Help with lens creep

[jjb4]

Any suggestions on how to keep the lens on a tripod from slowly dropping down after focusing on a subject? I have a Canon 100-400mm zoom lens. I tried to take pictures of an Osprey in a nest earlier this evening using a tripod. Every time I thought I had the focus zeroed in on the bird's eyes the lens would slowly creep down several cm no matter how much I tightened the ballhead. Very frustrating

 

[Overread19 7]

Buy a better ballhead - or better a gimbel tripod head, though with the 100-400mm a highend ballhead should suffice (either way they'll cost you about the same, the only bonus is a good ballhead will be a little smaller and more versatile with other subjects).

It really comes down to budget, but for this kind of gear you'll be looking at a few $100 to get the gear you need.

The only other option is to treat the tripod like a monopod- slacken the ballhead and just have it hold the weight whilst you hold the lens; with wildlife you'll generally be shooting faster shot with the IS off on a tripod so the effect of a tight tripod base is lessened.

 

[Buckster]

You're using the tripod collar on the lens, rather than mounting the camera to the tripod, right?

Beyond that, yeah, what Overread said.

 

[jjb4]

Yes, tripod collar, and I have the Manfrotto 498RC2 ball head that I thought was a quality head. It mostly occurs when the lens is extended from 300-400mm

 

[WesternGuy]

Interesting, because that head is rated at 8 Kg and I wonder if you are putting that much weight on it. The one thing they don't tell you is how much of a bending moment (remember your high school physics) these heads will take - it is related to how far the lens extends beyond the centre point of attachment and the force this places on the ballhead as it tries to hold all that weight sticking out - make sense? It sounds like you have reached the limit and beyond for this head. I have the same lens on a gripped 5D with a Manfrotto 468MGRC0 hydrostatic ballhead and I don't have that problem at full extension. You can check it out here - Hydrostatic Ball Head With RC0 Rapid Connect System 468MGRC0 - Hydrostatic | Manfrotto . HTH.
________________
WesternGuy

 

[Overread19 7]

I think the problem is that the head itself can support the weight, but like WesternGuy says, once its extended out the forward weight drags it down somewhat - which makes it difficult or even impossible to easily use. The head would probably be fine with an 8kg lens that was more centrally weighted over the ball.

As for suggestions of other heads, this really depends a lot on your budget and how much you can consider investing, another ball head would at least let you consider selling your current one to help generate a little more cash to invest - and a higher class of head will work well for all your equipment in general.

Personally I've my eye on the Acratech GV2
Acratech GV2 Head (GV2) - Wex Photographic

It not only supports a higher weight limit, but also can be used as a mock gimbal when you use the tripod collar. The other factor is that it uses the Arca Swiss/Kirk quick release plates; these can be somewhat expensive and are specific to certain tripod collars/camera bodies - however they are by far and away superior to the kind that manfrotto uses (they don't slip side to side as much on the mount).

 

[table1349]

I have no such issues with this head.http://reallyrightstuff.com/Product...H-55-Pro:-Full-sized-ballhead-with-Pro&key=it

 

[SCraig]

Get a threaded ring that will fit the tripod socket on your CAMERA and hang a little bit of weight there to offset the moment of the lens on the front.

 

[jjb4]

Thanks for all the replies I may be looking for a new head