I am in the process of upgrading my old manfrotto 3021 legs to go with upcoming D2H and telephoto lens purchases.
My question relates to all alround use of the 1548 tripod. If I am unconcerned about weight (and price), are there any disadvantages to using the 1548 as my one and only tripod? I have a few questions in mind:
1. Is the bulk (diameter) of the 1548 prohibitive in terms of carrying/packing it? I realize that it is heavier, but shorter when collapsed, than the 1325.
2. Is the 1548 outright overkill for smaller setups (D2H, 105 micro as an example)? In other words, is the 1325 more than enough for this type of setup in any conditions?
3. Is the 1548 overkill for a D2H + 300/2.8AFSII + TC-20EII? Same question as above - is the 1325 more than enough for the 300 + 2X TC, or would it be marginal in some conditions?
4. Is the 1325 useable without reservation for something along the lines of the 500/4AFSII or 200-400 VR lenses? (I know from info I have been able to find that this is where the 1548 starts to shine.)
I will be using either a Kirk BH-1 or a Markins M-20, and possibly a Wimberly Sidekick for whichever tripod I get.
The 1548 is definitely overkill. A 1325 will be more than adequate for your lenses and it will certainly handle a 500mm 4.0. The 1548 is a good choice for 600mm 4.0 lenses, but it's just too darn bulky and awkward to carry if you don't need it.
I have the 1325 with Markins M20. It works fine with my 500 f/4 AFS II and Winberely Sidekick. If I shot regularly with anything bigger, the 1548 might be an attractive option in addition to the 1325 for regular use but it's just too darned big for anything else.
Thanks for all the info - this is exactly what I was looking for and really helps with my decision. I think budget will keep me out of the 160mm class tele's (400/2.8 and 600/4), so it sounds like the 1325 will be more than enough for my uses (and lighter too).
Just had to make a similar decision and decided for the 1348 (4 section legs) ; compared to the 1325, it is only 61cm vs. 67cm of the 1325. With only 3 legs extended you got a rock-solid setup at reasonable hight (as with the 1325) but you are more prepared for uneven ground with the optional 4th section.
I use a Markins M20, and the whole setup just looks and feels GREAT
Yeah, I was looking at the 1348 as well before getting the 1325. But the 4 section leg idea just did not sit well with me. I use to own the 1228. Seemed like I lost a lot of time extending and collapsing leg sections, and trying to get them all level. Going to a 3 section tripod made it much simpler, and quicker to setup. And, correct me if I am wrong, the 3 section tripods are slightly lighter than their 4 section counterparts.
>Yeah, I was looking at the 1348 as well before getting the >1325. But the 4 section leg idea just did not sit well with >me. I use to own the 1228. Seemed like I lost a lot of >time extending and collapsing leg sections, and trying to >get them all level. Going to a 3 section tripod made it >much simpler, and quicker to setup.
Yes, but as I stated, with the 1348 you just have to extend 3 sections to reach rather the same hight as with the 1228 with 4 legs extended - hence the 4th section as optional section.
>And, correct me if I am >wrong, the 3 section tripods are slightly lighter than their >4 section counterparts.
Yes, you're right indeed. 1348= 2,16kg vs 1325=2,03kg (not quite a difference)
What might be more important is that the 1348 is more expensive than the 1325 : Prices in Germany: 1325= 729 EUR vs. 1348= 849 EUR
Yeah, that was what I was thinking: slightly lighter, not enough to make a difference, but less expensive as well.
You mention the 1348 being nearly the same height as the 1228, that tickles me because that was one reason for ditching the 1228. It was not quite high enough for me to stand-up straight without raising the center column. The 1325 with ball head and F5 puts the viewfinder right at eye level. SWEET!!!!!!!