support equipment are not for every photographer and that having choice from several suppliers is a good thing.

I think this is excellent information. While I am happy with the Wimberly, I felt a little roped in and more options would help (and who knows, competition could force the price of the Wimberly to come down). I hope you'll share a few pics of your setup once you have it completed.

**dadipentak** · 08-06-2010, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by kacansas03

I agree with "out of my price range". A Wimberley with quick connect can easily be 4 to 5 times the cost of the 393. I would like to try all the various gimbals as my Christmas wish so that I can find out which I would feel good using. On the issue of comments about the 393 I have seen that many people do not take the U shape of the upper and turn it over so that your lens rests inside the U instead of hanging in the manner that Manfrotto shows for the 393. Biggest complaint I read was that you could not get a balance with the stock QC that comes with it. I have done my research and found a much longer QC plate that would give the user more distance for balance. Also one can spend more and obtain a step larger QC system with even longer plates available. Another complaint about the 393 is that it is not wide enough for some of the really big lenses like a 1200 mm. That is why I am thinking of using some of the aluminum stock that I already own and creating a wider version then use some parts from various companies to give me the same damping controls available with the Wimberley and others. I do believe that these pieces of support equipment are not for every photographer and that having choice from several suppliers is a good thing.

I have no problems with the 393 as far as the QR plate and no problem balancing either my 1000mm or A*400mm f2.8.

And you're absolutely right about mounting it so that it rests on the inner U rather than hanging from it. Mounting it the way they pictured is pure lunacy, imho. Here's mine.

borno · 08-06-2010, 08:49 PM

Here is a home-made job I welded up. It works pretty good, but I never came up with a good locking mechanism. I don't really use it anymore because I hate tripods.

SteveM · 08-06-2010, 09:37 PM

Those 1000mm lenses look unreal. I can't justify buying another big lens but sure would like to see what one is like to use. It's to bad we are all scattered around the world (although that is very cool at the same time) as it would be fun to go on a long lens shoot. I think gofour3 has one but he is on the BC mainland.....and I don't think there are any other islanders on here???

**Canada_Rockies** · 08-06-2010, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by smc

Those 1000mm lenses look unreal. I can't justify buying another big lens but sure would like to see what one is like to use. It's to bad we are all scattered around the world (although that is very cool at the same time) as it would be fun to go on a long lens shoot. I think gofour3 has one but he is on the BC mainland.....and I don't think there are any other islanders on here???

I'm not from the mainland - unless you count 16 km from Alberta - but I will be briefly on Gabriola the September long weekend.

**gofour3** · 08-06-2010, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by smc

Those 1000mm lenses look unreal. I can't justify buying another big lens but sure would like to see what one is like to use. It's to bad we are all scattered around the world (although that is very cool at the same time) as it would be fun to go on a long lens shoot. I think gofour3 has one but he is on the BC mainland.....and I don't think there are any other islanders on here???

Yep I have the K300, K400, K500 & K1000mm. Any time you are in Vancouver just ask!!

Phil.

JohnBee · 08-06-2010, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by dadipentak

And you're absolutely right about mounting it so that it rests on the inner U rather than hanging from it. Mounting it the way they pictured is pure lunacy, imho. Here's mine.

Wow pure magnificence.
I've been thinking of going this route for some of my longer tele's.
Would you recommend this as a versatile setup over that of an upper end ballhead? And also, how does it perform tracking moving subjects?

08-05-2010, 02:01 PM	#827
kacansas03 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Photos: Albums Posts: 650	CarbonR that is just not fair at all! You have Two 500 4.5 lenses? Not Fair! But, I can't afford to buy one from you so just color me green, oh so green with envy! I do have a collection of tripods from a couple of ? brand thingys that I let my wife use or use for body support for macro of flowers etc. up to my good ones from Manfrotto which will soon be 3 units. I was quite surprised when I disassembled the Manfrotto's to discover why my 'best' one could not handle the weight of the really heavy lenses. The blasted 3 way 'Pro' head weighed almost as much as the aluminum tripod by itself using up half the tripods weight capacity. Light Bulb in the head time when I realized that if I reduce that weight the legs can handle it, but how do I attach it? So I ended up getting the next step up in aluminum legs with the cross support and stuff. I am thinking of building my own gimbal to the size I want, meaning bigger than the 393, with parts I would make plus some Manfrotto parts but like you it is not the most important thing right now. it's summer and the outdoors beckons!! Last edited by kacansas03; 08-05-2010 at 02:09 PM. Reason: Additions

08-05-2010, 02:21 PM	#830
8540tomg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,461	SMC Pentax M 400/5.6 Managed this Goldfinch shot while waiting for my wife. Tom G

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Sigma Lens Club- All lenses	Blue	Lens Clubs	3237	12 Hours Ago 07:23 AM
Soviet lenses club	Voe	Lens Clubs	4208	2 Days Ago 03:41 PM
Wanted - Acquired: Long lens >300mm in K-mount	pop4	Sold Items	1	10-03-2010 03:03 AM
Pentax DA 55-300mm vs Tamron 70-300mm at long end (brickwall)	tcdk	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	17	11-15-2009 12:52 AM

08-05-2010, 01:45 PM	#826
CarbonR Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Clermont-Ferrand, France Posts: 363	I've also looked the Manfrotto, till now I'm not sure, but the tripod is not a thing I need quickly and I will need my money soon for other things. I already have a tripod, that is not sufficiant for the 500/4.5 and the 1000/8 (can't get a shot of the moon wihtout shake blur, and that's not the moon that moves vertically) at slow speeds but I rarely use long lenses at slow speeds BTW : Two 500/4.5 and the 1000/8 : Who did say a 300mm is long ?

08-05-2010, 02:16 PM	#828
CarbonR Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Clermont-Ferrand, France Posts: 363	I have the one on the right since nov. 2009, it is actually remplaced by the one on the left, which I received yesterday and is almost in near mint condition (and at a very low price), I won't keep two copies, the other one will be sold

08-05-2010, 02:17 PM	#829
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Hi kacansas03. I haven't tried the Manfrotto 393, but I did some research and came across some threads where some folks had problems using the 393 with 600mm and I couldn't really find a review with anyone using it with anything above 600mm. The Wimberly balances my A*1200 where I can track birds in flight using my fingertips. I can place some drag to dampen any shake via the horizontal and vertical adjustments. The Wimberly is a little more expensive, but I think it is worth it. Originally posted by kacansas03 CarbonR I too am working on my plans for a gimbal. I have looked at all the brands I could easily find and I am still impressed with the simplicity of the Manfrotto 393. It looks a lot like the gimbals I see as a sailor with one axis removed. I have read the complaints about difficulties getting the balance, this is solved by getting the correct length out of 3 of quick connect plates for the mount inside the gimbal or even changing the mount to the one with the vernier adjuster. It is also easy to add a 'brake' to the center swivel. It also makes me more comfortable to know that my lens is being cradled in a U shape bracket rather than hanging from an L were I could easily fumble the QC and have the whole thing fall. To date I have not had a lens fall but I have had multiple times that I forgot to lock the QC or it looked mounted correctly only to have the lens wiggle and tell me that I had not done my connection correctly and that is just on a typical 3 way head where the lens is on top with the QC highly visible. The other brands such as the Wimberley and Benro look stunning but from an engineering point of view I wonder just how well and how long one could handle the weight of some of the extremely long lenses. I have bought one of Manfrotto's heavier tripods to support a gimbal for my existing 400, 500, 800 lenses and my dream for the future of a 1000 or longer. I have a telescope eyepiece converter that I use with the long lenses. It knocks my Celestron telescope right out of the ball park. There is a big difference to the eye when viewing planets or stars between f5.6 and the slow f16 of the Celestron.

08-06-2010, 12:29 PM	#831
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by smc Hi kacansas03. I haven't tried the Manfrotto 393, but I did some research and came across some threads where some folks had problems using the 393 with 600mm and I couldn't really find a review with anyone using it with anything above 600mm. I use the 393 mounted on a Manfrotto 3036 tripod for my SMC 1000 f8. I got the tripod used--I think it's discontinued--and it's worked out very well. I'm not enamored with the 393--it's not an elegant piece of engineering--but it does the job and the Wimberley was simply out of my price range.

08-06-2010, 12:50 PM	#832
Mike.P® Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Milton, Hampshire, UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,154	Sigma 100-300mm f4 @ 300mm on a K20D.

08-06-2010, 02:55 PM	#833
kacansas03 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Photos: Albums Posts: 650	Originally posted by dadipentak I use the 393 mounted on a Manfrotto 3036 tripod for my SMC 1000 f8. I got the tripod used--I think it's discontinued--and it's worked out very well. I'm not enamored with the 393--it's not an elegant piece of engineering--but it does the job and the Wimberley was simply out of my price range. I agree with "out of my price range". A Wimberley with quick connect can easily be 4 to 5 times the cost of the 393. I would like to try all the various gimbals as my Christmas wish so that I can find out which I would feel good using. On the issue of comments about the 393 I have seen that many people do not take the U shape of the upper and turn it over so that your lens rests inside the U instead of hanging in the manner that Manfrotto shows for the 393. Biggest complaint I read was that you could not get a balance with the stock QC that comes with it. I have done my research and found a much longer QC plate that would give the user more distance for balance. Also one can spend more and obtain a step larger QC system with even longer plates available. Another complaint about the 393 is that it is not wide enough for some of the really big lenses like a 1200 mm. That is why I am thinking of using some of the aluminum stock that I already own and creating a wider version then use some parts from various companies to give me the same damping controls available with the Wimberley and others. I do believe that these pieces of support equipment are not for every photographer and that having choice from several suppliers is a good thing.

08-06-2010, 03:56 PM	#834
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Originally posted by kacansas03 I agree with "out of my price range". A Wimberley with quick connect can easily be 4 to 5 times the cost of the 393. I would like to try all the various gimbals as my Christmas wish so that I can find out which I would feel good using. On the issue of comments about the 393 I have seen that many people do not take the U shape of the upper and turn it over so that your lens rests inside the U instead of hanging in the manner that Manfrotto shows for the 393. Biggest complaint I read was that you could not get a balance with the stock QC that comes with it. I have done my research and found a much longer QC plate that would give the user more distance for balance. Also one can spend more and obtain a step larger QC system with even longer plates available. Another complaint about the 393 is that it is not wide enough for some of the really big lenses like a 1200 mm. That is why I am thinking of using some of the aluminum stock that I already own and creating a wider version then use some parts from various companies to give me the same damping controls available with the Wimberley and others. I do believe that these pieces of support equipment are not for every photographer and that having choice from several suppliers is a good thing. I think this is excellent information. While I am happy with the Wimberly, I felt a little roped in and more options would help (and who knows, competition could force the price of the Wimberly to come down). I hope you'll share a few pics of your setup once you have it completed.

08-06-2010, 06:49 PM	#835
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Originally posted by kacansas03 I agree with "out of my price range". A Wimberley with quick connect can easily be 4 to 5 times the cost of the 393. I would like to try all the various gimbals as my Christmas wish so that I can find out which I would feel good using. On the issue of comments about the 393 I have seen that many people do not take the U shape of the upper and turn it over so that your lens rests inside the U instead of hanging in the manner that Manfrotto shows for the 393. Biggest complaint I read was that you could not get a balance with the stock QC that comes with it. I have done my research and found a much longer QC plate that would give the user more distance for balance. Also one can spend more and obtain a step larger QC system with even longer plates available. Another complaint about the 393 is that it is not wide enough for some of the really big lenses like a 1200 mm. That is why I am thinking of using some of the aluminum stock that I already own and creating a wider version then use some parts from various companies to give me the same damping controls available with the Wimberley and others. I do believe that these pieces of support equipment are not for every photographer and that having choice from several suppliers is a good thing. I have no problems with the 393 as far as the QR plate and no problem balancing either my 1000mm or A400mm f2.8. And you're absolutely right about mounting it so that it rests on the inner U rather than hanging from* it. Mounting it the way they pictured is pure lunacy, imho. Here's mine.

08-06-2010, 08:49 PM	#836
borno Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: md-usa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,580	Here is a home-made job I welded up. It works pretty good, but I never came up with a good locking mechanism. I don't really use it anymore because I hate tripods.

08-06-2010, 09:37 PM	#837
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Those 1000mm lenses look unreal. I can't justify buying another big lens but sure would like to see what one is like to use. It's to bad we are all scattered around the world (although that is very cool at the same time) as it would be fun to go on a long lens shoot. I think gofour3 has one but he is on the BC mainland.....and I don't think there are any other islanders on here???

08-06-2010, 09:49 PM	#838
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by smc Those 1000mm lenses look unreal. I can't justify buying another big lens but sure would like to see what one is like to use. It's to bad we are all scattered around the world (although that is very cool at the same time) as it would be fun to go on a long lens shoot. I think gofour3 has one but he is on the BC mainland.....and I don't think there are any other islanders on here??? I'm not from the mainland - unless you count 16 km from Alberta - but I will be briefly on Gabriola the September long weekend.

08-06-2010, 09:56 PM	#839
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,091	Originally posted by smc Those 1000mm lenses look unreal. I can't justify buying another big lens but sure would like to see what one is like to use. It's to bad we are all scattered around the world (although that is very cool at the same time) as it would be fun to go on a long lens shoot. I think gofour3 has one but he is on the BC mainland.....and I don't think there are any other islanders on here??? Yep I have the K300, K400, K500 & K1000mm. Any time you are in Vancouver just ask!! Phil.

08-06-2010, 10:05 PM	#840
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by dadipentak And you're absolutely right about mounting it so that it rests on the inner U rather than hanging from it. Mounting it the way they pictured is pure lunacy, imho. Here's mine. Wow pure magnificence. I've been thinking of going this route for some of my longer tele's. Would you recommend this as a versatile setup over that of an upper end ballhead? And also, how does it perform tracking moving subjects?