Wimberley Head or Wimberley Sidekick or Kirk King Cobra or ...?

[StewartR]

From time to time we get customers asking about gimbal-type heads for long lenses. We stock the Manfrotto 393, which is a budget alternative, but I'm thinking of buying one of the 'proper' gimbal heads.

So which one? Cost isn't particularly an issue, but I am think I concerned about:
(a) how easy it is for customers (who won't have used it before) to attach to their lens;
(b) how easy it is for customers to use on the tripod;
(c) how secure it feels in use;
(d) general robustness;
(e) whether there are any fiddly little parts which customers can lose.

I'd be grateful for your views.

 

[George]

Well, Stewart, I had a 393, which I thought really was excellent value for money and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it....but you know that anyway!!
My family decided last Christmas to upgrade it for me (I sold it on here) and I looked at the Wimberley Sidekick and others and finally decided that the Calumet one, which was on offer at 25% off, was the best buy....looks identical to the Wimberley to me.

The one thing I'd say (and I really don't think it the Cal/Wimb is much better than the 393) is that you have to be more careful that the lens is mounted properly on the Cal/Wimb and the set screw is tightened on the side, or it could be easier for the lens to fall off!!..whereas the 393, when the lens is slipped in to the holder, it has that little detent clip which pops up and stops the lens falling out accidentally.

The Cal/Wimb is probably sturdier than the 393 and IMHO looks classier, and I'm very happy with it, and is easier to lock in position either horizontally or vertically and have movement in whichever plane is not locked, but I'd be interested in a Wimberley user's opinions and why it is superior to a Calumet...which looks to me a copy..as does the KK!

Just had a look on the US websites of Caumet and B and H and the comparative US prices seem to be.. Calumet $432 KK $455 and Wimb $594...hope I'm comparing like with like!

So my buy at £209 was pretty good!!

George

 

[kev_blizard]

Hi Richard both me and kev shore have both recently bought a wimberley head mk2 dont know if kev has used his yet as he has been on holiday but i have used mine twice. The first time was at cadwell park and found it to be brilliant for panning of the motor bikes as they all seem to follow the same line on the track, the other time was at Bempton cliffs a bit more of a challengeas you didnt know in what direction the birds would fly and also the gannets tend to keep close to the coast wherefor moving across you quite fast, but again the benifits of not having to put the gear down and waiting for that shot to appear made me quite enjoyed using it, btw was not the only one at bemptom with a wimberley they do come at a high price but its a quality piece of kit that you only buy once

 

[George]

Kev, why did you buy that over the alternatives ..Calumet and KK?

 

[SLRUser]

I have said it in another thread, the only problem I have got with the Wimberley Mk2 is that the tripod thread is threaded into the aluminium base. You have to be careful not to cross-thread it. I'd much prefer it to have a steel threaded bush/insert rather than tapped aluminium. I don't remove it often so isn't much of an issue, your situation could be worse when renting out the head. Can't comment on the other makes in this respect.

I have also got a Jobu Jr. 3, that is threaded into steel.

Other than that issue, most people that I have bumped into want to try the Wimberley Mk2.

 

[kev_blizard]

Kev, why did you buy that over the alternatives ..Calumet and KK?

George at focus we had a look the calumet version on one of the trade stands its rrp was approx £270 i think which sounded a good deal against the wimberley at £490 plus plate ( £50 ) but the one on display had a very rough tension screw which didnt seem smooth to operate . we asked wether this unit was a brand new iteam and as to why it had a damaged screw , all he could say was that someone had overtightend it ? ( this was sunday at about 11am show not been opened long ) plus also read on internet that some casting had broken causing the lens to get damaged. As for the kirk version we never saw one to look at so unable to comment on this version

 

[postcardcv]

I use Jobu heads - I have the BW-LW (side mount) and the PRO (the full gimbal) and would happily recommend them. Personally I find the side mount one easier to use as it less critical when getting balanced, when attached it balances fine and needs no adjustment when adding tcs. The full gimbal is rock solid but a bit more fiddly to set up, when adding a tc I need to move the lens slightly to get it balanced properly again. I had the 393 before and the Jobus are so much better.

 

[kevshore]

As Kev has already said, we bought the Wimberly. We looked at as many Gimbals as possible before buying. For quality, the Wimberly won hands down.
I would suspect, that if hiring something out, you need the best quality to last the test of time.
The price hurt. But that pain has now gone and is forgotten.
If I were to look at it from a customers point of view, (which I have been of Stewarts) I would be more likely to hire a Wimberly than a make I know little about.
I DID actually look on Stewarts site before buying. To see if he had one. I already had the 393. Simple, strong, maybe a bit crude, but did the job. I found some limitations with its range of tilt.
Usual attitude really Stewart. Buy once buy right. More so in your case probably. I know how hard you work to provide an excellent service.


As a side note, if you pay for the postage, I will send mine for you to inspect. That way, you can answer your questions.

Kev.

 

[Flats]

I use a Sidekick and I find it fantastic - there is nothing to go wrong a sidekick really. However, you do have be very very careful when mounting a long lens in a ball-head, and that ball-head has to be heavy duty and rock solid. As you don't know what customers might be using with a Sidekick, my concern would be that you end up with the long lens that you also hired them taking a tumble. Reasons for that might be a ballhead that cannot cope with the strain of side-mounting, as well as things not tightened up properly on the sidekick lens mount, or on the ballhead clamp. Whilst your Sidekick would likely survive the experience without any issue whatsoever, I'd steer clear of it for these reasons. I've used mine, with an ARCA Z1 monoball, for many years now without any tumbles, but I did have a number of close shaves, one of which could have gone either way! I now have a rigourous routine when putting the whole thing together of tightening, double-checking, balancing, and triple-checking, and I know the ARCA is physically up to it. Done properly, I have complete confidence in it, and it acts just like a real gimbal as far as I can tell. Done by someone who has not used one before, even on a ballhead that can handle ir, and even if they were highly paraonoid due to the lens not being theirs, I would be concerned. Add in the fact that people may be tempted to use their standard ballhead, and I'd give it a miss.
If I were 100% photographer, I would use a full Wimberley though, as it is likely better suited. However I am a birder first and foremost, and I wanted a head I could also use my scope on, hence the Ballhead/Sidekick combo which allows me to chop and change as necessary - the Sidekick is extremely portable if I am in birding mode.
Rgds
Jonathan

 

[George]

George at focus we had a look the calumet version on one of the trade stands its rrp was approx £270 i think which sounded a good deal against the wimberley at £490 plus plate ( £50 ) but the one on display had a very rough tension screw which didnt seem smooth to operate . we asked wether this unit was a brand new iteam and as to why it had a damaged screw , all he could say was that someone had overtightend it ? ( this was sunday at about 11am show not been opened long ) plus also read on internet that some casting had broken causing the lens to get damaged. As for the kirk version we never saw one to look at so unable to comment on this version

Well, thanks for the comments, Kev, interesting. My screws are fine, but a mate has a wimberley and I'll have a good look at his when I see him, prob not for a month or so so not much help for Stuart, I'm afraid.
I do know he's very pleased with it, however!

 

[Martyn...]

I own and have used the following, so speak from experience, I have not tried a full Wimberley.

The Kirk King Cobra, is big, heavy and smooth as silk in operation, would take a 600 f4 no problem, only downside is that it's design putting the pan locking knob on top of the centre pivot point (and the size of the thing) restricts the amount of up and down movement.

The Wimberley Sidekick is a lovely bit of kit, but you are really pushing it to the limit with a 500 f4 on it.

My favourite is the Jobu Black Widow L/W II, half the weight of the Kirk, and far greater range of up and down elevation possible before anything hits, the camera body will contact the tripod, before anything on the head impedes the movement.

 

[StewartR]

I looked at the Wimberley Sidekick and others and finally decided that the Calumet one, which was on offer at 25% off, was the best buy....looks identical to the Wimberley to me.

The one thing I'd say (and I really don't think it the Cal/Wimb is much better than the 393) is that you have to be more careful that the lens is mounted properly on the Cal/Wimb and the set screw is tightened on the side, or it could be easier for the lens to fall off!!..whereas the 393, when the lens is slipped in to the holder, it has that little detent clip which pops up and stops the lens falling out accidentally.

I use a Sidekick and I find it fantastic - there is nothing to go wrong a sidekick really. However, you do have be very very careful when mounting a long lens in a ball-head, and that ball-head has to be heavy duty and rock solid. As you don't know what customers might be using with a Sidekick, my concern would be that you end up with the long lens that you also hired them taking a tumble. ..... Done by someone who has not used one before, even on a ballhead that can handle ir, and even if they were highly paraonoid due to the lens not being theirs, I would be concerned. Add in the fact that people may be tempted to use their standard ballhead, and I'd give it a miss.

The Wimberley Sidekick is a lovely bit of kit, but you are really pushing it to the limit with a 500 f4 on it.

This is really useful information, guys. Thanks.

I think the combination of it being fiddly, requiring a rock solid ball head, and being stretched with a 500mm f/4 means that I'll drop this one from consideration.

 

[StewartR]

The Kirk King Cobra, is big, heavy and smooth as silk in operation, would take a 600 f4 no problem, only downside is that it's design putting the pan locking knob on top of the centre pivot point (and the size of the thing) restricts the amount of up and down movement.

Mmmm. I've handled the King Cobra and I agree it is big, heavy and smooth as silk. The one thing that bothered me about it - apart from the size - was that it mounts on the side of the lens rather than on the bottom, which makes it seem kinda fiddly to attach the lens. I would have thought a bottom-mounting solution such as the Wimberley Mk II would be easier for a first-time user. Is that an issue in practice, in your opinion?

 

[fracster]

Try the Benro GH 2 Stewart. I know Martyn had probelms with his GH1, but the 2 is a superb bit of kit and is substantially less than its equivalants from other better known manufacturers.

The 393 is ok at what it does, especially for the price, but it is heavy and cumbersome in comparison.

The GH2 I have has been owned for a couple of years now, has had a 300-800 siggy on it and now, generally, has a 500 F4 with a 1.4 tc on it,both with gripped bodies, it handled them without issue.

A guy I regularly go out shooting with has a wimberley version, we cannot find anything in it to justify the huge price difference.

Just my tuppence Stewart.

 

[Martyn...]

Mmmm. I've handled the King Cobra and I agree it is big, heavy and smooth as silk. The one thing that bothered me about it - apart from the size - was that it mounts on the side of the lens rather than on the bottom, which makes it seem kinda fiddly to attach the lens. I would have thought a bottom-mounting solution such as the Wimberley Mk II would be easier for a first-time user. Is that an issue in practice, in your opinion?

Not an issue for me but I am familiar with the way it works, and have a set routine when setting up, the horizontal plate on the Wimberley / Jobu would be more secure for an inexperienced user, but they still have the weight of the 500 or 600 lens to contend with.

You would need some Kirk plates to fit out your lenses with so they can mount on the head, they come with tiny allen screws that fit each end and act as a stop to prevent the lens slipping out if the clamp becomes loose.

 

[Canon Bob]

Just a note on the Wim Sidekick.......

I've got a Wimberley MkII and also had a Side Kick for a while. The MkII is perfect but comes with a big price premium. The Side Kick is also well engineered and ideal for someone with a single long lens. The downside for multiple lens usage is the need to add a spacer block and a variable number of 1/4" shimming plates to keep any specific lens over the centre of gravity and reduce stresses on the ball head.....possibly not ideal for rental applications.

Bob

 

[fracster]

Just thinking aloud here Stewart, would it be feasible to offer the legs and head as a package to hirers of your long lenses?

 

[HoppyUK]

Just thinking aloud here Stewart, would it be feasible to offer the legs and head as a package to hirers of your long lenses?

Good idea Frac

I might be hiring something long from Stewart this summer and have been wondering about how to mount it.

I would be happy with Stewart's Manfrotto, but there's no way I'm getting another tripod just for one week. I would pay a bit extra to hire one though, make sure I got the best out of the lens.

As a comment, I would have thought ease and reliability would be primary considerations. With a complete tripod/gimbal set for hire, the lens could be pre-fitted with a long Arca plate and customers could simply clamp it straight on, slide the plate to balance their camera, and job's done. Better performance, and less risk of damage for both Stewart and customer

 

[hollis_f]

I've got the Jobu BW2 and I really like it. There's very little difference between that and Didi's Wimberly. I really didn't like the sidekick versions.

For people renting you'd need some instructions on how to get it balanced correctly, not just the back and forth balancing, but moving the base plate vertically to get the centre of rotation going through the lens' centre of gravity. If you don't do that final step then you really miss out on the benefits of a gimbal.

There's a really crappy video showing how to do it here.

 

[Beagletorque]

+1 for thinking about the tripod too. I've got the full RRS gimbal and that is only half the story. You need some super strong and preferably heavy legs too to get reliable vibration free shots. I use a Manfrotto 161MK1 as my Carbon Gitzo is just too light.

 

[fracster]

Good idea Frac

I might be hiring something long from Stewart this summer and have been wondering about how to mount it.

I would be happy with Stewart's Manfrotto, but there's no way I'm getting another tripod just for one week. I would pay a bit extra to hire one though, make sure I got the best out of the lens.

As a comment, I would have thought ease and reliability would be primary considerations. With a complete tripod/gimbal set for hire, the lens could be pre-fitted with a long Arca plate and customers could simply clamp it straight on, slide the plate to balance their camera, and job's done. Better performance, and less risk of damage for both Stewart and customer

My thoughts exactly. People who have long lenses, generally have the head and legs to support them properly. I thought that if people wanted to hire one for a week or so, would not want to buy a head and legs to go with it, so would take up the legs and head offer at the same time as hiring the lens.

 

[Unlocker]

If it's any help Stewart you can always come over to Aylesbury and try out my Wimberley Mk2, you are most welcome. Also have a new Gitzo Systematic if you were thinking about tripods too.

 

[StewartR]

The Side Kick is also well engineered and ideal for someone with a single long lens. The downside for multiple lens usage is the need to add a spacer block and a variable number of 1/4" shimming plates to keep any specific lens over the centre of gravity and reduce stresses on the ball head.....possibly not ideal for rental applications.

Cheers Bob. Another reason not to go for the sidekick.

 

[StewartR]

most people that I have bumped into want to try the Wimberley Mk2.

I use Jobu heads - I have the BW-LW (side mount) and the PRO (the full gimbal) and would happily recommend them.

As Kev has already said, we bought the Wimberly. We looked at as many Gimbals as possible before buying. For quality, the Wimberly won hands down.

If I were to look at it from a customers point of view, (which I have been of Stewarts) I would be more likely to hire a Wimberly than a make I know little about.

My favourite is the Jobu Black Widow L/W II, half the weight of the Kirk, and far greater range of up and down elevation possible before anything hits

Try the Benro GH 2 Stewart. I know Martyn had probelms with his GH1, but the 2 is a superb bit of kit and is substantially less than its equivalants from other better known manufacturers.

A guy I regularly go out shooting with has a wimberley version, we cannot find anything in it to justify the huge price difference.

I've got the Jobu BW2 and I really like it. There's very little difference between that and Didi's Wimberly. I really didn't like the sidekick versions.

Thanks everyone.

I think I'm inclining towards the Wimberley Mk II.

I can't see a lot of physical difference between the Wimberley, the Benro and the Jobu. Price-wise the Benro is a bit cheaper than the other two, but I think the Wimberley brand is probably worth something. SLRUser says most people want to the Wimberley, and kevshore says he'd rather hire something he had heard of, and i agree. Plus, if it turns out to be a horrible mistake, the Wimberley probably has better residuals!

Am I overlooking anything obvious?

 

[IGADIZ]

I had the Wimberley MKII + side kick. Now I own and use a RRS PG-02 FG: PG-02 Full Gimbal Head. RRS Quality is head and shoulders above anything else in the market. But, is expensive as hell.

 

[StewartR]

Just thinking aloud here Stewart, would it be feasible to offer the legs and head as a package to hirers of your long lenses?

Good idea Frac
... there's no way I'm getting another tripod just for one week. I would pay a bit extra to hire one though, make sure I got the best out of the lens.

+1 for thinking about the tripod too. You need some super strong and preferably heavy legs too to get reliable vibration free shots.

My thoughts exactly. I thought that if people wanted to hire one for a week or so, would not want to buy a head and legs to go with it, so would take up the legs and head offer at the same time as hiring the lens.

Mmmm. Interesting thought, guys.

I've generally shied away from tripods for two reasons.

Firstly they're not that expensive to buy, and they're relatively heavy and therefore expensive to post - which means hiring isn't so attractive. (With lenses my rule of thumb is that it's only cost effective to hire them out if the lens costs £400 or more.)

Secondly I haven't come up with a good solution for transport. We were just kicking the idea around in the office and we thought probably using some plastic drainpipe or similar would offer a degree of protection without being too bulky or heavy. Any better suggestions?

But the arguments you guys have put forward are quite persuasive, so I'm going to take this seriously.

My preference would be for the Manfrotto Neotec, for one simple reason - all the moving parts are at the top of the tripod, so if you stick it down in the mud or sand then you can't gunge up the works. (That's the kind of thing I have to worry about. You should have seen the Nikon 300mm f/2.8 that somebody dropped in the mud at Glastonbury!) Plus it's dead easy to use. Plus it's aluminium, not carbon fibre, so it should be pretty unbreakable.

OK, that's three reasons. But do they make sense?

 

[markyboy.1967]

Stewart, the Neotec ones i have spotted only hold up to 8kg. General rule of thumb for a long lens and body is more than double their weight. You may think yeah thats fine but factor in the weight of someone leaning their hand or arm on top to steady the lens as per the good long lens tecnique method.I have had tripods with a max capacity of 10kgs and they were terrible with the 500f4 and body on.Just a thought...

Have a look at what some fishermen use to carry their rods in--a strong tube which stands up to all sorts of bashing...

 

[HoppyUK]

I was loving that Stewart, right up to when you said Neotec. They're heavy and wobbly, and I wouldn't trust the leg mechs to stand up to much abuse. That may be unfair, but twist-locks are the most robust.

Tripod equivalent of a Wimberley gimbal is a carbon Gitzo, 3-series perhaps. There are others as good and much cheaper, but it's got the name.

Speaking personally, I wouldn't be interested in hiring 'a tripod' as I've got a good one of those. I would be wanting a bigger, high quality tripod and good gimbal to stick a 300/2.8 or 500/4 on for some heavy grade togging!

I dunno about how the sums add up, but maybe this isn't the sort of thing that every long lens user would want, eg 100-400L or whatever. You might even struggle to make it pay, but I would definitely hire from you if a really nice tripod at an affordable price was part of the package. Kind of a service/marketing type thing. Would deffo set LFH apart

Hope that makes sense!

 

[Flats]

Gitzo are pretty peerless imho, but with one complaint. The dumb so-and-sos use non-stainless steel in the nuts and bolts at the top. I've used mine extensively near the sea, and guess what, they're rusting! Only mild surface rust, no issues with integrity, but on a £600 tripod!! Replacement bolts etc, £36 for the three I would need!

I've got a question, which is what do the folks that hire your 500s use them on? I can't see why someone would have a kick-ass heavy duty (and stupidly expensive) tripod unless they also had a big lens. I certainly wouldn't, and only took the plunge once I bought big glass.

Jonathan

 

[fracster]

I have the neotec monopod Stewart. I have never used the tripod. But, I doubt the mechanism would stand up to hire use. Assuming that people would not be as careful with a hired piece of equipment as I am with my stuff.

I also have a huge old Giottos monopod with twist locks, the Giottos is substantially sturdier than the neotec with any substantial weight on it.

 

[kev_blizard]

Also Stewart the wimberley mk2 will handle a heavy weighted lens some othere types ie the gimbal is only rated at 8kg, my 400 f2.8,camera and 1.4 conveter weighs in at 7.9kg ( we have some accurate scales at work ) so there is not much room for error, the wimberley mk2 will handle upto 20kg so we where told at focus so i think you will be able to cover all your lenses and not need to worry about matching a lens weight to a head etc

 

[Beagletorque]

My feeling is that a gimble may not be the way forward for you. Partly based on the cost to buy v's cost to hire and also the tripod and weight issues. I also suspect you will see more damage to your lenses as setting up and balancing the combo can take some getting used to. Although gimbles can be used for anything I mostly see them in the wildlife arena. Perhaps you could add decent heavy duty monopods instead? Most try before you buy types would be happy with that as it's what you see for football and most other sports. Also easy to post!