# Kirk Lens Support Bracket (currently meant for 100-400 II)



## curby (Apr 17, 2015)

Did you wonder about the upside-down dovetails on the Kirk 100-400 II foot? Apparently they're for this thing:

http://www.kirkphoto.com/Lens_Support_Bracket.html

Is this a product in search of a niche? Stability is great, but I'm not sure this is necessary. Does the lens wobble on its collar when tightened down?

P.S. I guess they make a variety of attachments for the inverted dovetails on their plates: http://www.kirkphoto.com/Telephoto-Flash-Brackets.html


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2015)

Wimberley, Kirk, and RRS lens plates/feet have a double dovetail, the common use is for flash brackets.


----------



## curby (Apr 17, 2015)

RRS claims their long lens support systems increase resolution by 15% by supporting the front of the lens as well as the rear. They also cost a pretty penny!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 17, 2015)

Bird photographers allow their lens mount to rotate while they are tracking a bird in flight using a gimbal head. The big whites have wonderful ball bearings in the mount for the lens foot that keeps enough tension to prevent wobble. With the lower cost lens, there will be some wobble when you back off the tension on the foot, and rotating the camera/lens combination as you track a bird will allow some wobble.

Its a solution.


----------



## candyman (Apr 17, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> <snip>
> Its a solution.




Do you know of a better solution?


----------



## curby (Apr 17, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Bird photographers allow their lens mount to rotate while they are tracking a bird in flight using a gimbal head. The big whites have wonderful ball bearings in the mount for the lens foot that keeps enough tension to prevent wobble. With the lower cost lens, there will be some wobble when you back off the tension on the foot, and rotating the camera/lens combination as you track a bird will allow some wobble.
> 
> Its a solution.



I get what you're saying, but a true gimbal arm puts the lens foot/plate to the side of the lens, meaning that the stabilizing rollers are also to the side, and not underneath, the lens barrel.

If you meant this more for a traditional ballhead situation with the foot underneath, then I could see the benefit.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2015)

curby said:


> I get what you're saying, *but a true gimbal arm puts the lens foot/plate to the side* of the lens, meaning that the stabilizing rollers are also to the side, and not underneath, the lens barrel.
> 
> If you meant this more for a traditional ballhead situation with the foot underneath, then I could see the benefit.



Perhaps you are unfamiliar with what is probably the most popular gimbal head among long-lens photographers, the Wimberley II. Or perhaps you're suggesting it's not a 'true' gimbal head? It is, and the clamp sits below the lens. The same is true for the FG (= full gimbal) version of RRS' PG-02, and several other gimbal heads. 










Incidentally, RRS also sells a long lens support package, equivalent to the Kirk one. They don't recommend it for their side gimbal (PG-02 LLR, which is the one I have).


----------



## curby (Apr 17, 2015)

Whoops, I'm totally unfamiliar with gimbals so forgive me. I thought that they all mounted to the side, in which case what I wrote was applicable. Now I know otherwise. Thanks!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 17, 2015)

candyman said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > <snip>
> ...



Buy a 400mm f/2.8?

I was not judging the mount, because I haven't used it. It sounds like it will work, but a user should review it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 17, 2015)

curby said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Bird photographers allow their lens mount to rotate while they are tracking a bird in flight using a gimbal head. The big whites have wonderful ball bearings in the mount for the lens foot that keeps enough tension to prevent wobble. With the lower cost lens, there will be some wobble when you back off the tension on the foot, and rotating the camera/lens combination as you track a bird will allow some wobble.
> ...



I was referring to a Standard Gimbal Head, not the "Sidekick" style that is sold for lighter lenses.


This is a low cost $100 Gimbal Head that I bought just to try out my Nikon 200-400. Its a True Gimbal head, as opposed to a "Sidekick" Style.







Here is my Wimberly with Canon 600mm lens mounted.


----------



## NancyP (Apr 18, 2015)

A true gimbal head has motion around two axes, a panning motion and a tilting motion. The camera and lens are attached to the arm providing the tilting motion. A "Sidekick" type of head is the tilt arm by itself. It is slotted into a (very sturdy) ball head clamp with head at 90 degree angle, and uses the ball head for the panning component. I have a "Sidekick" type tilt arm (Custom Brackets) paired with a full size ball head, and it works fine. Certainly this would be sufficient for a 100-400 or 150-600 lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 18, 2015)

NancyP said:


> A true gimbal head has motion around two axes, a panning motion and a tilting motion. The camera and lens are attached to the arm providing the tilting motion. A "Sidekick" type of head is the tilt arm by itself. It is slotted into a (very sturdy) ball head clamp with head at 90 degree angle, and uses the ball head for the panning component. I have a "Sidekick" type tilt arm (Custom Brackets) paired with a full size ball head, and it works fine. Certainly this would be sufficient for a 100-400 or 150-600 lens.



Weight wise, it will hold a fairly big lens, but it will not work with the Kirk Lens support bracket which was the point made about the different two styles, since the support bracket supports the lens from underneath it, holding it from drooping when the clamp for the lens foot is loosened to allow free rotation.


----------

