Page 2 of 2
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:53 am
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
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:04 am
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?
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:09 am
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
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:40 am
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
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:38 pm
by plained
nobody mentioned tamrac?
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:41 pm
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 :]
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:46 pm
by Guest
The DO one, I see. so answer my question why are u selling the 70-200 f/4? getting an f/2.8?
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:16 pm
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.
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
this should give you an idea of the size
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:35 am
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.
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:01 am
by hate
gramps is better
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 8:13 am
by Dave
ToxicBug wrote:
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.