Sidemount Wimberley Head vs 4th Generation M-3.6

I have the Wimberley Head® - Version II which I love and I am looking to add a 3rd gimbal head.

Would like some feedback on the Sidemount Wimberley Head & 4th Generation M-3.6 from owners.
1 pounds 8 oz
2 pounds 5 oz

Planning to use this on a 3.9kg lens like the Canon EF 500mm f/4L IS USM with a Kirk replacement lens foot.

Hi,

I have changed my Wimberly head II for a Mongoose 3.6, exactly what you are thinking about, and like you I use it with a 500/4 VR.

Looking only at performance I think the Wimberly is a little bit better because the lens's ring become a little stiff on the Mongoose. The workaround consist in leveling my tripod with some care to avoid the lille adjustment when panning.

The great pro for the Mongoose is in weight and dimensions, things that make it a great solution when I travel or walk a long path in mountain (well in the first case given the total amount of weight it is a little difference but in a steep path is a GREAT difference!).

Massimo

Massimo thank you for the timely reply.

What do you mean by "lens ring" and where is it located? Is it the red knob?

No it is the lens's tripod collar!

Bye

Massimo

Mongoose M3.6 gimbal head from 4th generation designs is excellent. I have it with thd integrated low arm option; so it is similar to the Wimberley-II. I usd it with the 500L and 800L and absolutely no issues. I also have the integrated flash arm. The combo is the lightest option available and am very happy with it. The service is also impeccable should you ever need it; John Zeiss, the owner, is a good man.

I use exactly what Vivek uses!

After using the Kirk King Cobra (side mount) for a number of years and then switching to the Wimberley II when it came out I will never use another side mount. While the Kirk is a very good product there are several problems with a side mount design for big lenses:
1) There really is no way to get proper balance compared to a full Gimbal head.
2) Mounting your lens foot in a side mount is a royal pain compared to the full Gimbal.
3) The tripod ring binds either right away or will eventually when rotating the lens with a side mount

The binding was the main reason I switched to the full Wimberley and when I did rotating the lens was silky smooth in comparison.

One overlooked Mongoose advantage is its tiny flash bracket.

In comparison, the Wimberley flash bracket assembly is a whopping 5X or so heavier, and much much bulkier. Wimberley wisely fails to post the weight of their Monster Flash Bracket.

The Mongoose compared to the Wimberley is much less stable in terms of vibration - this is because the design is like a big leaf spring and there is very little strength sideways - the mongoose with the low mount arm while light is a seriously weak set up in terms of vibration - so much so that I can get about 3/4" of travel by squeezing the components together with one hand. The wimberley on the other hand is rock solid. It's weight over stability...

It all boils down to personal preference and shooting style. Greg and I are at opposite ends of opinion on the Mongoose, and I fully respect his opinion.

I routinely shoot the Mongoose with my 800mm and a Mark 4 at 1/200th sec. No blur, zero. Works for me and my clients. But my 800mm has incredible IS performance, as well it should for the price.

Just stating the facts of the actual stability differences between the two I would like to add that with today's IS lenses and high ISO abilities a truly rock solid platform has become less and less of a necessity - it's really only when you're using slow shutter speeds and non IS lenses or when you have wind etc that a truly rock solid platform will make the difference. So weight over stability is much less of a concern these days.

Thank you, Greg. I completely agree.

Thus, one may conclude the Rock Solid heads and the big 5 series Gitzos are essentially vestigial remains of a bygone era of 50 ISO Velvia and no IS/VR.

Not only do those vestigial remains relics serve no useful purpose, they specifically cripple shooters with weight, much to my delight, as the new photographic methods I teach utilizing the lightest gear elevates the work of my clients and enhances my reputation and wallet.

Greg Downing wrote:The Mongoose compared to the Wimberley is much less stable in terms of vibration - this is because the design is like a big leaf spring and there is very little strength sideways - the mongoose with the low mount arm while light is a seriously weak set up in terms of vibration - so much so that I can get about 3/4" of travel by squeezing the components together with one hand. The wimberley on the other hand is rock solid. It's weight over stability...

FINALLY... an honest opinion. Thanks Greg.

Steve Cirone wrote:Thank you, Greg. I completely agree.

Thus, one may conclude the Rock Solid heads and the big 5 series Gitzos are essentially vestigial remains of a bygone era of 50 ISO Velvia and no IS/VR.

Not only do those vestigial remains relics serve no useful purpose, they specifically cripple shooters with weight, much to my delight, as the new photographic methods I teach utilizing the lightest gear elevates the work of my clients and enhances my reputation and wallet.

This will probably get me kicked off this forum but I can't let it pass. This is, without doubt, the most appallingly ignorant statement I have ever read.

dougc wrote:

Steve Cirone wrote:Thank you, Greg. I completely agree.

Thus, one may conclude the Rock Solid heads and the big 5 series Gitzos are essentially vestigial remains of a bygone era of 50 ISO Velvia and no IS/VR.

Not only do those vestigial remains relics serve no useful purpose, they specifically cripple shooters with weight, much to my delight, as the new photographic methods I teach utilizing the lightest gear elevates the work of my clients and enhances my reputation and wallet.

This will probably get me kicked off this forum but I can't let it pass. This is, without doubt, the most appallingly ignorant statement I have ever read.

Doug, I'm trying to figure out what part you think is ignorant. I have heard/read many comments by professional photographers stating something along the lines of "I wish all my competition would use inferior equipment", Art Wolfe, Arthur Morris, John Shaw to name a few.
I can't really speak for Steve but I suspect his comment was mainly tongue in cheek.

The last sentence. I guess I don't see the humor.

Doug & Greg, as crazy as I sound, I do agree with both of you . In a classical sense, I think rock solid support is important, otherwise one could just shoot from a running car handheld . The issue to note is that the 800L with its great IS is actually more forgiving and one can shoot at a lower shutter speed on a tripod even if it is NOT rock solid. I have quite a few really good shots from the Mongoose + Gitzo 1325 combo for the 800L. Like someone said above, the rock solid support vs. light weight are on two opposite ends of the spectrum. While I use the Mongoose 3.6 with their ILA and IFA, the Wimberley-II is a superb support. I have used it and others like the Jobu Black-widow and they are both superb.

That being said, I do think that a tripod + head is required for sharp shots consistently. Whether one wants to use the Mongoose or the Wimberley is up to their personal preferences.

For me, given the weight of the 800L, I am unwilling to carry the weight of other components _if_ I can live with the results.

-- Vivek

dougc wrote:

Steve Cirone wrote:Thank you, Greg. I completely agree.

Thus, one may conclude the Rock Solid heads and the big 5 series Gitzos are essentially vestigial remains of a bygone era of 50 ISO Velvia and no IS/VR.

Not only do those vestigial remains relics serve no useful purpose, they specifically cripple shooters with weight, much to my delight, as the new photographic methods I teach utilizing the lightest gear elevates the work of my clients and enhances my reputation and wallet.

This will probably get me kicked off this forum but I can't let it pass. This is, without doubt, the most appallingly ignorant statement I have ever read.

Well stated Vivek.

Greg Downing wrote:The Mongoose compared to the Wimberley is much less stable in terms of vibration - this is because the design is like a big leaf spring and there is very little strength sideways - the mongoose with the low mount arm while light is a seriously weak set up in terms of vibration - so much so that I can get about 3/4" of travel by squeezing the components together with one hand. The wimberley on the other hand is rock solid. It's weight over stability...

Totally agree! The Mongoose is one of those products that I never fully trust.

Greg Downing wrote:The Mongoose compared to the Wimberley is much less stable in terms of vibration - this is because the design is like a big leaf spring and there is very little strength sideways - the mongoose with the low mount arm while light is a seriously weak set up in terms of vibration - so much so that I can get about 3/4" of travel by squeezing the components together with one hand. The wimberley on the other hand is rock solid. It's weight over stability...

Exactly! I traded my full size Wimberley head (Original) for the Mongoose 3.6 set up with Low Arm and while the lighter weight is great I miss the rock solid lock & no vibration of the Wimberely.
The Moongoose has vibrations and you must use the long lens technique without fail everytime with it.

I miss my Wimberely but not the weight.