70-200 Is a monster lens

[kd6lor]

Today I bought a 70-200 lens. This beast is a monster. My other lenses actually fit in a holster type of bag that I wear on my belt or shoulder. I usually carry the body with grip, one lens, my 420EX, and some extra cards. I like to travel light which in this case means little... So, question to those who have the same lens. How do you carry this lens, what kind of bag do you use?

For those of you who seem to care, I am also cross posting this to DPReview.



Paul

[Rudi]

Paul,

in the last few months I broke down and bought a camera backpack. I was sick and tired of carrying all the weight of my outfit on the one shoulder, and straining my back as a result. With the backpack, you have to take it off to change lenses, but with a larger shoulder bag you have to pretty much do the same, so not much difference there. The backpack is nice and easy on your back when you're actually carrying it around.

The first backpack I bought was the Lowepro Photo Trekker AW. This pack fits all my gear, with room to spare. This is what I typically carry inside:

EOS 33 body with vertical grip attached
D30 Body with vertical grip attached
Tokina 19-35mm
EF 28-135 IS
EF 50 f/1.4
EF 70-200 f/2.8 L with tripod collar attached
EF 300 f/4 L with tripod collar attached
EF 1.4x Extender II
Canon 420 EX flash with Sto-Fen Omnibounce attached
set of 3 Kenko extension tubes
lens hoods for all lenses
several sets of spare batteries for the flash
two release cables (the two bodies use different ones)
blower bulb
lens pen
all cables for the D30 (video-out, USB)
assorted filters
several CF cards and a Microdrive
several rolls of film (yes, film! :D)

Now, all this is pretty heavy, but I have the peace of mind that all my stuff is in the one bag (when you throw it in the car early in the morning you know that you are not leaving anything behind), and it's very comfortable to carry. There is some room left over for a couple more small prime lenses, or something like that. But it's definitely NOT what you would call "travelling light"! :)

I got to like the backpack so much, that in the last week I also purchased the Lowepro Micro Trekker 200, to use as my "light outfit" backpack. The Micro Trekker 200 is surprisingly roomy! In ususally goes:

D30 Body with vertical grip attached
Tokina 19-35mm
EF 28-135 IS
EF 50 f/1.4
EF 70-200 f/2.8 L with tripod collar attached
Canon 420 EX flash
Sto-Fen Omnibounce
set of 3 Kenko extension tubes
EF 1.4x Extender II
release cable
blower bulb
lens pen
all cables for the D30 (video-out, USB)
assorted filters
several CF cards and a Microdrive

NOTE: The lens hoods don't fit when I squeeze all this into the Micro Trekker! :D

Depending on the situation, I can leave out a couple of the lenses and the flash, and take the 300 f/4 L, or just take the 300 f/4 L in its hard case, and leave it in the car if I won't be needing it. I can also take the film body and leave a lens or two out, or take the film body with all these lenses, whatever seems appropriate at the time.

Now, this does not seem like a light outfit, but the Micro Trekker 200 is positively tiny compared to the large backpack, and is, in fact a SMALL backpack, whatever your criteria (it looks small on your back, but it seems to fit a lot of things inside it). In your situation, this pack would give you a little room to grow, but you could load it light. Lowepro also make the Micro Trekker 100, which is even smaller, and might suit you better.

BTW, I don't work for Lowepro, it's just that out of all the camera bags that I have bought over the years, the only 5 that I have kept (and still own) are all Lowepro, so whatever they are doing, it works for me! :)

[Neal Martin]

I do lots of serious hiking. My view is that even if I am hiking specifically for photo opportunities (not always the case), my most important consideration has got to be safe and comfortable walking. Only then am I willing to expose myself to certain risks and adventures that result in memorable photos. The 4lb 70-200 IS (plus another few oz for the 1.4II extender) is serious weight. I like to have my camera at hand and do not like taking off a pack, unzipping, etc. to take a pic. Also, I'd rather have most of my camera weight snugly carried on my hip, not loading down my back and shoulders. Finally, although others' experience may differ, I have never tried a camera-designated backpack that a) fits and adjusts as comfortably as a pack designed for all-purpose hiking; b) once I fill the designated pack space with equipment, I may be lacking space for water, some clothing layers, etc.; and c) I'm willing to do without the extra protective padding to save on weight and a certain bulkiness I associate with camera backpacks.
My solution is to carry around my waist a D60 with 50mm1.4 or 16-35L attached in a LowPro all weather case and a second case for the second lens. I then wear the best fitting and weight distributing (for my body) pack that I could find. My "monster" is then loose in a soft foam cover in the pack. I regret not having this lens "at hand" but after realizing that I can't trust myself to change the lens "on the move" like I do with lighter lenses, I can live with stopping to put on the 70-200.

[Rudi]

neal martin wrote:
I'd rather have most of my camera weight snugly carried on my hip, not loading down my back and shoulders. Finally, although others' experience may differ, I have never tried a camera-designated backpack that a) fits and adjusts as comfortably as a pack designed for all-purpose hiking;

Neal,

a good backpack should distribute the weight mostly around your hips, not your shoulders and back. :)

Also, I didn't think that the photo backpacks would be as comfortable as the "proper" hiking backpacks, either, until I tried one! There is a reason why I bought a small version of my Lowepro backpack... I like them! :D

Try one out at a store, you might be pleasantly surprised!

[Neal Martin]

I can't speak for Paul and Rudi, but here's what I notice. For years I have acted on my preference for "traveling light." However, often I only traveled light in my mind, and in actual practice I was loaded much heavier (throw in that extra lens, better toss in the gaitors if I don't want sloshy feet, etc.) It seems like only a belt system can give me the access I insist on, even if the 70-200 has to go into the pack. Bottom line (this does get complicated) is that for anyone with access needs similar to mine, and for whom "traveling light" is never as light as first intended, I recommend a dedicated camera belt system and a backpack for hauling whatever else you need. This might not include a camera pack if most or all of the camera equipment is strapped to your waist.

[Rudi]

neal martin wrote:
I can't speak for Paul and Rudi

Neal,

that's why they make all different camera bags, I guess... :)

[kd6lor]

Thanks all for the replies. Tonight bought a Lowepro Microtrekker 200. Everything I have fits in it nicely... Maybe this will prevent me from going on a lens buying spree...

Paul

[gorham]

Thanks all for the replies. Tonight bought a Lowepro Microtrekker 200. Everything I have fits in it nicely... Maybe this will prevent me from going on a lens buying spree...


If that works, let me know. ;)

G.

[AustinPhotoNet]

i have a low pro backpack but its too big for everyday shoot so now i carry a smaller camera bag for everything (d60 + 3 lens + 550ex + meter) and if i need the 70-200 i put it in the little bag it came with and throw that in the lightstand/tripod bag.

[kd6lor]

Austinphotonet, which backpack do you have? Some of the backpacks are huge. When looking on the lowepro website, it is hard to visualize the size of the things. The Microtrekker 200 is the size of a kids school backpack and is quite small.

Paul

[AustinPhotoNet]

i have a low pro backpack that i got for my medium format stuff last year

Photo Trekker AW Camera Backpack - Black

http://www03.bhphotovideo.com/default.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist _html___146471___LOTAWB___REG___CatID=176___SID=EF E1D6D8012


and now i use the tamrac for the d60 setup without the 70-200

Tamrac TA612B
612 Pro System 12 Shoulder Bag - Black

http://www03.bhphotovideo.com/default.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist _html___53347___TA612B___REG___CatID=0___SID=EFE1D 6D8012

[Rudi]

gorham wrote:
Maybe this will prevent me from going on a lens buying spree...


If that works, let me know. ;)

G.


LOL! If only it was that simple... :D

[Rudi]

austinphotonet wrote:
i have a low pro backpack that i got for my medium format stuff last year

Photo Trekker AW Camera Backpack - Black

Yes, that's the one I have, and it is a large backpack, but nowhere near as large as the two models above it! They are positively humongous! :)

I purchased the Photo Trekker AW with the view that it was the largest bag I was willing to carry around for extended periods of time when away from my car. If my gear didn't fit into it, then I had to rethink what I wanted to take with me, or leave excess gear in the car.

The Micro Trekker 200 is more of a "casual" walk around bag for me, and is quickly becoming my favourite!

BTW, for some reason I manage to squeeze more gear into my backpacks than in my shoulder bags, even when the interior dimensions are identical... :)

[kd6lor]

Just bought the biggest top load zoom case I have ever seen. And the only one I have found that swallows up the D60 with 20-200 2.8IS. Now I can travel light... haha.

Heading up to San Francisco tonight. Hope to get some good shots. If I do, will post a link.

Paul

[Paul V]

I bought a Tamrac Expedition 4 backpack...

Small size fits under an airline seat and holds:

D30 (no grip)
Canon 20mm 2.8
Canon 50mm 1.4
Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L
420EX flash
Image tank
Batteries, CF cards, filters, remote

...and it even has straps for a tripod!

(I don't carry the charger...)

Paul

[Rudi]

kd6lor wrote:
Just bought the biggest top load zoom case I have ever seen. And the only one I have found that swallows up the D60 with 20-200 2.8IS.

Now I *know* that's a typo... and *still* wish it was true! :D

That would be my most-used lens for sure... :)

[kd6lor]

Rudi, I read your reply saying that it was a typo about 5 times trying to figure out what the typo was. I finally got it. "20" to 200!!! Odd thing is that I have made the same mistake a couple of times since then, but caught it before hitting send. Must be wishful thinking on my part.

Am hoping that Canon will come out with a replacement for the 28-70 that is a bit wider at that end. I think 20 is too much to hope for, but 24 woudl be nice. I do a lot of landscape shots, and I am hurting in the wide end right now.

Have a good one...

Paul