[imtheguy]

I am about to enter the land of long and heavy lenses with an A*400mm f2.8 and pentax rear converter. In order to save a little money and go with a more flexible option I am looking hard at the Acratech Long Lens Head. I was unable to find any mention of it in the Forum. Somebody must have tried this and I would much appreciate an opinion on its abilities versus the more expensive and less flexible Gimbal setup. If you have never seen it, take a look.

Acratech Long Lens Head*::*Ballheads*::*Acratech

Thanks,
Lee

[interested_observer]

Hi Lee, I don't have the Long Lens Head, but I do have the GP head for almost a year now. I can say that it (the GP) is everything indicated and then some. Superb design and machining, great finish, and the GP can easily hold 25 pounds, although my heaviest is probably 5# (K20, FA31 and a Nodal Ninja is the greatest weight and mass I have had on it).

I would suggest calling Arcatech. I had a question prior to purchase and they (Scott the President, Designer, etc.) was extremely helpful and very knowledgeable. Have you watched the video on it. On the GP I found it to be very helpful.

Again on the workmanship and design I found the unit to be extremely well engineered and machined. The design on mine is simple, elegant and very easy to use. It was certainly designed for the user.

Hope that helps...

[Barry_S]

I've been using the Acratech Ultimate Ballhead with a velbon 630 to hold my 500/4.5. These are great ballhead.

[imtheguy]

Hi Lee, I don't have the Long Lens Head, but I do have the GP head for almost a year now. I can say that it (the GP) is everything indicated and then some. Superb design and machining, great finish, and the GP can easily hold 25 pounds, although my heaviest is probably 5# (K20, FA31 and a Nodal Ninja is the greatest weight and mass I have had on it).

I've been using the Acratech Ultimate Ballhead with a velbon 630 to hold my 500/4.5. These are great ballhead.

Thanks for the input. I would normally prefer one of their ball heads but the new lens is 6 kg and supposedly just too big and heavy to handle on a ball head. Its nice to know they have happy customers regardless.

[wildman]

I use a Manfrotto 028 tripod with a 393 head and it works well for me. However my gear is quite long and heavy and may be unsuited to your needs.

As I recall the tripod was about $220 and the head $180.

[imtheguy]

I use a Manfrotto 028 tripod with a 393 head and it works well for me. However my gear is quite long and heavy and may be unsuited to your needs.

As I recall the tripod was about $220 and the head $180.

Show off!

That rig should be on a mountain top for Nat Geo shots. Looks a little overkill for my lens but it would work and I would have great confidence that it wouldn't break.

edit - the more I research the 393 head the more I am thinking you really did me a favor by the introduction.

[imtheguy]

I found the mother lode of long lens at work. A Group Pool on Flickr for showing off giant lenses. Fair number of manfrotto 393 heads.

Flickr: The World's largest tele-zooms Pool

wow

[wildman]

I found the mother lode of long lens at work. A Group Pool on Flickr for showing off giant lenses. Fair number of manfrotto 393 heads.

Flickr: The World's largest tele-zooms Pool

wow

You want long try this:
Over 50". Equiv of 2000mm with TC (60x)

[Ben_Edict]

The Acratech looks fine. But a gimbal mount like the Manfrotto 393 is a different thing, very useful for any moving objects (birds and other wildlife). I think the nature photography community more or less goes for gimbals, though usually the much more expensive Wimberley, Kirk or Nill modells. The Manfrotto does not move as smooth as those, but costs only one third of those mentioned.

The Acratech on the other would be a good replecament for those heavy video heads, some outdoor guys use for long, heavy lenses. It allows for more precise positioning of the lens than a MA 393, so is probably a better choice, if you concentrate on landscapes without any moving objects to follow. The Manfrotto gimbal is really not the best choice (in my optinion) for static shots.

A good ball head would carry a 400/2.8 with tc solidly, by the way. The main problem is, that such a good ball head is going to be expensive and then there is still the problem, that such a big/heavy lens might flop to the side orr whatever, if the clamp gets loose enough.

Quite as Wildman I use the MA 393, but I must say, the Acratech head looks very inviting.

Ben

[wildman]

Just looking at the pics I've got some questions.

The Acratech looks inherently less balanced than the 393. The pivot point is far away from the center line of the lens while they look pretty close on the 393.

In other words the 393 is pivoting around the lens' center of gravity while Acratech does not.

It looks like you would really have to bind down with clutch friction to keep the Acratech from creeping on the tilt axis especially with long glass.

Perhaps I've got it all wrong but the geometry just looks wrong to me.

I hope these pics explain better what I mean than my words.

[imtheguy]

I hope these pics explain better what I mean than my words.

Yes, and your pics make sense
The only compaints I read about the 393 are the difficulty using a manual focus ring because the bracket is in the way. But if dadipentak says it works for him, good enough for me.

HEY, FEDEX JUST KNOCKED ON THE DOOR AND DELIVERED THE LENS WHILE I WAS TYPING FIRST SENTENCE! Gotta go see what I can do with thing.

[Ben_Edict]

Just looking at the pics I've got some questions.

The Acratech looks inherently less balanced than the 393. The pivot point is far away from the center line of the lens while they look pretty close on the 393.

In other words the 393 is pivoting around the lens' center of gravity while Acratech does not.

It looks like you would really have to bind down with clutch friction to keep the Acratech from creeping on the tilt axis especially with long glass.

Perhaps I've got it all wrong but the geometry just looks wrong to me.

The Acratech is, after all, "only" a simple 2D-head, not a gimbal. It works as the often used video heads and that is fine for static shots.
The problem with the pivoting point is mainly one of the lens in the example shot, as the tripod mount is too small and too short and provides no possibility for balancing this lens.

In this case a sliding plate attachment on the head would be useful (as the MA 393 has).

Ben

[imtheguy]

In this case a sliding plate attachment on the head would be useful (as the MA 393 has).

Ben

As luck (and budget) would have it, I put in my order to B&H this afternoon for the Manfrotto 393 and a much heavier tripod than what I have now.

The Acratech looks cool, looks like it is less cumbersum to work around than the M393 and it uses the standard plate that happened to come with my lens. I have been in contact with their tech support so they seem responsive and last, the Acratech can be used as a standard head for the camera in a pinch instead of dedicated to the big glass. But the M393 won out after I spent a couple hours hoisting my new lens with camera and rear converter attached.

[Ben_Edict]

As luck (and budget) would have it, I put in my order to B&H this afternoon for the Manfrotto 393 and a much heavier tripod than what I have now.

The Acratech looks cool, looks like it is less cumbersum to work around than the M393 and it uses the standard plate that happened to come with my lens. I have been in contact with their tech support so they seem responsive and last, the Acratech can be used as a standard head for the camera in a pinch instead of dedicated to the big glass. But the M393 won out after I spent a couple hours hoisting my new lens with camera and rear converter attached.

You will find the Manfrotto very useful, but quite bulky. The one real thing, that is annoying is, that the tension adjustment for the horizontal movement is hidden and you need a key to loosen or tighten the tension. But otherwise I would say, that it does 95% of the job much better gimbals do, for 30% of the cost. That's not a bad trade-off.

On the other hand I was already waiting for you to post your experience with the Acratech...

Ben

[imtheguy]

On the other hand I was already waiting for you to post your experience with the Acratech...

Ben

Thanks for the tip about the horiz adjustment. I was heading for the Acratech until I spent a few hours with the 16 lb package once the camera, grip and converter were attached. I used it on small ballhead very carefully to test it but realized I did not want to have it in a position above the axis. I know the Acratech is designed to keep the lens from falling over on its side and it also only 1 lb, but I don't plan to back pack this combination at all so heavy tripod, heavy head, here I come!