-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Manfrotto 393 or Lensmaster Gimbal (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter glazzers
- Start date
Musoman
PETE - Nikon/Sony Shooter
I've owned and used a Man 393 and it was a breeze to use and very effective.
The Lensmaster looks very similar - except that one half of the " swinging U section " is missing compared to the 393.
Weight is the same at 1.6kg. The 393 looks a bit cheaper but not by too much
Lensmaster £137 ( from Lensmaster )
393 £121 ( from Warehouse EXpress )
Since there's very little difference that i can see ( pehaps someone else knows more ) then you may as well buy the 393 and save a few £££'s for your kids inheritance
The Lensmaster looks very similar - except that one half of the " swinging U section " is missing compared to the 393.
Weight is the same at 1.6kg. The 393 looks a bit cheaper but not by too much
Lensmaster £137 ( from Lensmaster )
393 £121 ( from Warehouse EXpress )
Since there's very little difference that i can see ( pehaps someone else knows more ) then you may as well buy the 393 and save a few £££'s for your kids inheritance
I have used the 393 quite regularly with a Sig 300-800. I find it performs really well with nice fluid movements up and down and side to side. Not the most attractive piece of kit but very well built and good value for money compared to some Gimbal type heads.
One thing I would say however is you may find it over-kill for a 400mm f5.6 its quite a heavy head and for the 400mm you'd be better off with a smaller lighter head IMHO. For the 500mm f4.0 though i'd say it was perfect.
rgds
Andrew
One thing I would say however is you may find it over-kill for a 400mm f5.6 its quite a heavy head and for the 400mm you'd be better off with a smaller lighter head IMHO. For the 500mm f4.0 though i'd say it was perfect.
rgds
Andrew
Probably Ill order the lensmaster this afternoon. I think that for static subjects Manf would be better (more stable) but when you want to go for birds in flight and animals who move faster from side to side lensmaster would be better (only have to adjust one knob)
Regards
Regards
Malcolm Stewart
Well-known member
I've been a 393 owner and appreciative user for quite a few years, first with an EF300 F2.8L and now with an EF500 F4L IS. It's good to see some competition emerging, particularly from a UK maker, and at a price well away from the Wimberley / Kirk area.
For best balance, I use my 393 with the two "U"s together (tripod mount below lens) when mounting my 300 F2.8L and 400 F5.6L, and with them separated (tripod mount above lens) when I'm using the 500 F4L. The tripod mounting plates on the lenses have different offsets from the lens/camera axis, and this affects the balance. The sliding and lockable lens mounting plate (with safety pin) is much appreciated.
For stability I've always used them on a Benbo 1 tripod, but I've now bought a Manfrotto 055XPROB, and it will be interesting to see how a modern design compares to a "classic", but very heavy to lug around.
For best balance, I use my 393 with the two "U"s together (tripod mount below lens) when mounting my 300 F2.8L and 400 F5.6L, and with them separated (tripod mount above lens) when I'm using the 500 F4L. The tripod mounting plates on the lenses have different offsets from the lens/camera axis, and this affects the balance. The sliding and lockable lens mounting plate (with safety pin) is much appreciated.
For stability I've always used them on a Benbo 1 tripod, but I've now bought a Manfrotto 055XPROB, and it will be interesting to see how a modern design compares to a "classic", but very heavy to lug around.
