Dave, tb. you'll like this (photo shit)

Open discussion about any topic, as long as you abide by the rules of course!
Post Reply
Dave
Posts: 6986
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Dave »

3000 fo the body
700 if I have the XT
1100 for the 24-70
600 for the 17-40
1000 for the 70-300
600 for the 70-200 (but that's getting ebayed)
350 for the 50 prime

but as long as I don't drop it in the river (in which case any bag would be fucked) nothing will happen to everything at once except maybe get stolen... Plus I usually carry the 5D and never put it in a bag so that leaves just the lenses
Top
Guest

Post by Guest »

Dave wrote:3000 fo the body
700 if I have the XT
1100 for the 24-70
600 for the 17-40
1000 for the 70-300
600 for the 70-200 (but that's getting ebayed)
350 for the 50 prime
1000 for a 70-300? either you made a mistake or u got ripped off lol http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... Navigation

btw, why are u selling the 70-200 f/4? getting an f/2.8?
Top
Dave
Posts: 6986
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Dave »

ToxicBug wrote:
Dave wrote:3000 fo the body
700 if I have the XT
1100 for the 24-70
600 for the 17-40
1000 for the 70-300
600 for the 70-200 (but that's getting ebayed)
350 for the 50 prime
1000 for a 70-300? either you made a mistake or u got ripped off lol http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... Navigation

btw, why are u selling the 70-200 f/4? getting an f/2.8?
lol.. look again

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... Navigation
Top
mjrpes
Posts: 4980
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2000 8:00 am

Post by mjrpes »

I have one of those big Lowpro bags but I just use it to store everything. When I'm out I'll take the camera plus extra lens and put them in my smaller eastpak (normal backpack). Inconspicuous, along with my 70-300 DO :D
Top
User avatar
plained
Posts: 16366
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2002 7:00 am

Post by plained »

nobody mentioned tamrac?
Top
losCHUNK
Posts: 16019
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 7:00 am

Post by losCHUNK »

Dave wrote:3000 fo the body
700 if I have the XT
1100 for the 24-70
600 for the 17-40
1000 for the 70-300
600 for the 70-200 (but that's getting ebayed)
350 for the 50 prime

but as long as I don't drop it in the river (in which case any bag would be fucked) nothing will happen to everything at once except maybe get stolen... Plus I usually carry the 5D and never put it in a bag so that leaves just the lenses
people would gain more from mugging you than if they robbed someones car

no wonder you dont like going round with a cam bag advertising all your flash shit :]
[color=red] . : [/color][size=85] You knows you knows [/size]
Top
Guest

Post by Guest »

Dave wrote:
ToxicBug wrote:
Dave wrote:3000 fo the body
700 if I have the XT
1100 for the 24-70
600 for the 17-40
1000 for the 70-300
600 for the 70-200 (but that's getting ebayed)
350 for the 50 prime
1000 for a 70-300? either you made a mistake or u got ripped off lol http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... Navigation

btw, why are u selling the 70-200 f/4? getting an f/2.8?
lol.. look again

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... Navigation
The DO one, I see. so answer my question why are u selling the 70-200 f/4? getting an f/2.8?
Top
Doombrain
Posts: 23227
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2000 7:00 am

Post by Doombrain »

ToxicBug wrote:DB your bag looks good, but its hard to see how much stuff will fit in it and how big a telephoto it can carry.

Here's my photo bag that I bought a couple years ago. I bought it because its not too big, wasn't expensive and it has modifyable compartments for lenses. Plus I think I can fit a 70-200mm f/2.8L in it if I attach it to the camera and lay it horizontally.

Image

Image

EDIT: yeah, just checked the Canon site, the 70-200mm f/2.8L will fit since it is 7.6" long and my bag has 8" space in front of the camera body, w00t :D

this should give you an idea of the size

Image
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
Top
7zark7
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2001 8:00 am

Post by 7zark7 »

I use my annikin skywalker lunch bag.

mehbee I'll furnish a pic of it... gimme a bit, just got home from work.
[b][url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/redandjonny/]My Flickr page[/url][/b]

[color=#FFBFFF]A lot of people would say it's a bad idea, on your first day out of prison, to go right back to stalking the tranny hooker that knocked out five of your teeth. But that's how I roll..[/color]
Top
hate
Posts: 1846
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 8:00 am

Post by hate »

gramps is better
Top
Dave
Posts: 6986
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Dave »

ToxicBug wrote:
Dave wrote:
ToxicBug wrote: 1000 for a 70-300? either you made a mistake or u got ripped off lol http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... Navigation

btw, why are u selling the 70-200 f/4? getting an f/2.8?
lol.. look again

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control ... Navigation
The DO one, I see. so answer my question why are u selling the 70-200 f/4? getting an f/2.8?
I don't really need 2 tele lenses that cover more or less the same range at the same speed. I'd rather have the 135 mm L prime. There really isn't much difference between f/2.8 and 4. f/2, on the other hand is another story... especially when you can use that lens wide open with little loss in sharpness. If IS could stop motion, the issue would change completely.
Top
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”