I have a Gitzo GT3530LS and a Feisol CT-3402. The Gitzo is great because it's a enormous beast, but...it's an enormous beast. I find myself using the Feisol far more, because I travel and hike a lot, and this little tripod punches well above its weight (literally). If I'm close to the car or using a long telephoto, I'll grab the Gitzo, but more often than not, it stays in the car.
I love how solid and tall the Gitzo is (I'm 5'7", so it puts my viewfinder above eye level when fully extended, with zero flex), but I'm wondering what might be a better compromise for my needs. Currently, my heaviest combo is a Canon 5DsR and EF 100-400mm II, so the Gitzo is being underutilized, but eventually, I plan to invest in a 500 or 600mm prime, so I'd like a tripod that can comfortably support that kind of weight.
I was at a local camera store yesterday and they had a GT2542, which seemed solid and much more compact than my 3530. It got me thinking about trading my Gitzo for something else. In a perfect world, my priorities are the following. I know the world isn't perfect, so I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts.
Capable of heavy-duty use while being at or under 3.5lbs.
60"+ tall without extending a center column.
Compact enough that it could fit in a carry-on suitcase, even if I have to remove the head and/or reverse the legs like a Gitzo Traveler series.
I'm open to any and all brands and price ranges. I plan to buy used and can patiently wait for a good deal to come along.
I've been using my 5DS and Canon EF 500/4L IS on a Feisol Traveler CT-3441S tripod, for 11+ years; usually with a Wimberley Sidekick on a Manfrotto 468MG Hydrostatic ball head, or an Arca-Swiss C1 Cube geared head, depending on what I'm doing. I suspect that your Feisol CT-3402 is quite capable of supporting any super telephoto lens, that you might pick up in the future.
dantheobserver wrote:
Yes, another "which tripod" thread
I have a Gitzo GT3530LS and a Feisol CT-3402. The Gitzo is great because it's a enormous beast, but...it's an enormous beast. I find myself using the Feisol far more, because I travel and hike a lot, and this little tripod punches well above its weight (literally). If I'm close to the car or using a long telephoto, I'll grab the Gitzo, but more often than not, it stays in the car.
I love how solid and tall the Gitzo is (I'm 5'7", so it's taller than me when fully extended with zero flex), but I'm wondering what might be a better compromise for my needs. Currently, my heaviest combo is a Canon 5DsR and EF 100-400mm II, so the Gitzo is being underutilized, but eventually, I plan to invest in a 500 or 600mm prime, so I'd like a tripod that can comfortably support that kind of weight.
I was at a local camera store yesterday and they had a GT2542, which seemed solid and much more compact than my 3530. It got me thinking about trading my Gitzo for something else. In a perfect world, my priorities are the following. I know the world isn't perfect, so I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts.
Capable of heavy-duty use while being at or under 3.5lbs.
60"+ tall without extending a center column.
Compact enough that it could fit in a carry-on suitcase, even if I have to remove the head and/or reverse the legs like a Gitzo Traveler series.
I'm open to any and all brands and price ranges. I plan to buy used and can patiently wait for a good deal to come along.
Having a GT353xLS, GT2530, GT2541, etc. I would not get the 2 series for a 100-400 II if slower shutter speeds are needed and they are not very stable for a big prime. (I chased wildlife around in the 2000s with a 500/4+1DsIII on the 2530 one time and it was a nightmare.) I replaced the center column of the 2 series and all those goofy parts with Markins hubs years ago to increase stability, but that makes for a shorter setup more suited for flat terrain. Something like the RRS TVC-24L will give you plenty of height (66") and smaller spider than the systematic Gitzos. It's too much weight for my needs, being nearly as much as the GT3530LS. Unfortunately their next smallest version is the TVC-24 which is only 49" in height. Apparently they don't understand that users might want something in between. I also have the older TVC-23 and only use it for flat terrain. The RRS 2 series is the same tube size as Gitzo 3 series for marketing purposes.
I would look at whatever Jim suggested and also there are some tripods on the Leofoto. I use one of them for certain hazardous locations and figure if it is damaged I can let it go without much loss. The build quality of the Leofoto is not at the level of the Gitzo or RRS, but they are sturdy enough in the right tube sizes. I had to grind down the leg stops to get a wider spread at the first stop.
My main tripod has long been a big, heavy Induro model with one of the larger RRS heads. It is solid, but is a bear to cart around. I have carried in on the trail for long day hikes, but no thanks.
Because I’ve done a lot of backpacking photography, some years ago I added a lighter (but not all THAT light) Gitzo 2542L. (L is the longer/taller model.)
It is a really solid tripod. Honestly, in virtually all circumstances it is plenty solid for my full frame setup, including the 100-400.
jcolwell wrote:
I've been using my 5DS and Canon EF 500/4L IS on a Feisol Traveler CT-3441S tripod, for 11+ years; usually with a Wimberley Sidekick on a Manfrotto 468MG Hydrostatic ball head, or an Arca-Swiss C1 Cube geared head, depending on what I'm doing. I suspect that your Feisol CT-3402 is quite capable of supporting any super telephoto lens, that you might pick up in the future.
Thanks for the recommendation! I'll look into the CT-3441S. While the CT-3402 could hypothetically support a supertelephoto, it's not the best idea in practice. The legs are solid, but they're so light that a larger camera/lens/head combo becomes a top-heavy liability so I want to find something that's still light(ish) and compact(ish) while still creating a solid base.
EB-1 wrote:
Having a GT353xLS, GT2530, GT2541, etc. I would not get the 2 series for a 100-400 II if slower shutter speeds are needed and they are not very stable for a big prime. (I chased wildlife around in the 2000s with a 500/4+1DsIII on the 2530 one time and it was a nightmare.) I replaced the center column of the 2 series and all those goofy parts with Markins hubs years ago to increase stability, but that makes for a shorter setup more suited for flat terrain. Something like the RRS TVC-24L will give you plenty of height (66") and smaller spider than the systematic Gitzos. It's too much weight for my needs, being nearly as much as the GT3530LS. Unfortunately their next smallest version is the TVC-24 which is only 49" in height. Apparently they don't understand that users might want something in between. I also have the older TVC-23 and only use it for flat terrain. The RRS 2 series is the same tube size as Gitzo 3 series for marketing purposes.
I would look at whatever Jim suggested and also there are some tripods on the Leofoto. I use one of them for certain hazardous locations and figure if it is damaged I can let it go without much loss. The build quality of the Leofoto is not at the level of the Gitzo or RRS, but they are sturdy enough in the right tube sizes. I had to grind down the leg stops to get a wider spread at the first stop. ...Show more →
Do you say it was a nightmare because it was top-heavy, or because the legs flexed too much with a heavy setup, or ?
I'm certainly open to swapping for a Markins hub to ditch the center column if I went for a Gitzo 2 series.
Which Leofoto do you use? And could you elaborate on what you mean about the build quality not being up to par with Gitzo/RRS? Which components/aspects specifically?
gdanmitchell wrote:
My main tripod has long been a big, heavy Induro model with one of the larger RRS heads. It is solid, but is a bear to cart around. I have carried in on the trail for long day hikes, but no thanks.
Because I’ve done a lot of backpacking photography, some years ago I added a lighter (but not all THAT light) Gitzo 2542L. (L is the longer/taller model.)
It is a really solid tripod. Honestly, in virtually all circumstances it is plenty solid for my full frame setup, including the 100-400.
Thanks for the info! I hadn't realized they make a Long version of the GT2542. That sounds like a good compromise. What's your preferred carrying method when hiking? Do you strap your tripod to your backpack, or carry it in a separate case, or ?
dantheobserver wrote:
Do you say it was a nightmare because it was top-heavy, or because the legs flexed too much with a heavy setup, or ?
I'm certainly open to swapping for a Markins hub to ditch the center column if I went for a Gitzo 2 series.
Which Leofoto do you use? And could you elaborate on what you mean about the build quality not being up to par with Gitzo/RRS? Which components/aspects specifically?
The Gitzo GT2 series is too lightweight and it was often about to topple and fall over. The 4-legged version 254x was worse than the 253x because the smallest section is less stable at wider angles. It won't collapse though it takes some effort to tighten enough for a high load.
I have some kind of Leofoto 324 with a mini-leveler integrated. The legs at the spider become too tight or too loose for no good reason, the feet are often falling off, and the tubes are easily damaged, almost wearing through. My Gitzo GT3530LS is 15 years old, has plenty of use/abuse and only a few small scrapes on the tubes. The leg action at the spider is as smooth and consistent as ever. The Leofoto is well less than half the cost of my RRS 2 series (about 1/3 on sale). I Dremeled some of the metal from the first leg stops to give it a wider stance more like the RRS.
gdanmitchell wrote:
My main tripod has long been a big, heavy Induro model with one of the larger RRS heads. It is solid, but is a bear to cart around. I have carried in on the trail for long day hikes, but no thanks.
Because I’ve done a lot of backpacking photography, some years ago I added a lighter (but not all THAT light) Gitzo 2542L. (L is the longer/taller model.)
It is a really solid tripod. Honestly, in virtually all circumstances it is plenty solid for my full frame setup, including the 100-400.
- - -
dantheobserver wrote:
Thanks for the info! I hadn't realized they make a Long version of the GT2542. That sounds like a good compromise. What's your preferred carrying method when hiking? Do you strap your tripod to your backpack, or carry it in a separate case, or ?
For backpacking I strap it to the side of the backpack, with the “feet” in the stretchy thingie that could hold a water bottle. I don’t put it in any sort of case at all, though I do have a padded cover for the tripod head. For day hiking with it, I’d be more likely to use an actual camera backpack with a tripod-holding attachment built-in.
I wanted the long version since the default version is short enough that I’d have to bend down to use it or extend the center column. I like the tripod a lot. It has given me no problems at all. (In contrast to my bigger Induro tripod legs that eventually developed several problems. I really need to replace that one!)
By the way, I’m baffled by the earlier comments about this tripod being too light and about to topple over. I’ve never had an experience remotely like that.
gdanmitchell wrote:
By the way, I’m baffled by the earlier comments about this tripod being too light and about to topple over. I’ve never had an experience remotely like that.
I was describing the GT254x with a big tele like a 500/4 or 600/4 and pro body.
A little wind or unlevel legs and it is not so stable that you can leave it more than a few seconds like you can the GT3530LS.
I know nothing about the Feisels.
EB-1 wrote:
The Gitzo GT2 series is too lightweight and it was often about to topple and fall over. The 4-legged version 254x was worse than the 253x because the smallest section is less stable at wider angles. It won't collapse though it takes some effort to tighten enough for a high load.
I have some kind of Leofoto 324 with a mini-leveler integrated. The legs at the spider become too tight or too loose for no good reason, the feet are often falling off, and the tubes are easily damaged, almost wearing through. My Gitzo GT3530LS is 15 years old, has plenty of use/abuse and only a few small scrapes on the tubes. The leg action at the spider is as smooth and consistent as ever. The Leofoto is well less than half the cost of my RRS 2 series (about 1/3 on sale). I Dremeled some of the metal from the first leg stops to give it a wider stance more like the RRS. ...Show more →
I see, good to know about Leofoto. I've read good things about their tripods, but would want to try one up close before buying one. Having owned cheap sets of legs whose connections tighten/loosen at the spider like you mentioned, I'm wary of repeating that experience.
gdanmitchell wrote:
For backpacking I strap it to the side of the backpack, with the “feet” in the stretchy thingie that could hold a water bottle. I don’t put it in any sort of case at all, though I do have a padded cover for the tripod head. For day hiking with it, I’d be more likely to use an actual camera backpack with a tripod-holding attachment built-in.
I wanted the long version since the default version is short enough that I’d have to bend down to use it or extend the center column. I like the tripod a lot. It has given me no problems at all. (In contrast to my bigger Induro tripod legs that eventually developed several problems. I really need to replace that one!)
By the way, I’m baffled by the earlier comments about this tripod being too light and about to topple over. I’ve never had an experience remotely like that. ...Show more →
Gotcha! My thinking is the same regarding the long vs. regular versions of Gitzos.
Have you used your GT2542L with a supertele prime, or is the 100-400 the largest and heaviest lens you've mounted on it? EB-1's point about top-heaviness is mainly about a 500mm prime so I'm interested to know if you've used a similar setup?
gdanmitchell wrote:
For backpacking I strap it to the side of the backpack, with the “feet” in the stretchy thingie that could hold a water bottle. I don’t put it in any sort of case at all, though I do have a padded cover for the tripod head. For day hiking with it, I’d be more likely to use an actual camera backpack with a tripod-holding attachment built-in.
I wanted the long version since the default version is short enough that I’d have to bend down to use it or extend the center column. I like the tripod a lot. It has given me no problems at all. (In contrast to my bigger Induro tripod legs that eventually developed several problems. I really need to replace that one!)
By the way, I’m baffled by the earlier comments about this tripod being too light and about to topple over. I’ve never had an experience remotely like that. ...Show more →
- - -
dantheobserver wrote:
Gotcha! My thinking is the same regarding the long vs. regular versions of Gitzos.
Have you used your GT2542L with a supertele prime, or is the 100-400 the largest and heaviest lens you've mounted on it? EB-1's point about top-heaviness is mainly about a 500mm prime so I'm interested to know if you've used a similar setup?
Indeed, the largest I use on it is the EF 100-400, sometimes with the 1.4x TC.
If I were looking at the "super tele" lenses like that 500mm or longer, I would not be looking to lighten my tripod! :-)
It works fine with the 100-400, but bigger might well not be as stable as you want. You could make it work if you really wanted to save a bit of weight, but lightening your tripod probably is a bit pointless if you are using those heavy, gargantuan lenses.
I tend to follow the old-fashioned rules about tripod size, paying less attention to weight ratings and more to the relationship between tube size and focal length. Gitzo 2-series tripods are great, but at 400mm, they're a bit outclassed (and definitely by 600mm).
I have a Leofoto 364 that is great for video and long lenses (36mm large tubes, so larger than your 3-series Gitzo). It's not any heavier than a Gitzo 2542.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
I tend to follow the old-fashioned rules about tripod size, paying less attention to weight ratings and more to the relationship between tube size and focal length. Gitzo 2-series tripods are great, but at 400mm, they're a bit outclassed (and definitely by 600mm).
I have a Leofoto 364 that is great for video and long lenses (36mm large tubes, so larger than your 3-series Gitzo). It's not any heavier than a Gitzo 2542.
I’d add one more decision point. I don’t know that brand you mention — I think I may have heard the name before, but that’s it.
But brand quality makes a pretty big difference. I learned this the (slightly) hard way with my larger, heavier tripod. It is a unit from Induro that I bought years ago. At the time it was getting a lot of recommendations, and on paper it looked great. And when I got it, it was quite good — a big, solid unit that seemed quite sturdy.
However, over the years it became apparent to me that its construction quality just wasn’t as good as that of my Gitzo (that I’ve mentioned earlier in this thread). One of the leg tightening mechanisms used a slightly flimsy construction and less-than-optimal tolerances, and eventually it got to the point where that leg became somewhat recalcitrant and a bit tricky to loosen, extend, and tighten. On top of that, the hinges where legs attach to the top unit worked loose over time. At first I cold correct by tightening the attachment nut, but eventually the legs became too loose even with the nuts fully tightened.
The tripod still works for me, and it has been abused a fair among of the many years I’ve had it. But it isn’t really repairable at this point and I’m just about done with putting up with it.
On the other hand (looking at my sample of one!) I’ve had no such issues with my more expensive Gitzo unit.
So, folks looking for tripod should, of course, be sure to get one with the stability, height, and weight that works for them. But also give some stock to brand reputation.
Agreed — quality matters, for sure. I know and trust Gitzo, and have owned a number of their tripods. I’ve been pretty outspoken about my lack of respect for Induro’s lesser-quality knockoffs, here and elsewhere. I am probably somewhat hypocritical in that regard by embracing Leofoto, but I’ve found them to be quite good.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Indeed, the largest I use on it is the EF 100-400, sometimes with the 1.4x TC.
If I were looking at the "super tele" lenses like that 500mm or longer, I would not be looking to lighten my tripod! :-)
It works fine with the 100-400, but bigger might well not be as stable as you want. You could make it work if you really wanted to save a bit of weight, but lightening your tripod probably is a bit pointless if you are using those heavy, gargantuan lenses.
Good to know! So it sounds like a GT2542L would be a good size to slot in between my two current tripods, but not a complete replacement for either of them if I pick up a prime supertele 🤔
Smiert Spionam wrote:
I tend to follow the old-fashioned rules about tripod size, paying less attention to weight ratings and more to the relationship between tube size and focal length. Gitzo 2-series tripods are great, but at 400mm, they're a bit outclassed (and definitely by 600mm).
I have a Leofoto 364 that is great for video and long lenses (36mm large tubes, so larger than your 3-series Gitzo). It's not any heavier than a Gitzo 2542.
Good point about prioritizing tube size, that makes a lot of sense. Interesting to hear your perspective about Leofoto. I've been reading up on 2-series Gitzos and various Leofotos, and the Leofoto LS-324C seems to be a great balance of many things I'm looking for, but EB-1's comment above makes me wary about its longevity. Perhaps there's a nearly 1:1 equivalent somewhere in the Gitzo or RRS lines...
dantheobserver wrote:
Good to know! So it sounds like a GT2542L would be a good size to slot in between my two current tripods, but not a complete replacement for either of them if I pick up a prime supertele 🤔
Good point about prioritizing tube size, that makes a lot of sense. Interesting to hear your perspective about Leofoto. I've been reading up on 2-series Gitzos and various Leofotos, and the Leofoto LS-324C seems to be a great balance of many things I'm looking for, but EB-1's comment above makes me wary about its longevity. Perhaps there's a nearly 1:1 equivalent somewhere in the Gitzo or RRS lines......Show more →
I think it’s kind of in between the TFC-24 and TFC-24L in terms of max height, but lighter. RRS has a wider leg spread angle at the first leg angle stop, which I appreciate.
I have the TFC-24L, it’s kind of the Goldilocks tripod for me, although I don’t shoot a ton of large telephotos.
Gitzo recommends lenses up to 135mm (200mm Max) on their 1-series tripods,,,the Traveller, as well as the Mountaineer. That said, it all boils down to the conditions you're shooting in,,,shutter-speed, etc.
This is from Gitzo;
" The Gitzo GT1545T Series 1 Traveler carbon fiber tripod is a headless, ultra-compact, 4-section support with an 180° leg folding system pioneered by Gitzo, which enables its legs to reverse-fold around the center column and an optional ball head, allowing it to fold down to 42.5 cm. The GT1545T weighs 1.055 Kg, extends to a height of 153 cm and holds up to 10 kg of gear. It is recommended for use with 135mm lenses (200mm max.). With its included short center column inserted, the tripod gets down to 22 cm for low-angle or macro shots."
That said; I've tested the 2-series Traveller with the Nikon P-900 at 2,000mm (FF equiv) and gotten pin sharp shots when shooting in light winds gusting from 6 to 10 km/hr. and good light. The head I used was the Gitzo GH-1382QD w/friction control.
tsdevine wrote:
I think it’s kind of in between the TFC-24 and TFC-24L in terms of max height, but lighter. RRS has a wider leg spread angle at the first leg angle stop, which I appreciate.
I have the TFC-24L, it’s kind of the Goldilocks tripod for me, although I don’t shoot a ton of large telephotos.
I see what you mean! The TFC-24 is too similar to my current Feisol, and considerably heavier. However, the TFC-24L is intriguing. The Leofoto still looks better on paper but I think I'll need to make a trip to one of the big camera stores to try them in-person. There's only so much one can glean from online data and reviews
Bobarino wrote:
Gitzo recommends lenses up to 135mm (200mm Max) on their 1-series tripods,,,the Traveller, as well as the Mountaineer. That said, it all boils down to the conditions you're shooting in,,,shutter-speed, etc.
This is from Gitzo;
" The Gitzo GT1545T Series 1 Traveler carbon fiber tripod is a headless, ultra-compact, 4-section support with an 180° leg folding system pioneered by Gitzo, which enables its legs to reverse-fold around the center column and an optional ball head, allowing it to fold down to 42.5 cm. The GT1545T weighs 1.055 Kg, extends to a height of 153 cm and holds up to 10 kg of gear. It is recommended for use with 135mm lenses (200mm max.). With its included short center column inserted, the tripod gets down to 22 cm for low-angle or macro shots."
That said; I've tested the 2-series Traveller with the Nikon P-900 at 2,000mm (FF equiv) and gotten pin sharp shots when shooting in light winds gusting from 6 to 10 km/hr. and good light. The head I used was the Gitzo GH-1382QD w/friction control. ...Show more →
I agree that it all depends on the shooting conditions. However, a point-and-shoot is apples and oranges to a pro-level DSLR/mirrorless body with a supertelephoto prime. A 135mm or 200mm DSLR/mirrorless lens on a Gitzo 1-series might work in a pinch, but I had a GT1541T for a short time, and with a DSLR and 16-35mm, the combo was top-heavy enough that the tripod created more problems than it solved. Factor in wind/ground vibrations, and as they say in New York, fuhgeddaboudit!
dantheobserver wrote:
I see what you mean! The TFC-24 is too similar to my current Feisol, and considerably heavier. However, the TFC-24L is intriguing. The Leofoto still looks better on paper but I think I'll need to make a trip to one of the big camera stores to try them in-person. There's only so much one can glean from online data and reviews
The TFC-24 is more than double the stiffness (average) of your Feisol. The TFC-24L would still be better. In case you do not know, check out this website with actual stiffness measurements:
From my experience, within the 28-29mm top tube class, GT2542 (I assume you meant the Mountaineer and not the Traveler) is at the top of the heap, and certainly none at 60" without extending the center column unless you want to go for a size bigger (32mm top tube). The RRS is a good contender, Leofoto 32mm top tube at that height would not be as good as the GT2542.
Feisol CT-3441T & CC tripod supports a 27 lb load and has a working height of 57 inches without using the center column. It weighs onl 2.63 lb and collapses down to 18.9 inches and comes with an excellent carry case, unlike Gitzo and RRS where it is an additional expense. My wife has been using hers for nearly a decade.
Add in the height gain of a gimbal head to the working height of the tripod.
For subjects up in the trees my own Feisol CT-3472 tripod with the available center column kit provides a stable working height of 63 inches and supports a 600mm f/4 13 lb lens and a 2 lb camera with zero issues. It replaced a RRS TVC-34L and the Feisol is superior in every respect to the RRS and the current Gitzo tripods. Older Gitzo tripods were much better built than ones I have bought more recently and had to return.
That site (and the testing behind it) is a great resource. Not everyone will score them the same way, but the basic comparison data is very instructive.
And of course, the other variable is technique, including everything from how you set it up and tension the legs to how you handle the camera on it. Mirrorless is obviously more forgiving than an SLR, but technique still matters.
I still find a heavy wooden legset to be the most comfortable ride... but of course they're not that great to carry. Choices, choices!
My Gitzo GT3530LS is 15 years old, has plenty of use/abuse and only a few small scrapes on the tubes. The leg action at the spider is as smooth and consistent as ever. The Leofoto is well less than half the cost of my RRS 2 series (about 1/3 on sale). I Dremeled some of the metal from the first leg stops to give it a wider stance more like the RRS. 