What tripod

[Roy C]

I am about to get a 400mm f5.6 prime - what tripod/head would you recommend (esp if 1.4 tc is used). At the moment I have a Velbon D600 ' scope' tripod and a Benbow trekker with a small ball head. My guess is that neither of these would suit the 400. I do not want to spend a lot because I tend to hand hold whenever possible. Thank you.

[Don Hoey]

Roy.

I've just looked on Intro 2020 for the specs of your current tripod but cannot find it. Can you give any info or post a pic with your scope on. How steady are either of these tripods with your scope on and what magnification eyepiece do you use.

With some idea of budget we can probably offer realistic suggestions.

Don

[Andy]

Originally Posted by Roy C

I am about to get a 400mm f5.6 prime - what tripod/head would you recommend (esp if 1.4 tc is used). At the moment I have a Velbon D600 ' scope' tripod and a Benbow trekker with a small ball head. My guess is that neither of these would suit the 400. I do not want to spend a lot because I tend to hand hold whenever possible. Thank you.

What's wrong with the 'bagpipe Benbo'?
Alternative suggestion would be a Manfrotto 055 (even a 190 at a pinch) + 'fluid' video head such as the 701RC2.

WE kits
055+701RC2 = £139
190+701RC2 = £159

cheers,
Andy

[postcardcv]

As the 400 f5.6 isn't a particularly big or heavy lens I'd thing you'd be ok with the Velbon that you have, certainly give it a try before slashing out on a new one.

I agree with Andy about the Manfrotto 055, super legs, but personally I prefer the 128 head to the 701. But it's all a matter of choice, if you do get a new one go somewhere and try them out before buying. A good retailer will happily let you try the tripod with your camera and lens combo.

[postcardcv]

Originally Posted by Andy

WE kits
055+701RC2 = £139
190+701RC2 = £159

I'd guess those prices should be the other way round as the 055 should be more than the 190...

[Roy C]

Here is a shot of the Benbo and ball head - I reckon the ball is about 20mm dia.
The Velbon is a video Tripod with a fluid head and quick release plate, trouble with this is the 'creep' when you tighten the positioning screws.

[Simon Duncan]

I wouldn't spend any money on a tripod for the 400 5.6 it is so light. Save your money so you can buy a bigger heavier lens that really needs support

[Jon Sharp]

I've just picked up a carbon fibre Giottos witha large b&S head, it supports my 350d and 80-400 no problem. I admit I got mine as a bargain on ebay - Giottos isn't as common a search as manfrotto etc for this reason when they do appear on ebay they don't generate as much interest and can be better value.
Worth a thought!

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by Roy C

Here is a shot of the Benbo and ball head - I reckon the ball is about 20mm dia.

Roy,
I would wait and give the setup a trial on the Benbo Trekker. I have the larger Mk1. I do however have the previous incarnation of your ballhead. I just gave my D100 with Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 lens ( no lightweight ) a try and did not find any flexing of the ball head. I will go and do an Andy suggestion of the 701 head as that could then be a scope/camera combo using with a Q/R plate for each.

Don

[Don Hoey]

Roy,
I have just tried the camera lens combo 2.5kg, on the Manfrotto 701RC2 head.

As this may be a contentious response let me start by saying I have had, or still have, the Manfrotto 128RC, 701RC2 and 501 heads. I have had them all to pieces so I know whats inside and how they work. On BF I have been very critical of the 701 head when used with a large scope ( Nikon ED82A ) for example. However for a lighter 60/65 mm scope I think it is superior to the 128.

The result of this test ...... very impressed. The lighter pan and tilt action and positive lock give it a clear advantage over the 128. It is very easy to steer the camera on a moving target without using the pan handle. When you want to lock, the action is positive with no creap.

As there will be 128 owners who a very happy with their head I will mention the key differences.
The 701 has a series of very fine vanes and as a result the drag cannot be adjusted but as a result the action is very light. Some drag can be induced by using the lock screw, but it is just that a lock screw. The lock is positive in action with no creap. There is some built in balance adjustment.
The 128 has far wider vanes and as a result the drag can be adjusted but it has no positive lock. The wider vanes mean increased drag, so it is heavier in its action than the 701. An clear advantage with larger heavier scopes.

Conclusion :
If you take both scope and camera and your scope is in the 60/65mm range, the 701 head and 2 Q/R plates would be worthy of consideration mounted on your Benbo legs. You will need a threaded bush to convert the 701 mounting from 3/8 to 1/4 but that would only be a couple of £'s. Your existing ball head would still be available to use on camera only occasions, when it will allow easy leveling of the camera or positioning to portrait orientation.

Don