Carbon Fiber Tripods

I am looking to lighten my load and get one of these tripods. I will be using a Canon 1ds Mark II but probably the biggest lens will be the 100-400. With this in mind what weight capacity should I go for? I don`t want to spend over $200.00 for the tripod and head. I see some good prices on ebay but are there any brands to stay away from.

I have real doubts you will find a carbon fiber tripod that will work for this combination for $200. I spent about $850 for my tripod/head combo, and that seemed like about the minimum. The tripod is not the place to go cheap.


Kent in SD

Mike, for stability it's best if you can get a tripod/head that has a max load at least a few pounds more than your heaviest gear. Some recommend a max load double your gear, but that's a bit of overkill IMO. I've been comfortable shooting off pods/heads max rated to 50 percent over my gear.

On a similar thread awhile back, NPN member John Murmaw recommended the Feisol CT3442. It's just over $300 and looks like a real winner. It's not CF, but an extremely lightweight aluminum alloy. It only weighs 2.3 pounds but supports a 22 pound max load. That's a better weight-to-max-load ratio than quite a few CF tripods offer. It seems a smart alternative to CF without all the cost of some of the better CF models.

You don't need to go ape on a head, either, especially since you're shooting relatively light gear weights. I use a Manfrotto 486RC2 ballhead (with quick-release plate) that costs $70 and supports up to 13 pounds. Your max with the 100-400 and the 1Ds2 is about five pounds.

If $200 is a firm ceiling for your tripod/head budget, you'll probably be limited to standard aluminum unless you can find a good deal on a used CF tripod. For most work I do, I use the Manfrotto 725B, which is a black aluminum tripod and integral ballhead with quick-release plate. Very sturdy, and I shoot gear weights off it comparable to what you've stated. The tripod weighs three pounds, and its max load is just under eight pounds, and I've shot "1" series bodies and the 100-400 on it with good success. It only costs about $115.

Getting the Feisol or equivalent is more tripod than you need but will always be there and ready if someday you pick up heavier glass. The Manfrotto I mentioned can't take any of Canon's big glass and would need to be upgraded.

You can find the Feisol here: http://www.feisol.net/tripods-tournament-class-c-1_14.html

The Manfrotto stuff you can find in a lot of places, but I shop online here: http://www.canogacamera.com

Thanks for the tips. By the way,I`m getting multiple copies of the same response on my computer-how is this happening and what can be done to correct it?

It could be a goof in the system. I've been going in and editing my response, and you may be seeing each one as a new response. I am only seeing the single response.

I'll stop editing now.

Mike, I've looked an Manfroto and they are really nice. This was after I purchased the Hakuba carbon. The Hakuba new is over you $200 max--about $300. I don't know what other "pods" do but the Hakuba will go really low; about 6-8 inches above ground for "macro" shots. I'm sure it will suppor 15-20 lbs. It comes with a bag to add to the legs for adding weight in the wind. Other "pods" probably have something similar. It is light. Try e-bay and look for used "pods". They may be scratched but they will still work. They type of use you plan will also tend to wear equipment so new is not necessary. Ball head with quick detach and safety catch of the only way to go. I've had quick release and to me that is not that important. Larry

For anyone trying to get a tripod, I would recommend the following bit of reading...link...it's some seriously good advice.

Just a note on the Feisol that Steve mentioned. The legs are carbon fibre. The body, or what the legs are attached to, is aluminum alloy. The Feisol products are very good.

I was going to supply the link to bythom.com, but I see Younes Bounhar already wisely suggested that. I see this all the time in workshops, people are amazed at what it costs to get a good quality tripod/head, yet they are more than willing to spend several thousand dollars on a new camera - and then many times that on a lens collection. The camera will likely be replaced in just a few years (if that!) because of the evolution of digital cameras, but a quality tripod/head combo can literally last several camera lifetimes. Don't skimp here, you'll only end up spending more money in the long term as you "upgrade" once or many times to what you could have bought up front. It is an investment in your image quality and your happiness, your shots are only as good as your weakest link. All too often, people trying to save money find out that their support system is that weak link. Hey, it's only money... should I have not mentioned that with our economy?

Mike,
Take a look at Amvona tripods at: http://www.amvona.com/?page=shop/subcat&category_id=5f7ea9ca45bc91a6aedec300a5553afa. The price is right and the quality is pretty darn good.

Amvona are another good choice. If I recall correctly, and admittedly I may not, Amvona products are basically Manfrotto clones.

Lots of us in the RMNP group use the Velbon CF tripods. The Velbon 630 I own would support your 100-400L but at $289, its a bit over your budget. I suspect you'll have some difficulty finding a carbon tripod under the $200 mark unless its used (which is a very good option). Feisol also make some appealing tripods in a low price range and there is a US distributor for them now.

I fully am aware of when a person has budget limitations. I've done more than my share of bottom fishing on eBay and other used gear. I just might mention that of all of the basic camera gear I had several years or so ago, my wonderful Manfrotto CF tripod and delightful Acratech head are just about the only basic compoents that I still have. Lenses and cameras have become outdated, broken, or otherwise replaced, but the tripod and head are still with me and have been one of the longer lasting investments among my camera gear.

A $200 limit on the price of carbon fiber tripod, especially given the camera you'll have on top of it, strikes me as trying to be penny wise and pound foolish. Sorry to be blunt, but I think that needs to be said. Yes, I know what the CF tripods weigh and they are definitely worth the price. At the the same time, I'd really be looking at the Manfrotto aluminum tripods. I used the 3021 ( I don't think that model is currently made) for years, until I finally wore it out. At the time I bought it, it was in the vicinity of $125. It wasn't that much heavier than a good CF tripod. Cold in the winter, but not real heavy, and solid. I wouldn't have put a 500 or a 300 2.8 on it, but your combination certainly would work. Actually, the ball head I used, a 3038, weighed just as much.

$200? Your dreaming. Someone's gotta say it! That won't buy a good ball head.

Either save your money for a CF, or use metal.

Mike, I used to use the bomb-proof Manfrotto 055CL aluminium tripod. At 4.2lb, and excluding the ballhead, it was just too much weight. Earlier this year, I got myself a Feisol CT-3442, and I use the RC-4862 ballhead with it. It's really amazing, and almost half the price of equivalent Gitzos.

$200? Your dreaming. Someone's gotta say it!

Others already said it. They just used tact.