Lightweight RRS Head and Slik (or Gitzo) legs
jdryan3
Registered Users Posts: 1,353 Major grins
I am looking to get an RRS head system to work on either the Slik 714/814, maybe the Gitzo 1540.
My goal is to be as lightweight as reasonable, with legs as compact as possible (<20"). I've read many of the threads here and elsewhere, and put my hands on many of the tripods. I have a 5D (no grip), lenses like the 24-70, and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. The Slik 883 is out because it is too long. I am leaning towards the Slik 814 (12lb load / 19.1") @ $260. The Gitzo 1540 is appealing because load is 17.5 lbs and weighs .5 lb less. Downside to the 1540 is the extra $300 and it is 21.3".
I will combine the Slik 814 legs with the RRS BH-40, plate for the 70-200 and maybe the L plate for the 5D rather then the reg 5D plate. The BH-25 seems too light for that setup, especially based upon what is on the RRS website.
The issue? The 300 f/4 or the 400 f/5.6 are similar in weight to the 70-200. No problem there. But the 300 f/2.8 is 6 lbs with the collar. RRS says:
Does anyone use the 300 f/2.8 on either those Slik or Gitzo legs occasionally? :dunno I don't want to jump up to the BH-55 or the bigger Slik (or Gitzo) legs - that kills the lightweight advantage. And I will probably us the 300 primarily on a tripod when (if) I get it.
Guess I'm just looking for some love :lust and assurance :deal before leaping into the abyss :lol3
My goal is to be as lightweight as reasonable, with legs as compact as possible (<20"). I've read many of the threads here and elsewhere, and put my hands on many of the tripods. I have a 5D (no grip), lenses like the 24-70, and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. The Slik 883 is out because it is too long. I am leaning towards the Slik 814 (12lb load / 19.1") @ $260. The Gitzo 1540 is appealing because load is 17.5 lbs and weighs .5 lb less. Downside to the 1540 is the extra $300 and it is 21.3".
I will combine the Slik 814 legs with the RRS BH-40, plate for the 70-200 and maybe the L plate for the 5D rather then the reg 5D plate. The BH-25 seems too light for that setup, especially based upon what is on the RRS website.
The issue? The 300 f/4 or the 400 f/5.6 are similar in weight to the 70-200. No problem there. But the 300 f/2.8 is 6 lbs with the collar. RRS says:
Our Mid-Sized BH-40 ballhead
is right for you if:
• You want a light, compact ballhead for backpacking or travel, and you want it to have an independent panning base and/or drag set control.
• Your biggest “everyday” lens is a 70-200mm /f2.8 or a 300mm/f4.
• You have a Lightweight or Standard tripod
• You value the convenience of a lighter setup.
The issue it seems is not the ability of the legs to hold the 5D, 1lb BH-40 head, plates and the 300 f/2.8 due to absolute weight, but simply the mass and center of gravity of something that big, especially outdoors. Purely a mind game I'm playing - I don't even own the 300 f/2.8 (yet!).is right for you if:
• You want a light, compact ballhead for backpacking or travel, and you want it to have an independent panning base and/or drag set control.
• Your biggest “everyday” lens is a 70-200mm /f2.8 or a 300mm/f4.
• You have a Lightweight or Standard tripod
• You value the convenience of a lighter setup.
Does anyone use the 300 f/2.8 on either those Slik or Gitzo legs occasionally? :dunno I don't want to jump up to the BH-55 or the bigger Slik (or Gitzo) legs - that kills the lightweight advantage. And I will probably us the 300 primarily on a tripod when (if) I get it.
Guess I'm just looking for some love :lust and assurance :deal before leaping into the abyss :lol3
"Don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to. Oh well."
-Fleetwood Mac
-Fleetwood Mac
0