# Gimbal head or not for Tamron 150-600



## shamlyn (Apr 12, 2014)

Here is a question for everyone. I am trying to figure out if I should buy a Gimbal Head or whether I should just buy the Acratech GP Ball-head with the Gimbal head feature. The only telephoto lens I plan on using once I save up the money is the Tamron 150-600. I know that Gimbal heads are definitely easier than ball-heads when you have a big telephoto lens like a Canon 500mm on it and can handle the weight, but the Tamron only weighs 4.3 pounds.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks


----------



## Eldar (Apr 12, 2014)

The gimbal head has its clear advantages on the longer focal lengths, both for weight and stability. But occasionally, when I can´t bring both gimbal and ball head, I use my RRS BH-50 ball head with the 600mm f4L IS II. Not ideal, but it works quite well. 
As long as you make sure you keep it tightly secured, you should be able to live happily with the Arcatech head. I decided on the RRS BH-50 though.


----------



## eli452 (Apr 12, 2014)

For that weight and limited use I'll have the Wimberley Sidekick plus the M-8 Perpendicular Plate (also from Wimberley) on a good ballhead. I actually have that set up with Markins ballhead for my EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L, only 1.05kg but I have trouble holding for extended period; The sidekick will hold the 1.95kg Tamron with ease.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/205329-REG/Wimberley_SK_100_Arca_Sidekick_Ball_to.html


----------



## gary samples (Apr 12, 2014)

if you have the money go the Gimbal Head you will smile Avery time you use it !


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 12, 2014)

Gimbal heads excel when you are tracking moving objects, or when a big, long lens / camera combination is used.

You can get a 5 or 6 inch lens plate to balance a smaller super tele lens like the Tamron on a ball head, and a monopod can be handy to carry around.

The weight of the lens, and length are what keeps me from seriously considering one. I did have a Tamron 200-500, and it was not very sharp, in part, due to its difficulty in balancing.


----------



## wickidwombat (Apr 13, 2014)

I don't think this lens needs this, i've been shooting it handheld all day just fine
even with shutter speeds down to 1/200 at 600mm its not a problem


----------



## gary samples (Apr 13, 2014)

some just don't get it some are just lazy a bad len from a tripod will out perform a good len free hand


----------



## HankMD (Jun 12, 2014)

shamlyn said:


> Here is a question for everyone. I am trying to figure out if I should buy a Gimbal Head or whether I should just buy the Acratech GP Ball-head with the Gimbal head feature. The only telephoto lens I plan on using once I save up the money is the Tamron 150-600. I know that Gimbal heads are definitely easier than ball-heads when you have a big telephoto lens like a Canon 500mm on it and can handle the weight, but the Tamron only weighs 4.3 pounds.
> 
> Let me know what you think.
> 
> Thanks



I am late to this. I am not familiar with Acratech GP Ballhead, but I do have both the Tammy and the Wimberley WH-200 on a low-end Manfrotto tripod. I am still learning to make best use of the combination. In practice I often handhold the Tamron+6D or else use a monopod (a very good Sirui). I think one thing to consider is whether you can work with a pure, gimbal-only setup for non-telephoto shots, say, landscape. If not, you should go for a sidekick-type setup.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 12, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> I don't think this lens needs this, i've been shooting it handheld all day just fine
> even with shutter speeds down to 1/200 at 600mm its not a problem


I'm with you on this one, I think it's an overkill for this lens, especially with IS/VR. I personally don't think there's much use for a gimbal unless you're using a 400 f/2.8 or larger lens. 

shamlyn, I'd look into the Wimberly Sidekick if you have an Arca-Swiss compatible head and feel that you need a gimbal. It's not the same as a full gimbal, but it's less expensive and will be plenty sturdy for your camera/lens.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 12, 2014)

gary samples said:


> some just don't get it some are just lazy a bad len from a tripod will out perform a good len free hand



On some occasions a tripod might be necessary and if the light is bad enough and the shutter speeds too slow then use one - as long as the subject keeps still. But to make your statement as a generalisation and accuse others of being lazy is complete and utter drivel. The beauty of the Tamron is that it is a light lens with 3-4 stops of IS and is a joy to use with speeds above a few hundredths of a second without lugging a tripod around. If you phot small birds then you need shutter speeds faster than 1/500 s to freeze their movements, which gives an effective shutter speed as far as camera shake is concerned of faster than 1/4000 s.


----------



## SevenDUser (Jun 12, 2014)

I've had the cheap knock-off gimbal you see on ebay for around ~95 bucks for 3 yrs now. Never had an issue using it with my 400 5.6 L . I just got the Bigron 150-600 and I would rather use it with the gimbal and turn off the IS. Seeing sharper results that way. (now let me press "Post" and duck away)


----------



## KitsVancouver (Jun 12, 2014)

IMO, you need support for both stability and easy of use. I've not held that Tamron, but looking at photos and the weight of the lens, a good ballhead will easily provide enough stability. As far as ease of use (panning, movement, relieving weight), a gimbal will really help, but for the size of that Tamron, I think it's overkill. 

I purchased the Wimberley II for my 200-400 which is a bigger lens than the Tamron. Even with the 200-400, I could have gotten away with a ballhead. The main advantage with the gimbal for me, was easy of movement and peace of mind (you don't have to worry about locking the ballhead really tight to prevent flop). 

This is less of an issue and some will laugh at me for saying this, but that Tamron will look a little odd sitting on a big gimbal.


----------



## SevenDUser (Jun 12, 2014)

KitsVancouver said:


> IMO, you need support for both stability and easy of use. I've not held that Tamron, but looking at photos and the weight of the lens, a good ballhead will easily provide enough stability. As far as ease of use (panning, movement, relieving weight), a gimbal will really help, but for the size of that Tamron, I think it's overkill.
> 
> I purchased the Wimberley II for my 200-400 which is a bigger lens than the Tamron. Even with the 200-400, I could have gotten away with a ballhead. The main advantage with the gimbal for me, was easy of movement and peace of mind (you don't have to worry about locking the ballhead really tight to prevent flop).
> 
> This is less of an issue and some will laugh at me for saying this, but that Tamron will look a little odd sitting on a big gimbal.



It's not just the weight of the lens...That Bigron extends out quite a bit and factor in that big hood. Center of gravity shifts depending on where you have it extended. Hence gimbal over ballhead in this case. PLUNK !


----------



## brad-man (Jun 12, 2014)

shamlyn said:


> Here is a question for everyone. I am trying to figure out if I should buy a Gimbal Head or whether I should just buy the Acratech GP Ball-head with the Gimbal head feature. The only telephoto lens I plan on using once I save up the money is the Tamron 150-600. I know that Gimbal heads are definitely easier than ball-heads when you have a big telephoto lens like a Canon 500mm on it and can handle the weight, but the Tamron only weighs 4.3 pounds.
> 
> Let me know what you think.
> 
> Thanks



I have an Acratech GP and it will work fine for that lens. Keep in mind that the weight of the lens will be offset from the center of your ballhead, so a stout tripod is required. A more cost effective solution to the Wimberly Sidekick mentioned above is to pick up a Jobu BWG-M1 Micro Gimbal Ballhead Adapter. I have one and it is very well made and has a small enough profile that you can carry it in your back pocket. It easily attaches to any Arca ballhead. A full gimbal would be way overkill for your situation.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/754602-REG/Jobu_Design_BWG_M1_BWG_Micro_Gimbal_Ballhead_Adapter.html


----------



## KitsVancouver (Jun 12, 2014)

SevenDUser said:


> KitsVancouver said:
> 
> 
> > IMO, you need support for both stability and easy of use. I've not held that Tamron, but looking at photos and the weight of the lens, a good ballhead will easily provide enough stability. As far as ease of use (panning, movement, relieving weight), a gimbal will really help, but for the size of that Tamron, I think it's overkill.
> ...



Actually, a changing center of gravity works AGAINST a gimbal. When you set up your gimbal initially, you set it for forward/backward weight distribution and (on the Wimberley), you also set it for up and down weight distribution. If the lens shifts forward and back, your Wimberley won't work the way it's intended to. 

Even when I have the shoulder strap on/off, I need to readjust for the difference in weight distribution.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 13, 2014)

KitsVancouver said:


> Actually, a changing center of gravity works AGAINST a gimbal. When you set up your gimbal initially, you set it for forward/backward weight distribution and (on the Wimberley), you also set it for up and down weight distribution. If the lens shifts forward and back, your Wimberley won't work the way it's intended to.


Good point, I didn't even think about that with this being an external zooming lens (vs. the 200-400 1.4x). Even adding extenders changes the balance enough to require a adjustment of the center of gravity with primes.


----------



## HankMD (Jun 14, 2014)

It's true a gimbal such as Wimberley II is not required. The weight of the gimbal neutralizes one advantage of the Tammy -- its light weight (relatively) and mobility. The expense of Wimberley neutralizes its other advantage -- low cost. Still, at 600mm (which is the focal length many would use) a tripod -- not necessarily with a gimbal head -- is useful with some subjects. As an example the birds I try to shoot are small, woodland dwellers. Some are quite restless, others more slow-moving or appear regularly at fixed points. For the more predictable and slower subjects I'd mount the lens on a tripod pointing at where I expect the subject to appear and WAIT. It is when the subject appears ELSEWHERE that a gimbal head allows rapid correction. With steadiness shutter speeds in the low 100s or less may be fine.

Another reason to get gimbal + Tammy is if one expects to allow GAS to take its natural course, and go for a Canon supertele in the future ;D (The OP sees the Tammy as end-point.)


----------



## Synkka (Jun 14, 2014)

I like gimbals but if you don't shoot with support currently it's a bit of a change, if you wanted to go for a gimbal look at a jobu jnr as it's a lot smaller, I use mine on tripod or monopod. But to answer the question do you need a gimbal with the tamron, no it's light enough a good ball head will work.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 15, 2014)

Just my 2p!
I am having to disagree with some here - sorry!
If you are going to use the Tamron, at 600mm, then you must treat it as a 600mm lens to get the most out of it. The fact that it is very light is, if anything, a disadvantage when shooting as the Canon/Nikon 600mm behemoths damp down a great deal of vibration by sheer weight!
You will need top quality support (tripod) and a top quality head. I would not go for a Ball Head as you will VERY quickly find it VERY frustrating. With a ball head positioning/framing will be difficult and moving subjects will be out of the question. A Gimbal (such as the Jobu Jr recommended above) is probably the best compromise. Unfortunately, if you change focal lengths, then the balance will alter - but it is still the best solution.
Make sure you have a good, very rigid, tripod (forget the weight ratings) that will support your lens and not shake all over the place with these sort of focal lengths - sorry but that means an expensive tripod!
Be prepared to spend more on your tripod and head than you did on the lens if you want to get the most out of it.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 16, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> Just my 2p!
> I am having to disagree with some here - sorry!
> If you are going to use the Tamron, at 600mm, then you must treat it as a 600mm lens to get the most out of it. The fact that it is very light is, if anything, a disadvantage when shooting as the Canon/Nikon 600mm behemoths damp down a great deal of vibration by sheer weight!
> You will need top quality support (tripod) and a top quality head. I would not go for a Ball Head as you will VERY quickly find it VERY frustrating. With a ball head positioning/framing will be difficult and moving subjects will be out of the question. A Gimbal (such as the Jobu Jr recommended above) is probably the best compromise. Unfortunately, if you change focal lengths, then the balance will alter - but it is still the best solution.
> ...



Bear in mind that the Tamron is not the sharpest lens on the block, but is sharp enough and provides more fun per $ or ounce than most telephotos. One of its greatest advantages is its light weight and zoom. You nullify these by adding massive expensive gear that might get the best of a supersharp heavyweight that outresolves the sensor but might not increase the sharpness of a less refined lens.


----------



## weixing (Jun 16, 2014)

Hi,
IMHO, tripod will always give you the sharpest possible IQ out of the lens. If you going to use flash with flash extender, tripod will be recommended. Handheld will give you the freedom and fastest reaction. There is no right or wrong way, it's depend on your preference.

For your reference, I just came back on a short birding trip with the Tamron 150-600mm on 6D. Since I'm taking public transport, I decided to bring only a monopod and not to bring my gimbal head and tripod as it's quite bulky. I like the freedom (you can go places where tripod is difficult to setup) of hand holding the lens as you can "take cover" and change shooting angle easily, but sometime I miss my tripod especially when you are trying to point your AF point on a small bird jumping all over the place which is just slightly "larger" than your centre AF point on the viewfinder... even with the IS, sometime I find it difficult holding steady and long enough for the AF to lock on it especially later in the day when you are tired. I use my monopod when in such situation and it does help.

Anyway, I prefer hand holding, so must practice more hand holding technique and may be train my arm muscle... ha ha ha 

By the way, if you going the tripod way, go for a gimbal head.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 16, 2014)

Bear in mind that the Tamron is not the sharpest lens on the block, but is sharp enough and provides more fun per $ or ounce than most telephotos. One of its greatest advantages is its light weight and zoom. You nullify these by adding massive expensive gear that might get the best of a supersharp heavyweight that outresolves the sensor but might not increase the sharpness of a less refined lens.
[/quote]

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
Whilst I don't think a 5 series Gitzo is necessary a good Feisol 2/3 series (or similar) with a decent Gimbal would net the best results without spending silly money.
Whatever the price or weight of the lens, it is the focal length that matters. You state that the Tamron is not the very sharpest lens going, surely this makes getting the very best out of it even more important?
If light levels are good then no support is necessary, but that isn't always the case.


----------



## Otara (Jun 16, 2014)

I have the Tamron 150-600mm and recently got a NEXT carbon fibre gimbal and Sirui tripod, complete overkill given the lens weight but I have noticed a fair difference. 

Now for me, Im not great at getting very low shutter speeds even with VR, so thats the subjective factor I guess, and I dont do much better with a monopod. The downside is carrying it about so its not useful for every scenario, but I do much prefer it over the ball and pistol tripod options I have instead. I dont find the zoom impact on balance to be a major issue as Im generally going for 600mm if Im using it anyhow, so its dialled in for that.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 16, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> Bear in mind that the Tamron is not the sharpest lens on the block, but is sharp enough and provides more fun per $ or ounce than most telephotos. One of its greatest advantages is its light weight and zoom. You nullify these by adding massive expensive gear that might get the best of a supersharp heavyweight that outresolves the sensor but might not increase the sharpness of a less refined lens.



I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
Whilst I don't think a 5 series Gitzo is necessary a good Feisol 2/3 series (or similar) with a decent Gimbal would net the best results without spending silly money.
Whatever the price or weight of the lens, it is the focal length that matters. You state that the Tamron is not the very sharpest lens going, surely this makes getting the very best out of it even more important?
If light levels are good then no support is necessary, but that isn't always the case.
[/quote]


Getting the best out of a lens means appreciating what its weak point is. There are mathematical equations to describe the overall resolution of a system in terms of reciprocals of the resolution of the lens, the resolution of the sensor etc. If the resolution of the sensor is low, then it dominates the equation, if that of the lens is low, then it dominates the equation. Under such conditions, the other factors are less important.

In simple terms, if you have a very sharp lens, then every small blurring event, such as minute camera shake, will be noticeable. If you have a very soft lens, then a minute amount of camera shake would not be noticeable in the overall blur. So, you would be crazy to hand hold a 600mm f/2.8 II with IS off, or more sensibly a 400 mm f/5.6 at a low shutter speed. However, a Tamron 150-600mm at 1/1000s with IS on would not register any camera shake.

As Weixing write there is no wrong or right way, but you can have accessories that are overkill for a particular lens.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 17, 2014)

AlanF said:


> In simple terms, if you have a very sharp lens, then every small blurring event, such as minute camera shake, will be noticeable. If you have a very soft lens, then a minute amount of camera shake would not be noticeable in the overall blur. So, you would be crazy to hand hold a 600mm f/2.8 II with IS off, or more sensibly a 400 mm f/5.6 at a low shutter speed. However, a Tamron 150-600mm at 1/1000s with IS on would not register any camera shake.
> 
> As Weixing write there is no wrong or right way, but you can have accessories that are overkill for a particular lens.



I have only used the IS on my Canon 800 F5.6 L IS for a couple of shots this year - all my other shots (both hand held or on a tripod) have been with the IS turned firmly OFF. Why - because I get faster AF and a higher hit rate, especially if subjects move. Given the lighter weight and better balance of the Canon 600 Mk2 (that you quote) + the extra stop of light and it is hardly a chore to use hand held and there is certainly no need to turn on the IS in anything but poor light - my 800mm is not as good in this respect being F5.6. Note I am not a bodybuilder - I am a 55 year old arthritic Diabetic. These lenses are not that difficult to manage!

To the OP. 
I do not claim to be an expert, but I have primarily used long (400mm +) lenses for quite a while. When the light is good you can keep the shutter speeds up and manage quite happily without support. IS/OS etc have their uses but are no substitute for a decent tripod + head. If you get cheap support you will rapidly outgrow it and end up spending more in the long run. It's up to you, but I would suggest you get good support from my experience.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Jun 17, 2014)

It's not just the weight of the lens...That Bigron extends out quite a bit and factor in that big hood. Center of gravity shifts depending on where you have it extended. Hence gimbal over ballhead in this case. PLUNK !
[/quote]
+1 on that. I have the ArcaTech and I tried it in normal ballhead mode and I was having a hard time getting it to stabilize using the Tamron 150-600. I tried it on the Wimberly II and I'm much more pleased. It also seems fine on the RRS BH50. I think the ballhead on the Arcatech may just be too small. What I have not tried is the ArcaTech in gimbal mode. That may be better but racked out to 600mm, it stands out there a long way. When I use the Wimberly, I do use a series 5 gitzo so this is probably overkill for the light Tamron. I talked to Tameron service and then said to turn off the VC. But the subject of gimbals never came up because many lenses say for gimbals you should leave the VC on and for monopods. Anyone want to comment?


----------



## TexPhoto (Jun 17, 2014)

I highly recommend the Wimberly Sidekick or similar. Add this to your quality ballhead, and you have a great gimble. 10 seconds on and off http://www.tripodhead.com/products/sidekick-main.cfm.

I use mine with a 400mm f2.8 IS and it works great.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 17, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > In simple terms, if you have a very sharp lens, then every small blurring event, such as minute camera shake, will be noticeable. If you have a very soft lens, then a minute amount of camera shake would not be noticeable in the overall blur. So, you would be crazy to hand hold a 600mm f/2.8 II with IS off, or more sensibly a 400 mm f/5.6 at a low shutter speed. However, a Tamron 150-600mm at 1/1000s with IS on would not register any camera shake.
> ...



If you say you do not need IS, then I believe you and salute your rock solid arms and their strength. However, not everyone has your natural stability. Here is what Bryan from TDP, writes, and he claims to work out regularly with weights.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-600mm-f-4-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

“I relied on IS a lot when using the version I 600 L IS lens - especially when shooting wildlife. I didn't handhold that lens a lot due to its shoulder/back injury-inducing weight, but the tripod-sensing IS system was quite helpful in reducing vibration (including from mirror slap) when shooting from a tripod. Handholding the 600 L IS II is much easier and I am now relying on IS much more frequently to help me get the shot. I find IS to be an extremely valuable feature for this lens.”


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 17, 2014)

I find IS to be invaluable on telephoto lenses as well, even my "little" 300 f/2.8 IS II. Not all of my subjects are in bright sunlight are moving rapidly and the IS allows me to shoot relatively still subjects in very low light. I have worked out regularly with weights for over 20 years and consider myself relatively strong, but IS is often the difference between a sharp shot and razor sharp shot for me, when the conditions require it.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 18, 2014)

AlanF said:


> If you say you do not need IS, then I believe you and salute your rock solid arms and their strength. However, not everyone has your natural stability. Here is what Bryan from TDP, writes, and he claims to work out regularly with weights.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-600mm-f-4-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
> 
> “I relied on IS a lot when using the version I 600 L IS lens - especially when shooting wildlife. I didn't handhold that lens a lot due to its shoulder/back injury-inducing weight, but the tripod-sensing IS system was quite helpful in reducing vibration (including from mirror slap) when shooting from a tripod. Handholding the 600 L IS II is much easier and I am now relying on IS much more frequently to help me get the shot. I find IS to be an extremely valuable feature for this lens.”



For what it's worth I have arms like pipe cleaners and can barely do a push up!
Though a lot of it is down to technique, not strength, most people can support large lenses surprisingly well for short periods. Locally there is quite a petite lady who rarely uses a tripod with her Nikon 500 F4 + D4 - so it can be done!
My problem with IS is that it slows things down, when you have a small bird flitting here and there I have enough trouble keeping up with it - let alone the IS slowing things up! Try it for yourself. Also I believe that IS is not effective at shutter speeds of less than 1/500 sec so it is of limited use for many subjects. 
I should state that I use a 1DX and it's ISO capabilities are a significant part of the equation, were I using a different camera this may alter my opinion. 
However, regardless of the camera used, I prefer to shoot with IS off and only use it when necessary (in desperation in my case!). It is a very handy feature, to have in reserve.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jun 18, 2014)

I find that people who do not have IS lenses will tell you at length that they don't need it / don't want it. People who have it generally like it and treat it as a one of many tools in the tool box. I am in camp 2. As I recall Auto Focus was very similar.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 18, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > If you say you do not need IS, then I believe you and salute your rock solid arms and their strength. However, not everyone has your natural stability. Here is what Bryan from TDP, writes, and he claims to work out regularly with weights.
> ...



For rapidly moving birds etc, use Mode 3 on your IS - the IS kicks in only when you actuate the shutter, and Mode 3 was introduced precisely for tracking fast, erratic motion.

I don't understand why you write that IS is not effective below 1/500s. there are oodles of published measurements and examples of IS working brilliantly down to 1/10s or so - just look at the lens tests on TDP. The following link explains Mode 3 and states image stabilization at 1/5s for the 600mm f/4 II:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-600mm-f-4-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 18, 2014)

AlanF said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



By shutter speeds below 1/500 sec I mean shorter/faster shutter speeds. At longer/slower shutter speeds IS can become very useful, especially with longer lenses. However with the ISO capabilities of some modern cameras it is becoming less valuable.
I cannot comment on Mode 3 IS as my lenses do not have it. However IS uses a moving element so focus will necessarily be affected, even if only briefly - so I still say IS is a good feature to have in reserve, to be turned on when required.


----------



## JPAZ (Jun 18, 2014)

While I can hand hold a 300 f/2.8 ii + 2x TC with IS, I will tell you that using a tripod is better at that focal length. The Tamron is about 1.5 pounds lighter than that combo but I can tell you that there still are times when a tripod is a great tool. Having only recently gone to a Gimbal head, I'd really recommend it over a Ballhead unless travel weight is a limiting factor. I am biased but I like the Lensmaster RH-2 for it's size, simplicity and price.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 19, 2014)

JPAZ said:


> While I can hand hold a 300 f/2.8 ii + 2x TC with IS, I will tell you that using a tripod is better at that focal length. The Tamron is about 1.5 pounds lighter than that combo but I can tell you that there still are times when a tripod is a great tool. Having only recently gone to a Gimbal head, I'd really recommend it over a Ballhead unless travel weight is a limiting factor. I am biased but I like the Lensmaster RH-2 for it's size, simplicity and price.



Art Morris, the doyen of bird photographers, sums up the situation for the 300/2.8 in:

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2012/03/07/gear-evaluation-the-canon-300mm-f2-8l-is-ii/

Sometimes you need to hand hold, like for birds in flight, other times a tripod is better. I like resting the lens on a ledge in a bird hide or on wall, tree or pole when walking, and always have a small plate on the tripod foot to stop it being stripped of paint.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 19, 2014)

After reading more of the replies, I think it really comes down to two things - what you shoot and how you shoot. If you typically shoot from a stationary location (hide, dock, road, etc.) and shoot subjects that are more approachable, then a gimbal makes a lot more sense than handholding or a ballhead. If you move around a lot, shoot in areas with very little cover and/or shoot subjects that you have to stalk or ones that move erratically, a monopod or handheld works best. I find myself in the second camp with the majority of my shooting and rarely have the chance to set up a tripod, so handheld IS makes sense. If I had a 600+mm lens and could set up somewhere, I'd definitely get a gimbal.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 19, 2014)

To add to the IS/no-IS discussion. This was shot at f5.6, with a 1DX and 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x @560m. Shutter speed is 1/100s. 

I do believe the majority of us would have had issues getting that sharp, without IS. This is shot with my flag bandoleer cradle, where I use a monopod as the flagpole, with a RRS tilt head on top. A setup I highly recommend.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 19, 2014)

Eldar said:


> To add to the IS/no-IS discussion. This was shot at f5.6, with a 1DX and 200-400 f4L IS 1.4x @560m. Shutter speed is 1/100s.
> 
> I do believe the majority of us would have had issues getting that sharp, without IS. This is shot with my flag bandoleer cradle, where I use a monopod as the flagpole, with a RRS tilt head on top. A setup I highly recommend.


Eldar, that's another great shot from the Ark - well done! I'll add to demonstration - here's a re-post of my barred owl photo - shot at 600mm (300 f/2.8 IS II + 2x III) at 1/30s, handheld with no support pointing up at the bird at a 60-75 degree angle. I think this shot would be almost impossible without IS as it's using all 4 stops and a bit more of it. Also, by the time I had set up a tripod, with or without gimbal, it would have been gone:


----------



## AlanF (Jun 19, 2014)

If we are showing the usefulness of IS, here are two of mine with the 5DIII at iso 2500, taken on the same dull day. The first is a blackbird, 300mm f/2.8 II x2xTC at 600mm, f/5.6 hand held at 1/60. The second is plain ridiculous, a robin in my garage, virtually in the dark: 300mm f/2.8 at 1/13 s, hand held. Without IS it would have been a blur. The blackbird would have been one mess of camera shake.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 19, 2014)

Great shots Alan and that's pretty crazy about the robin. 

Maybe we need to start a "Show off your best IS Shots" thread ;D

EDIT: Maybe I'll get one started later - and all shots must be 3 stops or slower than 1/focal length!


----------



## JPAZ (Jun 19, 2014)

Nice shots. My point is not that we can't hand-hold, but that if given the choice, I'd rather use something to steady myself. It can be a beanbag or a nearby fencepost, but given my preference, I'd go with a Gimbal over a ballhead for larger lenses. Here's an out-of-camera jpeg with a 300 f/2.8 ii + 2xTC hand held. Only post is cropping.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 19, 2014)

Mack - we could have 300/2.8 II + 2xTC thread, there is now quite a group of us!


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 21, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Mack - we could have 300/2.8 II + 2xTC thread, there is now quite a group of us!



Yes it would and there would be some nice images too!
It's a very good combination.


----------



## mackguyver (Jun 23, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Mack - we could have 300/2.8 II + 2xTC thread, there is now quite a group of us!
> ...


Done - here's the post


----------

