*REVIEW* Think Tank Retrospective 20

Great review ... Thanks! Can't wait to get mine.

How useful is the inner pocket for holding a flash? Does it fit in the "spare space" without limiting lens capacity for a "trinity zoom" setup with one body?

-howard

I wonder how big the R30 is?

great review, i just ordered mine

Thanks for the review.

Hey everyone. Glad your diggin' the bag (and the review)!

Realized I didn't say why I chose the 20 over the 10 and the 30.
I'd been going back and forth between the 20 and the 30 ever since I first heard of these bags (almost two months ago). I ended up going with the 20 based on how it handled the 70-200 2.8.
In the 30, you have to lay it on it's side to fit it in the bag with the camera attached. This leaves you with only one partition to put in an extra lens or maybe two and a flash. I found this to be severely limiting for the kind of gear I wanted to take with me.
In the 20 however, you don't have to change the layout of the bag at all to fit in the 70-200, it just slips right down into one of the slots.
Plus the 30 is only 48ci bigger than the 20 (897ci vs 849ci). That just translates from horizontal space to vertical. I can now stack a lot of things in the slots because there's so much vertical space to work with. Not the case in the 30.
Width in a messenger bag is more important than height. So in my eyes, I got rid of three inches of width (15" on the 30, 12" on the 20) but hardly lost any volume.

For anyone who has the 70-200 2.8 and doesn't want to rearrange their bag or give up space to carry it, i'd suggest giving the 20 a shot.

Also, some answers to your questions:

Double Negative wrote in post #10208725
That "pinestone" finish fabric looks really sweet! On the TTP site it looks more gray, while in yours more beige. Which is it? I'm thinking your WB might be a bit off?

Camera WB was set to 'Flash' as I was using my flashes for the shoot. It looks the same to my eye as it does in the pictures.
I'd say the ones that are off are the ones taken with the P&S (shots with both bodies in it).

paimao wrote in post #10208725
I just ordered the 20 too but its black coz I'm overseas I can't really see good is the pinestone color. Wanted to get this version intially. How u find the color btw? If it's nice I prob can still ask for a change

Hmmmm. I don't know why you can't find it in 'pinestone'. Maybe they're not shipping this color internationally yet? In fact, I didn't know they were shipping internationally at all yet. They're shipping both colors in the US right now.

hfgarris wrote in post #10208725
How useful is the inner pocket for holding a flash? Does it fit in the "spare space" without limiting lens capacity for a "trinity zoom" setup with one body?

I find the space to be a little tight if the smaller zooms are standing up with the flashes in the pockets. However, if I lay the 24-70 and the 16-35 on their sides in the left and right partitions and put the 70-200 in the middle with the camera attached, there is plenty of room for both my 580EX II and my 430EX II in their respective flash pockets.

Thanks for the great review. It was exactly what I needed to see.

Based on the photos of you carrying it I have to say it's bigger than I thought. I currently have the Domke F-5xb for times when I want the camera with one lens mounted and the Domke F-804 for carrying everything. I'm looking for the 'in-between' bag but the R20 is much closer to the F-804 than I want. I think I need to look at the R10 instead or the Domke F-5xc, which was on my short list.

One thing's certain, though...the Retrospective series is very well thought out and high quality. I think I'm going to convince myself that the R10 is the right bag for me.

Thanks again for the review.

that is a gorgeous bag indeed. i also didnt realize how big the bag it was going to be so i thought it would be a bit overpriced, but the price isnt as bad now that i see how big it is. i think a smaller size would be better for my needs though.

whoops, I made an assumption and we all know how that goes!

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10210822
who says you HAVE to lay it on it's side? If the 30 is bigger then you can ALSO store a 70-200 on camera vertically if you want, they just show it sideways in their pic for some reason...

Unless I'm mistaken the R20 is 2" taller than the R10 and R30, which allows you to store the 70-200 f/2.8 vertically. Once you lose that 2" of height you have to lie the 70-200 f/2.8 on its side.


EDIT:

From the TT site:
R20 - OD: 13” W x 12.5” H x 7” D (33 x 31.7 x 17.8 cm)
R30 - OD: 16” W x 10.5” H x 7” D (40.6 x 26.7 x 17.8 cm)

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10210822
If the 30 is bigger then you can ALSO store a 70-200 on camera vertically if you want, they just show it sideways in their pic for some reason...

The internal dimensions of the R30 as given by the website are 15" x 9.5" x 6". Just measured my 5DII + 70-200 combo and it is 11" from lens cap to LCD screen.
It will definitely fit, but there will be a bulge and the flap might not close all the way.

Now, I've never held the R30 in my hands. I'm just going off the pics and specs on their website.
I was planning on switching the 20 for the 30 if it didn't work out, but as I said in the review, I'm in love with my 20 now.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #10210822
who says you HAVE to lay it on it's side? If the 30 is bigger then you can ALSO store a 70-200 on camera vertically if you want, they just show it sideways in their pic for some reason...

Who says? Think Tank says The ID height is 9.5" in the Retro 30. That would be a tight fit for a DSLR with a 70-200mm attached. Considering most 70-200mm 2.8's are in the 8" range alone.

Damn Great review!!! I WANT one---- I'll slip a Picture of that bag everywhere in the house so my wife will catch on and get me that bag for fathers day.

It seems close to the size of Domke F-804. That might be a little too big. I used 804 for "take all the gear I can". Is R20 more portable?

Some interesting calculations:
Domke F-804
Interior Dimensions: 14W X 10H X 6.5D = 910 cubic inches
Exterior Dimensions: 15.25W X 13H x 8D = 1586 cubic inches

Retrospective 20
Interior Dimensions: 12W x 11.5H x 6D = 828 cubic inches
Exterior Dimensions: 13W x 12.5H x 7D = 1137.5 cubic inches

Based on this it seems that space-wise internally they can fit similar gear but externally Domke F-804 has much wasted space?

Excellent review. I picked up the R10 yesterday and these bags are absolutely amazing. I completely agree about the shoulder strap, I don't know what it is exactly but that thing is the most comfortable shoulder strap I have EVER used.

TheArchitect wrote in post #10210910
Unless I'm mistaken the R20 is 2" taller than the R10 and R30, which allows you to store the 70-200 f/2.8 vertically. Once you lose that 2" of height you have to lie the 70-200 f/2.8 on its side.

gotglade wrote in post #10210917
The internal dimensions of the R30 as given by the website are 15" x 9.5" x 6".

alemmo wrote in post #10210918
Who says? Think Tank says

you guys are all correct!
I assumed they kept the height of the 20 and just made the 30 wider. I've only been looking at the 10 and 20 for my choices so I never studied the 30s specs... I'll edit my post, nice catch guys.


now their pricing confuses me:
10: 13” W x 10.5” H x 7” D $149
20: 13” W x 12.5” H x 7” D $159
30: 16” W x 10.5” H x 7” D $179

so the 20 is 2" taller and $10 more. The 30 is 3" wider and $30 more?