Long Lens head

markyboy.1967

markyboy.1967

Messages
8,171
Name
Mark Molloy
Edit My Images
Yes
Im looking for a half decent long lens head which isnt to heavy and will hold my new 500mm lens with ease.I know about the Benro, Wimberley etc but came across this Acratech Long Lens Head and wondered if anyone had heard of how they are to use. It ticks the right boxes--not to expensive, light weight and should hold the 500 fine. Anyone got an opinion on this.
 
Spend a bit more and get the Wimberley, Is it worth scimping when you have spent £5k on a lens only to buy a cheap head. I have the Wimberley mk2 and it is heavy but the bees knees and i can carry my lens on the tripod with confidence knowing it is not going to come crashing to the ground.
 
I have both the Wimberley and the Acratech for different uses.

Pragmatist - the Acratech is far from a cheap head. It's an alternative approach to a custom designed long lens head and one I am happy to carry over my shoulder.

For me the pros are weight, size and the fact I can easily mount a camera with a short lens for the odd landscape shot and it is better than any ballhead I've used since it is designed to be used on a lens with a collar. Cons are that it can tip since the lens sits on top of the head so you have to remember to lock it off when you let go and that it isn't as easy to use fill flash with as the Wimberley with their flash bracket.

For me, if I am travelling light or wanting to do landscapes as well as long lens stuff, then the Acratech wins. For birds in flight and/or fill flash I still pick the Wimberley.

Paul
 
The Manfrotto MN393 (as per Pete Rush's post) is a sturdy solution, having used my (previous) Sigma 500mm prime and (now) my Nikon 200-400VR with it
 
But in my opinion, the MN393 fails on the OP's requirement of "not too heavy"

It's a great value product but it weighs 1.6 kg, which makes travelling a challenge sometimes. The Acratech is 450g - it's quite a difference...
 
The 393 has a safety catch, it can come in handy.......:)
 
I had a 393 for a long time but it's bulkier and heavier and not as nice to use as a Wimberley, although it is way cheaper! But as has been said, after spending serious money on a 500mm I wouldn't go cheap on the accessories. That's the only trouble with going for big heavy lenses...the cost of owning these beasts doesn't stop with the lens itself! lol
 
I have a Manfrotto 393 and it's a bargain compared to the other options, being basically made, but well up to the job required of it. On the downnside, I agree it's heavy and rather bulky for carrying around. Also the fact that Manfrotto have opted for a non standard Arca type plate with this head is a pain in the bum.

I also have a Dietmar Nill gimbal head which today would cost you nearly 600 quid. It's beautifully engineered with zero play in moving parts, so very stable, but it isn't particularly light, although it's less bulky than the 393.

I'd be looking elsewhere I think if I was buying from scratch today -probably one of tbe Benro options or similar. Just avoid anything with a side mount for the lens plate. :gag:
 
I think the bigger question on this is gimbal or not. All the other responses have been around the nuances of different gimbal heads. The Acratech is different and therefore has different strengths and weaknesses, as I highlighted above.
 
Thats from the same company but not the correct head. Its this one-

http://acratech.net/product.php?productid=10&cat=1&page=1

It seems to get rave reviews. I know the weight resting on a ball head may cause issue with the lens sagging etc but im used to that style of head and like it. The long lens one doesnt have a ball which masy help.The gimbal style would be ideal if i could get one which did everything, was light weight and wasnt so damn expensive.:lol:
 
markyboy.1967 said:
Just picked up my new 500 AFS and god does it feel even bigger than i thought. Might have to reconsider and look for something more stable and put up with the extra weight of a bigger head...Im hoping it starts to shrink after a few times hand holding.:D
Click to expand...

Gotta be a Full Monty gimbal for that hasn't it? I've got a couple of Benro bits now, ball-head and legs - quality is superb :thumbs:
 
grumpybadger said:
I think the bigger question on this is gimbal or not.
Click to expand...

Then I would argue strongly on the side of a gimball.

Having set up the balance for my Wimberley II (take time to read the instructions leaflet...), it is easy and fluid to move and I can let go of the camera in any position with complete confidence that it will stay precisely where I left it. With the Acratech, you would have to lock it off every time you let go. And more importantly, when something unanticipated and exciting happens in front of you, vital seconds would be lost unlocking it before you can point the camera at the action.

So for me, it is worth the extra weight and packing space.

Andrew
 
gaffer said:
Then I would argue strongly on the side of a gimball.

Having set up the balance for my Wimberley II (take time to read the instructions leaflet...), it is easy and fluid to move and I can let go of the camera in any position with complete confidence that it will stay precisely where I left it. With the Acratech, you would have to lock it off every time you let go. And more importantly, when something unanticipated and exciting happens in front of you, vital seconds would be lost unlocking it before you can point the camera at the action.

So for me, it is worth the extra weight and packing space.

Andrew
Click to expand...

And isn't that the whole point :thumbs:

With a gimbal, the weight of the camera/lens is below the pivot point so if it is set up and balanced properly you can slacken everything off so it moves real easy, but doesn't crash to the ground when you let go. Which makes them fantastically easy to use, and confidence inspiring.

In this respect I think the Acratech long lens head is a major fail. TBH I don't think it is any better than a big ball head, provided you get the balance right with the correct length lens plate. Acratch are trying too hard to be innovative.
 
pete.rush said:
What about the Arca-Swiss B1 as an alternative to the Acratech
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Arca-Swiss-Monoball-Z1-Ballhead-Review.aspx

or FLM CB58FTR
http://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/prod.asp?i=4082&1=FLM+CB58FTR+Ball+Head
Click to expand...

I have a very similar ball head to the B1. It's well made and it's certainly capable of supporting my 500mm f4, but the arrangement lacks the fluidity of free movement you'd get with a dedicated gimbal. I'd say they're OK for occasional long lens use, but no replacement for a dedicated gimbal.

If you use the lens for birding, you want to quickly be able to point it in any direction in an instant when the opportunity presents itself, you don't want to be messing with locking and unlocking knobs.

Certainly there's a bit more bulk with a gimbal and perhaps a bit more weight. It might be a pain when you're carrying it, but if the head doesn't perform well in use, thats a bigger pain still. ;)
 
pete.rush said:
What about the Arca-Swiss B1 as an alternative to the Acratech
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Arca-Swiss-Monoball-Z1-Ballhead-Review.aspx

or FLM CB58FTR
http://www.speedgraphic.co.uk/prod.asp?i=4082&1=FLM+CB58FTR+Ball+Head
Click to expand...

Good review of top end ball heads here. Summary page http://www.traumflieger.de/desktop/ballhead/ballheads4.php

It's in German, and babelfish makes it only slightly more readable, but it's the most convincing test I've yet seen. The usual suspects come out well, mostly, but some Chinese interlopers from Benro and Triopo do amazingly well for the money.

Top four are Markins Q3, RRS BH-55, Triopo B3, and Arca Z1.
 
HoppyUK said:
In this respect I think the Acratech long lens head is a major fail. TBH I don't think it is any better than a big ball head, provided you get the balance right with the correct length lens plate. Acratch are trying too hard to be innovative.
Click to expand...

Well, aside from the strange use of fail as a noun (where has this come from - it seems to be the latest silliness to creep into our language) I have to disagree with the sentiment of the post too.

The Acratech is better than a big ball head as when you are holding the camera/lens, you don't have to fight to stop it moving in all directions but just stop it tilting front to back. Also, the tension knob works much better than on the Kirk BH-1 I used to have so you can leave it unattended for short periods of time.

I agree it is a specialist head and I wouldn't want to be without my Wimberley for heavy duty birds in flight but the Acratech has some real benefits to me. They are:

1. Travel - it is lighter and will fit in my holdall attached to my tripod, something the Wimberley won't do.
2. Occaisional landscapes - it allows the mounting of a short lens and camera body by twisting the top plate through 90 degrees - again something you can't do on the Wimberley
3. It is lower, meaning my "lying on the floor" shots are even closer to the ground

But, the Wimberley is the king of unattended operation and for birds in flight.

As I think I am the only person on this thread with hands on experience of the Acratech then I think I will value by assessment above those who have just read the spec sheet

Paul
 
grumpybadger said:
Well, aside from the strange use of fail as a noun (where has this come from - it seems to be the latest silliness to creep into our language) I have to disagree with the sentiment of the post too.

The Acratech is better than a big ball head as when you are holding the camera/lens, you don't have to fight to stop it moving in all directions but just stop it tilting front to back. Also, the tension knob works much better than on the Kirk BH-1 I used to have so you can leave it unattended for short periods of time.

I agree it is a specialist head and I wouldn't want to be without my Wimberley for heavy duty birds in flight but the Acratech has some real benefits to me. They are:

1. Travel - it is lighter and will fit in my holdall attached to my tripod, something the Wimberley won't do.
2. Occaisional landscapes - it allows the mounting of a short lens and camera body by twisting the top plate through 90 degrees - again something you can't do on the Wimberley
3. It is lower, meaning my "lying on the floor" shots are even closer to the ground

But, the Wimberley is the king of unattended operation and for birds in flight.

As I think I am the only person on this thread with hands on experience of the Acratech then I think I will value by assessment above those who have just read the spec sheet

Paul
Click to expand...

I stand corrected on both counts ;) (and apologies for the smilie).

I haven't used the Acratech long lens head and am very happy to concede that in practice its mechanical excellence overcomes my theoretical objections. Experience in practice is what counts.

Kind of the reverse of this is how the gimbal facility of the Acratech GP head works, and I wonder if you have tried that? This I feel should work in theory but I think that it might fall short due to engineering limitations.

It's very hard to get any meaningful hands-on experience with a lot of this stuff so any feedback is appreciated. I've tried the GP head and TBH I liked it (the design and engineering is seductive) but I wasn't able to stick a big lens on it and give it a real go.
 
Haven't tried the Acratech GP head. I have an issue with side mounting big lenses and the panning base on both the Acratech heads I have tried has a slight amount of play, which makes me extra concerned about sideways straining.
 
grumpybadger said:
Haven't tried the Acratech GP head. I have an issue with side mounting big lenses and the panning base on both the Acratech heads I have tried has a slight amount of play, which makes me extra concerned about sideways straining.
Click to expand...

Right, that would do it for me too. I guess with any single-sided gimbal there has got to be a side loading somewhere, only the Manfrotto manages to avoid that. But the other heads don't sling the weight over to one side, so at least there is balance.

Cheers.
 
I think when Paul talks about side mounting Hoppy, he actually means mounting heavy lenses into a head which is at 90 degs to the horizontal which is the case with some heads, and means holding the lens securely with one hand while you tighten the foot into the head, It has to be fraught with danger compared with a head where you can just drop the lens down onto the head.

Hope that makes some sort of sense? :thinking:
 
Looks good. It seems to be basically the same design as the Manfrotto 393, no doubt lighter being CF, but if anything, bulkier by the look of it. Looks very stable though.

REVIEW WITH VIDEO
 
CT said:
I think when Paul talks about side mounting Hoppy, he actually means mounting heavy lenses into a head which is at 90 degs to the horizontal which is the case with some heads, and means holding the lens securely with one hand while you tighten the foot into the head, It has to be fraught with danger compared with a head where you can just drop the lens down onto the head.

Hope that makes some sort of sense? :thinking:
Click to expand...

Yes, perfect. Thanks, good point.

One other question for you seasoned biffers, do you find it a disadvantage that you can't rotate the lens while panning and tilting simultaneously? It occurs to me that you can do this with a ball head, but not with any other type, unless you rotate the lens within its own mounting collar. Is this a drawback?
 
I'm not sure I wanna be a seasoned biffer! :D

Rotating the lens within it's collar works perfectly well Hoppy. You can choose how much you slack off the collar for how much resistance you want.

By rotating with a ball head I assume you mean rotating the whole head 90 degrees? You'd have control over both axis and the rotate, but the ball would need to be fairly loose,and I can only imagine it being a bit dodgy and lacking the stability of a gimbal. Also to remove your hands you'd need to lock all the knobs up to some degree to avoid a heavy lens tipping over.
 
CT said:
I'm not sure I wanna be a seasoned biffer! :D

Rotating the lens within it's collar works perfectly well Hoppy. You can choose how much you slack off the collar for how much resistance you want.

By rotating with a ball head I assume you mean rotating the whole head 90 degrees? You'd have control over both axis and the rotate, but the ball would need to be fairly loose,and I can only imagine it being a bit dodgy and lacking the stability of a gimbal. Also to remove your hands you'd need to lock all the knobs up to some degree to avoid a heavy lens tipping over.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Being able to leave the lens safe and 'unattended' so to speak seems like the best advantage of a gimbal.
 
HoppyUK said:
Thanks. Being able to leave the lens safe and 'unattended' so to speak seems like the best advantage of a gimbal.
Click to expand...

A typical long birding session will mean long periods of sheer boredom and inactivity, sprinkled with the odd burst of activity where you don't have hands on the camera at all, and are probably drinking coffee, scoffing your sarnies or nattering to companions. When the opportunities come they're often fleeting and you need to just grab the camera and point it in the right direction without any messing about with knobs or levers, and to be able to take you hands off just as quickly when you realise you missed the shot anyway and you just dropped your sarnie!

There's no substitute for a gimbal really.
 
CT said:
A typical long birding session will mean long periods of sheer boredom and inactivity, sprinkled with the odd burst of activity where you don't have hands on the camera at all, and are probably drinking coffee, scoffing your sarnies or nattering to companions. When the opportunities come they're often fleeting and you need to just grab the camera and point it in the right direction without any messing about with knobs or levers, and to be able to take you hands off just as quickly when you realise you missed the shot anyway and you just dropped your sarnie!

There's no substitute for a gimbal really.
Click to expand...

My birding to date hasn't been quite like that. Long periods of boredom and inactivity, followed by more boredom and inactivity, lack of sarnies, and a lonely trip home :(

Next year, if I can bag a kingfisher and a puffin (possibly not in the same location) with one of StewartR's long toms, I'll be well happy. Actually, I'm thinking that probably my 100-400L will be the better puffin trap.

On the gimbal front, it's looking like a Benro Sidekick will be all I can justify for now. And a 7D :)
 
The Sidekick will be fine as long as you have the arca ball head?

LOL. We all get long days with little or nowt to show for it - comes with the territory. The good days make up for it though, and it's great just to be out there far from the madding crowd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top