Tripod head for a 400/5.6?

Earlier today I shot some newspaper-on-the-wall images to test focus and IQ on my newly acquired Canon 400/5.6L. To my surprise, I found that the tripod/head combo (Manfrotto 055 legs, 141RC 3-way head) vibrates much worse than I expected to. I`m afraid it gives more than I can stabilize with any "long lens technique".
I`m quite sure the head is to blame. Either it flexes a bit due to its high-profile design or the the small QR plate gives. I used an EOS D60 with vertical grip, so a considerable weight was put on the head (the head is rated for 5 or 6kg of payload IIRC)

I`ve been happily using the 141RC head after getting rid of a cheap, barely stable Manfrotto ballhead. I understand that a 3-way head is not fast enough for wildlife but I hoped that the 141 would at least be solid enough for landscapes. I`d really like to put off any further purchases as I just got the lens, brand new and not cheap at all.

Anyway what`s the best alternative? I expect to use the lens for stationary subjects/landscapes as well as some wildlife.

1. Get a good, medium-size, low-profile ballhead like FLM 32, Acratech, Novoflex ClassicBall 3, Markins Q3/M10, RRS BH-40? (plus Arca-style QR and long plate), get rid of 141RC?

2. That`s not enough, get a bigger ballhead like Arca B1 or Foba Superball

3. A ballhead + Sidekick?

4. Forget ballheads, keep 141RC for short lenses and get the Jobu Design Jr. Gimbal Head? Their websites shows this head balancing the 400/5.6 very nicely... But does a gimbal style head actually help with vibrations or is it just good for tracking moving subjects?

5. None of the above solutions would offer significant help against vibration - just use the 141 head with proper technique and get a ballhead only when the three-way design gets in my way?

I can't say anything about the others as I've never used them, but I use the Markins M10 with my 20D and 400/5.6L, and find it quite satisfactory. The 400 lens really isn't that heavy of a lens, and balances quite well on a ballhead, so I myself don't see the need to go to anything like a Sidekick, or a bigger ballhead.

A 400/5.6 is a relatively long lens (ie high magnification), but it's almost certainly relatively light. This makes it difficult to get the best out of the lens. You might try some long lens techniques: draping your left arm over the lens above the tripod mount, adding weight to the tripod directly below the head (ye olde bag 'o rocks), shooting with the tripod as low to the ground as possible, shooting at the widest aperture to increase shutter speed, bumping the ISO up to increase shutter speed. I know people fret about the stability of their heads, but I think it's more a matter of the entire rig...You're not really asking a lot of your head when you have a telephoto perched and collared at the apex of the tripod.

Pete D.

I used a Markins M-20 with a Sidekick for the 400 5.6 with excellent results...the Sidekick only for ease of use while shooting birds. I got the M-20 because I knew I would upgrade to a heavier lens later.
I've also tried the M-10 and it's a very good match for the 400 5.6. If you primarily shoot landscapes I would get the M-10 and skip the Sidekick. You can always get it later if you feel the need.

I think you have two issues. One is the head sticks up high, which allows it to oscillate. The second is the aluminum tripod itself is somewhat prone to vibration. The cheapest thing to try is a sock filled with sand on top of the lens, and maybe try suspending weight from the bottom of the tripod column to increase its mass. A cable release might help too, instead of pushing on the camera. These are free or cheap things to try.

If those don't get it, I'd go for an AcraTech head as the first more expensive thing to try. I use an 80-400mm lens on mine and have no problem. The head sits relatively low. It's also never screwed up once, not even the other day when I was out in 20 below temps for two hours. If that doesn't get it, consider a carbon fiber tripod. I have noticed a difference in the way they dampen vibrations.


Kent in SD

Couldn't agree with Kent more. A CF tripod with the Acratech head is great, and modular-- you could add a Sidekick later, and the head is very capable.

Personally, I think the Wimberley Sidekick would be overkill. I find it very awkward to use with my 300mm and 1.4x tc which is very similar to the 400mm f 5.6. I mount my 300 + tc on a Really Right Stuff BH-40 ball head attached to a Velbon 630A tripod. I use this combination to photograph flying dragonflies. This makes a very lightweight and steady tripod/head combination that should serve you well with the 400 f 5.6. My vote would be for a RRS BH-40 and upgrade your tripod later to a carbon fiber model. In the meantime, practice, practice, practice your long lens technique. Without using good long lens techniques the best tripod/head won't deliver good results.

I agree with the type of advice you're getting here. For the 400 f5.6 the Sidekick is overkill. As for which ballhead, my personal preference is for the Arca-Swiss B1. It's reasonably small and light, is rated to hold something like 90 pounds, and has an excellent and smooth pan capability that works wonders with much larger lenses (I shoot with the 500 f4 and have also used a 600 f4 both with the Sidekick with no problems at all). I've used mine for about 12 or more years now without any problems. Prior to that I did try a number of the Manfrottos.

Also, the leg set is an issue as others have mentioned. I too used the Manfrotto 055 for a number of years but found it very difficult to get really sharp images. Once I switched to carbon fiber (Gitzo 1325) that problem was dealt with too. With the high magnification of longer telephotos every little bit of motion gets amplified and degrades the quality of the image. These 2 steps have certainly helped.

The only bad news here is $$$. Try to remember that if you buy the best right away you only cry once!

Right on Ed!

Thanks for the post and the long lens technique tips. Found a couple I need to try.