[VoltMan]

I have the 405 - "beyond" is correct - I'm sure you won't outgrow it - it even stiffly supports the beast below. I think key to the 405 is the robustness of the gearing in comparison to other heads - the 7.5kg limit is too conservative if you ask me. I wouldn't dare try this on an Arca Swiss Cube for example.

[...]My manfrotto 405 should be ideal for the 645D, with lenses up to 400mm and perhaps beyond.[...]

---

Last edited by VoltMan; 02-09-2011 at 02:25 AM.

[Digitalis]

I wouldn't dare try this on an Arca Swiss Cube for example.

I have used the cube with my rather substantial 8X10 view camera and it does passably well, though at certain angles the cube does show signs of instability, but those are rather extreme angles that are unlikely to be used in common usage. I chose the Manfrotto 405 because it has no exposed gears like the cube does, and therefore is more mechanically robust in less than perfect weather and less likely to seize up in sandy conditions.

The 405 handles my 8X10 with aplomb even when it is fully loaded with a short telephoto lens of 830mm. I have used the 405 with my pentax 67 with my M*800mm f/6.7 ED [IF], and as a test I used it with mirror lock up...I set a glass of water on the top of the 67 and when I fired the shutter I observed next to no perturbation on the surface of the water, which shows outstanding performance. Very few tripod heads pass the glass of water test, my B55 from RRS which is my ball head of choice handles this test quite well.

[Helen Oster]

I once thought I bought it. Adorama sent me the A version instead. Yet returning it meant I had to pay shipment & insurance - from the UK not inconsiderable. And in the end, I liked the lens and the price was indeed commensurate with the A. This lens has the same optical design as the FA, but apart from manual focus it lacks the tripod mount.

As it was our mistake, we'd have paid the return costs........

[Smolk]

I didn't mean to bring up old complaints.... and come to think of it, reclaiming the customs was also just a task too many at the time. Moreover, I kind of admired the manual variant. I do not do sports or wildlife, so should be alright - it's just that tripod mount.... I have seen the lens being sold with very sturdy ones, but never did I see them separately.

---

Last edited by Smolk; 02-10-2011 at 03:37 AM.

[Smolk]

Digitalis, thanks, your reference to the manfrotto 359 long lens support brought me to the Manfrotto 293 Telephoto lens support, like Manfrotto 293 Telephoto Lens Support with Quick Release 293 B&H, which may be the solution for the A 300mm. As it has no mount of its own, this seems the best solution.

[Digitalis]

Digitalis, your reference to the manfrotto 359 long lens support brought me to the Manfrotto 293 Telephoto lens support, like Manfrotto 293 Telephoto Lens Support with Quick Release 293 B&H, which may be the solution for the A 300mm without its mount where the 359 would not work.

clever, that just might be a workable solution, however the use of such a support may interfere with the movement of the focusing ring.

[rlj]

someone asked about the f5.6 version of the 300mm. i've posted elsewhere that it is excellent: resolution at f8 is perfect across the frame with exc contrast. at 1/2 the weight of the f4 version (in the 700 gram range), it is very nice for travel.

btw, the Mamiya f4.5 APO is about the same weight as the Pentax FA 300/4, so the 300/5.6 is decidedly the lightest 300 in MF (and needs no footplate).

the Pentax FA 150-300/5.6, is not much larger nor heavier than the 300/5.6, at a bit over 900 grams.

[kuau]

Rlj
I was the one who asked about the 300 5.6 fa, i just purchased one for $500.00 hope to have it next week for my trip to yosemite
Glad to here it performs well, I will probably shoot it at f11
Steven