Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM hood dimensions

Come ON Canon, can't you afford to give us simple specs?

Can anyone dig out their EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and measure the length and MAXIMUM OD of the hood?

(Does not seem to be available!!!! from Canon!!!

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …=7469#SNAModelS​uppliesAct


I don't care if it's in feet, fractions of miles, inches or the dreaded m&m, hey I can do the math

Here's what I'm doing:

Former thread:

https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=7045871#p​ost7045871

Sounded like SUCH a great idea, but the Thinktank site only says "fits 70-200 f2.8 with hood" does not really reference the lens size.

I wanted to use it (if possible) with my 40D, 100-400L WITH HOOD INSTALLED

THEIR OWN people in an email recommended the "Digital Holster 30"

http://www.thinktankph​oto.com/ttp_DH_compare​.html


So here are the issues.

The included Canon 100-400 hood is about 4 1/2" (Let's just say nominal 115mm)

The lens/ camera is a VERY tight fit, to wit:

Must remove tripod ring, or rotate ring to grip side of camera to insert into holster

Case has included "internally stowed" rain shield which WILL NOT allow camera/ lens to be inserted unless removed completely

Outer stowage pocket WILL NOT even accept a compact Tamron 1.4 TC and or spare battery with camera in bag---it impinges on internal dimensions, in other words, it stretches the bag

The 100-400 hood is an EXTREMELY tight fit into the bottom of the bag, although, I admit, it actually goes in there

The 40D is so tight in the case, that it's difficult to get one hand--mine aren't that big--around one edge of the grip to extract the camera. Again, this is with nothing in the side pocket, and with the intrusive rain shield removed


Before I attack these folks, I'd like to determine the OD of the factory hood mentioned above---and also to investigate whether their larger "Digital Holster 50" will do any better, at least on some points

4 3/8" OD

3 5/8" Length

THANKS I'm beginning to wonder what these people are thinking? It appears that the lens they used as an example "fit" is VERY close to the 100-400. This certainly isn't "handy" to extract and insert. I'm afraid it will go back. Too bad, except for the size issues, I do like the layout/ design, and it seems to be well put together.