I'm deciding between these two ballheads. It seems the BH-40 would be 'good enough' for my given setup, but I'm curious on others' thoughts as I might be right on the line. Here's the camera and lens list:
Is the BH-40 be OK or should I play it safe with the BH-55? The only thing I can think to note is the I'd like it to be able to withstand gusty winds, but that's probably a leg issue. If I can save the 13 ounces without giving anything up, that's what I'd like to do.
now withstanding gusty winds has little to do with the ballhead and a lot to do the the camera/lens combination sitting on top of the legs. in short its profile or how good a sail it can be. the coupling will be solid between the the camera/lens and the ballhead. after that its the coupling between the ballhead and the platform and that is the realm of the tripod itself. and thats another issue in itself
I have both of these heads, and it's not that the BH-40 won't be adequate, it's that the 55 is SO much nicer - with smoother, more solid, superior ergonomics - that it makes it a joy to use by comparison. If the weight is not an issue, then, in my opinion, it's a no brainer. You won't regret it. And get the quick release while you're at it.
When I was looking at them I picked the BH-55 over the BH-40 just because the price difference was not that much. Right now my biggest lense is the 400 f5.6.
there is quite a difference between a 400/2.8 and a 400/5.6 in weight and profile.
a canon 300/4 weighs in at 1190g where the 300/2.8 weighs in at 2550g just a subtle difference there
a canon 400/5.6 weighs in at 1250g and the 400/2.8 is a svelt 5370g
you are right i wouldn't put a 400/2.8 on a 40 but i might do the 400/5.6 on it as my travel tripod. i have used the 40 with my 300/2.8 nikon VR and a D700 connected. that was pushing it though.
it is a matter of relative merits
my setups are:
gitzo GT2540ex and the BH40
feisol CT3371 with leveling head sidekick and BH55
If you are only going to buy just one, go with the BH-55. I have both. I use the BH-40 with small lenses and the BH-55 with larger lenses. What's a large lens? If it has it's own tripod mount, it's a large lens. I use the BH-40 with a lighter set of legs and the BH-55 with a heavier set of legs.
The two ballheads are sized for both a maximum size of lens and for a particular set of legs. The BH40 is made to be used with a Gitz 15xx or a 25xx and the BH55 is made to be used with a 35xx and 55xx leg set.
Both are good heads, but the BH55 is too heavy IMO and RRS needs to put it on a diet. At that weight, if you have smaller than a Series 3 tripod, I think it would be sort of top heavy or too big. It would work, but would not be the best choice. My current favorite ballhead for that size of tripod is the Markins M20 which weighs almost 1 lb less.
That all said, if you are shooting with a 400mm lens, you really need to be on a Series 3 or equivalent tripod.
JohnJ80 wrote:
The two ballheads are sized for both a maximum size of lens and for a particular set of legs. The BH40 is made to be used with a Gitz 15xx or a 25xx and the BH55 is made to be used with a 35xx and 55xx leg set.
Both are good heads, but the BH55 is too heavy IMO and RRS needs to put it on a diet. At that weight, if you have smaller than a Series 3 tripod, I think it would be sort of top heavy or too big. It would work, but would not be the best choice. My current favorite ballhead for that size of tripod is the Markins M20 which weighs almost 1 lb less.
That all said, if you are shooting with a 400mm lens, you really need to be on a Series 3 or equivalent tripod.
It's the focal length and the magnification. Both 400's have the same magnification and will subsequently magnify the vibration accordingly. From the testing that I did on my Series 2 tripod against my Series 3 tripod, this makes sense since the Series 2 was able to damp about 1/2 the amplitude of the Series 3.
The BH40 is sized for the 2540 (Series 2) and is spec'ed at a recommended focal length of 200mm and a max of 300mm. So, it's not the ballhead, it is the legs that it is best used on. The proper legs for 400mm if used without fooling around, are the Series 3 (i.e. 3540 etc..).
The BH40 I had, had a noticeable but slight hitch with long focal length lenses (400mm+) when you locked the ball. I've heard this from a number of BH40 owners and believe it is a function of the locking mechanism. My Markins ballhead does not do that. I also think that that is no problem because the BH40 is supposed to be used with Series 2 and Series 2 is 300mm or less where that would not be an issue whatsoever.
oh please. what if i put a 1.4x or 2.0x extender on my 7-200/2.8?
i can say catagorically that this is not true. the term "hitch" is to say the least nondescriptive. the 40 is a faster and lighter action to lock up vs my previous Markins M10 ballhead. yes the markins could be locked it just required more effort.
to make a statement referring to 400+ is lacking in specifics that make a difference.
1- as i said before the 70-200/2.8 IS is heavier then the 400/5.6 that the originater has. so the "hitch" you are referring to should also be evident in it too. yet nothing describing any issues in reference to that exists.
2- the use with a 400/2.8 is a big no due to the fact it is nearly 4x the weight of thr 5.6 version.
3- i can and do get a clean shot off of the BH40 on a 2540EX using a 1.4x on my 300/2.8 without any real effort on my part other the the setup. and thats a wee bit more mass and mag then a 400/5.6
No VR. No Sharpening
300/2.8 VR w/1.4x extender II using a D700 body. tripod GT2540EX w/BH40 Head http://www.pbase.com/crusader/image/105959106/original
100% crop for the pixel peeper http://www.pbase.com/crusader/image/105959107
note the vent grills at the top
There was movement when I lock the ballhead on the BH40 with my 300mm + 1.4TC on it (420mm), it was noticeable at focal lengths over about 400mm (however you get there) while slight, it was there. Obviously, this becomes more noticeable the longer the focal length. It was not weight specific and it wasn't droop (slipping after lock). It was a slight movement of the ball when the locking mechanism was tightened on the ball. Once the ball was locked, it was fine. I don't think this is a problem, and certainly not a reason to not buy one if you have your heart set on one. It is also not an issue because if you have the ballhead matched to the size of the legs it was designed for. Of course, if you exceed the weight specs, I wouldn't expect it to perform well and perhaps slip.
For purposes of comparison, my other ballhead (M20) did not move at all with even a longer focal length on it (I didn't exceed the weight limits of either ballhead).
I would say that if you put on your 2.0 extender on the 70-200 and had it at 200, if yours was like mine, you would see the slight movement. Whether this is in all BH40s or was due to a change at some point during the years its been in production, I couldn't tell you.
What else do you want me to tell you? I'm not sure how I could be much more explicit. Lighten up a bit, you'll live longer.
I doubt it is defective. I first noticed it at 670mm and then had to really look for it at 400mm. Like I said, not much of anything and certainly not worth not buying one.
