Posted by kevin moore on October 16, 2006 at 1:12 PM
I'm currently in the process of choosing a new long lens either sigma 300-800 or nikon 200-400 vr. Either of my choices really need an upgrade of my current tripod to start playing with big glass but I would appreciate any comments from people who use long glass regularly. I am sort of heading in the direction of the sigmonster at the moment so the ability to support that sort of wieght is a must.
any advice gratefully appreciated
Posted by Dan Borzynski on October 16, 2006 at 1:36 PM
This is probably a dumb question, but what sort of budget did you have in mind? Both of these lenses are going to require a fairly serious tripod and those will not be cheap. It will also make a difference in recommending a carbon fiber vs metal. There may be additional costs on the ballhead as well. What are you currently using?
I am using the Gitzo 1340, which is rated to 22 pounds, which I think is sufficient, but that was selected in part for its minimum height. I have never had big glass on it.
Whatever you do, don't skimp on the tripod to afford the lens. You'll never get anything sharp, except by accident.
"The bigger the lens, the bigger the tripod" is a good rule of thumb, even if material and design changes allow weight capacities to be extended with less additional bulk and weight in the tripod itself. The more you lean toward the maximum weight allowance of a tripod, the more critical your long lens technique and head requirements become. Add in the influences of wind and unstable ground, and I'll come back to my original point: "The bigger the lens, the bigger the tripod." If you're concerned about checking your lens in baggage for travel as you indicated in your other thread, you also have to consider the weight, bulk and expense of the tripod.
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 16, 2006 at 3:07 PM
You gave no clue what it is you want to photo, and that's crucial. I consider the 200--400mm VR and the Sigma 300--800mm to be significantly different lenses. The only thing I see they have in common is the price range.
Too many people buy specialized long lenses with little thought about how they will actually use it in the field. You are wise to check into this. Again, having no clue how you intend to use these lenses or what they'll be used for, I'll give you some general thoughts.
For the Nikon 200-400mm VR, you need ata minimum something like the new Gitzo 1258. The 1325 would be better. It's pretty beefy yet light enough to hike with, although this isn't a factor if you are shooting sports or wildlife from a stationary platform--you didn't specify. If weight isn't a factor, you could go with a less expensive aluminum Bogen tripod such as the 3021. They've been around forever and are pretty solid.
For the Sigma 300--800mm, I would recommend at a minimum the Gitzo 1325, and really if it were me I'd go for the 1548. The problem is the lens/camera will make the tripod very top heavy. You will look at the specs and think, "Geez, the lens only weighs 13 pounds, camera 3 pounds. Why do I need a tripod that supports 26 or even 35 pounds?" Here's why. That big lens is not only pretty heavy, but when the wind blows it catches it like a sail and can push it right on over. This happend to me on Friday with the much smaller Nikon 80-400mm on my Gitzo 1325. Big gust of wind caught the thing and blew it right off the hillside. At least $600 in damage, maybe more than that.
All in all, the Gitzo 1325 is hard to beat unless you're using a very small camera/lens combo or the very largest 600mm f4 type lens. I do think it's just a tad small for the 300--800mm, unless you are photo'ing sports, racing, or similar stuff on level surfaces.
Kent in SD
Posted by kevin moore on October 17, 2006 at 9:51 AM
Futher info to my question, the lenes I'm looking at will be used in Kenya on safari where we have our own guide/vehicle to ourselves so carrying the kit is not really an issue but obviously flying with it is. Probably got plenty of wieght allowance for hold baggage as clothes etc don't go high on my priority for using up my allowances so a heavyish tripod is not the end of the world. Not being able to take the sigma 300-800 as hand luggage is if I end up with that as my choice.
Posted by Kent Staubus on October 18, 2006 at 8:10 PM
When you say "we", it makes me think there is more than one other photographer along? If so, I have some thoughts. If this is a "standard" vehicle where you simply take photos out of the window, you might be better off taking some sort of small-ish canvas bag along. You can fill it with sand and tie it tightly shut and rest your camera on the car window sill using the sand bag as support. The sand will absorb all the little vibrations going through the vehicle. And there will be vibrations even when it's shut off from people moving (even slightly), wind, and ticked-off elephants bumping you. You will need a tripod for those times you can leave the vehicle, and for that you could get by with a solid but medium sized aluminum one.
The lens you pick will determine which tripod. In my POV, the Sigma 300--800mm is more of a "birding" lens. It has twice the magnification. With a digital camera that has a crop factor, that will translate into ~1200mm. You're likely to find that's a bit difficult to shoot from something like a vehicle with people in it. I just have doubts that you're going to be able to secure the lens solidly enough to keep it 100% vibration free. Remember, at that kind of magnification, even the tiniest little vibration is going to show up in the photos. I've not used the 200-400mm VR but have used the 80-400mm VR for several years now, and that's on a 35mm body. (No crop.) The 400mm is usually enough for mammals, and especially so with the 1.4x. If you are shooting a digi-crop camera, you will have the equiv. of 600mm f4 lens, which a heck of a useful wildlife lens. Add a Nikon 1.4x and you have 840mm equiv. Honestly, without the VR, I just severe doubts that you will get consistently sharp photos. As I said in the first post, the 200-400mm VR lens just seems like a no-brainer for your application. Add a 1.4x and a decent medium duty tripod with the AcraTech head and you'll have a very VERSATILE system that is relatively easy to carry and manage. I just think that the 800mm Sigma has the potential to drive you nuts because it doesn't have VR and you aren't shooting from a really solid platform. Anyone actually tried this and disagree?
Discussion
5 repliesany advice gratefully appreciated
I am using the Gitzo 1340, which is rated to 22 pounds, which I think is sufficient, but that was selected in part for its minimum height. I have never had big glass on it.
Whatever you do, don't skimp on the tripod to afford the lens. You'll never get anything sharp, except by accident.
Too many people buy specialized long lenses with little thought about how they will actually use it in the field. You are wise to check into this. Again, having no clue how you intend to use these lenses or what they'll be used for, I'll give you some general thoughts.
For the Nikon 200-400mm VR, you need ata minimum something like the new Gitzo 1258. The 1325 would be better. It's pretty beefy yet light enough to hike with, although this isn't a factor if you are shooting sports or wildlife from a stationary platform--you didn't specify. If weight isn't a factor, you could go with a less expensive aluminum Bogen tripod such as the 3021. They've been around forever and are pretty solid.
For the Sigma 300--800mm, I would recommend at a minimum the Gitzo 1325, and really if it were me I'd go for the 1548. The problem is the lens/camera will make the tripod very top heavy. You will look at the specs and think, "Geez, the lens only weighs 13 pounds, camera 3 pounds. Why do I need a tripod that supports 26 or even 35 pounds?" Here's why. That big lens is not only pretty heavy, but when the wind blows it catches it like a sail and can push it right on over. This happend to me on Friday with the much smaller Nikon 80-400mm on my Gitzo 1325. Big gust of wind caught the thing and blew it right off the hillside. At least $600 in damage, maybe more than that.
All in all, the Gitzo 1325 is hard to beat unless you're using a very small camera/lens combo or the very largest 600mm f4 type lens. I do think it's just a tad small for the 300--800mm, unless you are photo'ing sports, racing, or similar stuff on level surfaces.
Kent in SD
The lens you pick will determine which tripod. In my POV, the Sigma 300--800mm is more of a "birding" lens. It has twice the magnification. With a digital camera that has a crop factor, that will translate into ~1200mm. You're likely to find that's a bit difficult to shoot from something like a vehicle with people in it. I just have doubts that you're going to be able to secure the lens solidly enough to keep it 100% vibration free. Remember, at that kind of magnification, even the tiniest little vibration is going to show up in the photos. I've not used the 200-400mm VR but have used the 80-400mm VR for several years now, and that's on a 35mm body. (No crop.) The 400mm is usually enough for mammals, and especially so with the 1.4x. If you are shooting a digi-crop camera, you will have the equiv. of 600mm f4 lens, which a heck of a useful wildlife lens. Add a Nikon 1.4x and you have 840mm equiv. Honestly, without the VR, I just severe doubts that you will get consistently sharp photos. As I said in the first post, the 200-400mm VR lens just seems like a no-brainer for your application. Add a 1.4x and a decent medium duty tripod with the AcraTech head and you'll have a very VERSATILE system that is relatively easy to carry and manage. I just think that the 800mm Sigma has the potential to drive you nuts because it doesn't have VR and you aren't shooting from a really solid platform. Anyone actually tried this and disagree?
Kent in SD