sidekick for canon 300 f2.8 IS ??

gage · November 4, 2007

My largest lense is the 300 next is 70-200 f2.8 IS, MY other two lenses don't use tripod rings. I have gitzo 2530 and acratech v2. I want the sidekick for the 300 only, but still want to mount my flash. there is a flash bracket from wimberley for sidekick. Is there another system or make that gets this done as well . I don't want the full wimberley head as that would be too much change over time. I not going to any heavier lens in the future except maybe going from 5D to series 1--Comments? Gage

Harv · November 4, 2007

My 300 f/2.8L IS was my first large, relatively heavy lens. I first tried a sidekick on my Arca-Swiss ballhead and it didn't work too badly. I did find one thing very annoying... most of the lens controls were covered by the sidekick and accessing them was a royal pain in the butt. It didn't take me long to get the full Wimberley II and in my opinion was well worth the investment.

The full Wimberley left the controls totally accessible and was much easier to balance the lens/body combo. It's also much smoother to swing on either plane. I also shoot with a 1D Mk IIn which is much heavier than a 5D.

If you get a larger lens such as the 500 f/4L IS as I did, you would definitely want the full Wimberley anyway.

You might do well to consider the extra expense. Just my opinion for what it's worth.

raptorcaptor · November 4, 2007

Harv wrote:

My 300 f/2.8L IS was my first large, relatively heavy lens. I first tried a sidekick on my Arca-Swiss ballhead and it didn't work too badly. I did find one thing very annoying... most of the lens controls were covered by the sidekick and accessing them was a royal pain in the butt. It didn't take me long to get the full Wimberley II and in my opinion was well worth the investment.

The full Wimberley left the controls totally accessible and was much easier to balance the lens/body combo. It's also much smoother to swing on either plane. I also shoot with a 1D Mk IIn which is much heavier than a 5D.

If you get a larger lens such as the 500 f/4L IS as I did, you would definitely want the full Wimberley anyway.

You might do well to consider the extra expense. Just my opinion for what it's worth.

What Harv said! Also the full Wimberly head is a little lighter than the sidekick and ballhead combo. I also had the sidekick slip out of my ballhead once. I ordered the full wimberly head the next day!

if you want a less expensive gimbal head you might take a look at Jobu Designs. I got one to use on my skimmer groundpod.
Not as elegant as the Wimberly, but works fine!

ian408 · November 5, 2007

Have a look at Really Right Stuff for your flash bracket. It will be separate from
the sidekick. You will need a plate or replacement foot for the lens as well
(for the 300, it's a plate and for a 500, a foot).

The flash bracket for a 300 is one of these.

As far as full or sidekick, I say with a good ball head, you can use the sidekick
with a 300 or 500. A full head is obviously easier to use but it can be done.

pathfinder · November 5, 2007

I use a SideKick for a 300 or a 400mm lens, and have used it occasionally with a 500. I use fill flash with a Beamer on a lens on a SideKick without any issues. I like the SideKick, it fits in my tripod bag easily and can be added at a moments notice.

Someone ( Raptorcaptor) said that the full Wimberly head weighs less than the SideKick and a BH-55, but that's not what it feels like to me. I have not checked the weights so it MAY actually be true, but I know when I put my full Wimberly head on my tripod it is one heavy piece of gear, whereas the Sidekick feels easy to pack around.

I originally used my SideKick on a LARGE Arca Swiss ball head, and that was still preferable to the full Wimberly head,

I use the full Wimberly head for a Sigma 300-800 as that is way out of the SideKick's domain. But the full Wimberly head is large, heavy and I find unwieldly. It works very well for large lenses, but given the choice, I opt for the Sidekick for lens smaller than 500mm --easier, lighter, and adequate. You do have to watch the the Sidekick does not rotate where it is mounted in the Arca clamp on the Ball Head, as the clamp can rotate if the Ball is not tight enough. Don't throw your heavy glass over your shoulder without proper attention to detail...... with any gimbaled head.

I am not saying that this is gospel, just my limited experience in three years of shooting birds in Florida and New Mexico as a complete amateur. I do not think the lighter ball heads, like the Acratech, are ideal for a SideKick, but the BH-55 is more than adequate to hold the SideKick and a 400mm f4 lens.

raptorcaptor · November 8, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

I use a SideKick for a 300 or a 400mm lens, and have used it occasionally with a 500. I use fill flash with a Beamer on a lens on a SideKick without any issues. I like the SideKick, it fits in my tripod bag easily and can be added at a moments notice.

Someone ( Raptorcaptor) said that the full Wimberly head weighs less than the SideKick and a BH-55, but that's not what it feels like to me. I have not checked the weights so it MAY actually be true, but I know when I put my full Wimberly head on my tripod it is one heavy piece of gear, whereas the Sidekick feels easy to pack around. I originally used my SideKick on a LARGE Arca Swiss ball head, and that was still preferable to the full Wimberly head,

I use the full Wimberly head for a Sigma 300-800 as that is way out of the SideKick's domain. But the full Wimberly head is large, heavy and I find unwieldly. It works very well for large lenses, but given the choice, I opt for the Sidekick for lens smaller than 500mm --easier, lighter, and adequate. You do have to watch the the Sidekick does not rotate where it is mounted in the Arca clamp on the Ball Head, as the clamp can rotate if the Ball is not tight enough. Don't throw your heavy glass over your shoulder without proper attention to detail...... with any gimbaled head.

I am not saying that this is gospel, just my limited experience in three years of shooting birds in Florida and New Mexico as a complete amateur. I do not think the lighter ball heads, like the Acratech, are ideal for a SideKick, but the BH-55 is more than adequate to hold the SideKick and a 400mm f4 lens.

Do you have the original wimberly head or the newer one. I have the newer version which is 1 pound lighter, and a little shorter than the original. I used the sidekick with the 400DO which is very similar to the 300 2.8 in size and weight (uses the same hard case). I found the sidekick didn't leave much room for the camera controls unless I had a 1.4 TC mounted as well.