The price difference is only a few dollars plus from the 168 to the
308RC. The 168 can take a heavier load. however I'm getting the 190
tripod so I may not have a use for that heavier load.
I'm using 35 mm. An EOS 300 with a Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super as my
heaviest lens. I really doubt I will ever get an equipment weighting
more than 4 kg.
And then there's the 352RC... It's cheaper. Are the more expensive 168
or 308RC worth it?
--
Erik Dahlbeck
Echo-Romeo-India-Kilo Delta-Alpha-Hotel-Lima-Bravo-Echo-Charlie-Kilo
> The price difference is only a few dollars plus from the 168 to the
> 308RC. The 168 can take a heavier load. however I'm getting the 190
> tripod so I may not have a use for that heavier load.
168 is big, bulky and I did not like it very much. I think 308RC is much
beeter sollution for such a small tripod as 190 is.
> I'm using 35 mm. An EOS 300 with a Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super as my
> heaviest lens. I really doubt I will ever get an equipment weighting
> more than 4 kg.
I use 268 for hevier loads, but for your lens I would go with 308RC.
> And then there's the 352RC... It's cheaper. Are the more expensive 168
> or 308RC worth it?
Have seen 352RC only on photos on web, but it doesn't look very good. I
think 308RC is definitely worth it!
Bye,
David G.
> Have seen 352RC only on photos on web, but it doesn't look very good. I
> think 308RC is definitely worth it!
Thanks! I got around to about the same conclusion after looking at
photographyreview.com.
The 352 RC (or it's Bogen version) got 3.NN, the 168 got something like 3.nn
(lower number) and the 308 got 4.6n. That's a heck of a difference...
I agree that the 308RC looks pretty well manufactured.
How much (if at all?) does the composition move when tightening the lock?
> How much (if at all?) does the composition move when tightening the lock?
It depends on the focal length of the lens. :))
Anyway, It changes a bit when using telephoto, but I think it is in the same
league as 268 (which is much more expensive).
Bye,
David G.