Is the VANGUARD MAK233 a decent enough tripod (buying second hand)

[Raj_55555]

I got this deal nearby and thought this would be the perfect opportunity for me to get a decent tripod. I know I should invest even more, but I can sell it off and get another one when I can afford it.

The new one costs Rs 6300, whereas I'm getting this one for Rs 2200. A pretty good deal I think. The reviews I've read have been pretty mixed, and I don't have enough experience with tripods to take an informed call on this one.

Question:
1. Is the VANGUARD MAK233 a decent enough tripod. I am looking to use a Nikon D100 with Sigma 75-300 and Sigma 28-70 on it. And in the future a D7100 with a nikon 70-300 VR.. And the Tammy 150-600 if I win a jackpot somehow (but then I can buy a better tripod). Will it support these? I have never ever used a decent tripod, so no idea about it.

2. What should I look at when inspecting it for defects? I'll carry my camera and test it out on the spot.

Any other suggestions welcome.. I am meeting the seller this weekend.

 

[mmaria]

I don't know!


I just stopped by to give you a smiley

 

[Raj_55555]

I don't know!


I just stopped by to give you a smiley

Now I can buy it with a smile! (bad joke) :smileys:

 

[mmaria]

yup!

and now I'll back off from this thread to leave some serious people to answer your question... sorry for interruption

 

[Raj_55555]

sorry for interruption

Where would we be without your interruptions

 

[mmaria]

sorry for interruption

Where would we be without your interruptions

awwwwwwwwwwww :hug::

 

[astroNikon]

The VANGUARD MAK233 seems to be a lower end consumer tripod.
I wouldn't really trust it with alot of heavy & expensive gear on it.
I couldn't find specifications for it either ...

 

[Raj_55555]

Thanks Steve, just found this, it's not really Rs. 6000, but 3200 new at amazon. Not that great a deal but still saving 1000 bucks if it's good. Although it looks worth spending 36 US$ for, let's see if someone else has an opinion about it, otherwise I'll just let it pass. .

Found these specs, can you make something off it?

 

[Raj_55555]

Just spoke to the owner, he was using a D7100 and the tamron 70-300 VC on it with no problems. He is selling it off as the 400mm lens he got is too heavy for it. He sounded like he knew what he was doing. I've listed the specs I could find:

A few comments would really be appreciated guys!

[TABLE="class: spec-table"]
[TR="class: spec-grey-row"]
[TD="class: spec-left-column"]Extended height(mm):
[/TD]
[TD]1650
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: spec-grey-row"]
[TD="class: spec-left-column"]Folded height(mm):
[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]620
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: spec-grey-row"]
[TD="class: spec-left-column"]Weight(kg):
[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]1.3
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: spec-grey-row"]
[TD="class: spec-left-column"]Maximum loading capacity(kg):
[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]3
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: spec-grey-row"]
[TD="class: spec-left-column"]Extended height(inch):
[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]65
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: spec-grey-row"]
[TD="class: spec-left-column"]Folded height(inch):
[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]24 3/8
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: spec-grey-row"]
[TD="class: spec-left-column"]Weight(lbs):
[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]2.86
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: spec-grey-row"]
[TD="class: spec-left-column"]Maximum loading capacity(lbs):
[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]6.6
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: spec-grey-row"]
[TD="class: spec-left-column"]Number of Leg Sections:
[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]3
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: spec-grey-row"]
[TD="class: spec-left-column"]Leg Diameter(mm):
[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]23
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="class: spec-grey-row"]
[TD="class: spec-left-column"]Bubble level(pcs):
[/TD]
[TD="width: 50%"]1
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Designer]

This one looks "spindly" to me. Meaning the legs look quite thin and therefore weak. As the rated load is not very much my initial reaction seems correct. Frankly, you may decide that this is not the deal you want. I say keep looking.

BTW: there is a Velbon listed on the same page for less money. I own a Velbon and I am happy with it.

 

[Raj_55555]

Thanks for the response Designer. Are you talking about this one?
I didn't even notice it, do you think it's a better deal. I'd latch on it in a second.

Also if I may trouble you for this one I found on amazon, the weight capacity is 3.5 KG but has many great reviews for it. Any suggestions?


__________Spoke to the second seller________

The person who used this is apparently not into photography anymore, so his wife is selling it off very cheap. I've been invited to see it for myself and decide. His husband has used some 300 mm lens with a nikon d70s camera with it, she didn't really have too much idea about it.

 

[Designer]

1. Yes. It appears to have a ball head on it, but you should check the specs to find out how much weight it is rated for.

2. I'm not convinced that this one is any better, as the weight capacity rating is only 3.5 kg. And it being new, costs more than the used one.

 

[tirediron]

I recommend avoiding any tripod (except for super heavy-duty units) that have that 'brace' going from the centre column to the legs. One reason is because it means that you can't adjust the leg spacing independantly, and two, because it's usually a sign that the trpod is cheaply made, and requires that extra support. I know that it's a LOT more money, but this one is where I think you need to be looking; this looks like a Manfrotto 055 clone, and seems to a much better build quality. Is buying used off of eBay an option for you? There are certainly some good deals to be had there.

 

[lambertpix]

Vanguard makes some good tripods, but that MAK233 looks an awful lot like the Velbon that's sitting in my closet. I keep it around mainly to show people what kind of tripod to skip:

Budget tripod shootout, part 1

In addition to stability, this style of tripod (with central bracing) is much less flexible than a tripod with independently-adjustable legs. If you never shoot on uneven terrain, this might not be a big deal for you, but it's huge for me. Also, pay attention to the head -- that MAK233 has a pan-tilt head vs. the ball head more commonly used by still shooters.

For just a few bucks more, I picked up a Dolica that I was much happier with:

Budget tripod shootout, part 2

By tripod standards, that Dolica (or whatever equivalent alternatives are available today) was still super-cheap, and nowhere near where you really want to be (especially if you wind up with that 150-600), but the bang-for-your-buck difference between those two was just immense, in my opinion.

The second tripod you listed in post #11 looks much more functional, though it's still got a pan-tilt head, and as near as I can tell, the legs don't adjust to multiple angles, which really defeats the purpose of getting rid of that central brace.

FYI, I'm using a Manfrotto 190CXPRO4 now, but I'll occasionally still reach for the Dolica if I need a spare. The Velbon? Seriously - I haul it out when I talk to people about tripods to show them what to skip. If your choices come down to the used MAK233 or no tripod at all, I suspect the MAK233 is better than nothing, but I think for just a little more investment, you could do a lot better.

 

[sm4him]

I'd let it pass, Raj. I've been the whole cheap tripod route--you really, truly are better off to do without one until you can afford at least a mid-range option. Those really inexpensive ones like this just NEVER end up being truly sturdy with any weight on them at all.