Ever get fed up of carrying spare lenses?

[dunganick]

I always get fed up with not being able to carry around enough lenses as none of my lenses have straps on them (why, i don't know - its a great feature). So i have decided i'm going to give a lens pouch a go. They look pretty stupid in my opinion, but if it means i can carry an extra lens and don't have to hide my lens somewhere if i switch lenses then so be it.

I wanted a pouch that could take a 70-200 and a few cards and body caps. I ended up looking at Think Tanks' range. They make some cracking products, like lens specific rain covers with flash cover integrated, some really clever design.

The model i went for was the Think Tank, 75 Pop Down. And also one of their belts with the locking mechanism they use to stop twist.

The belt was a bit of a disaster, as their idea of a 32" waist is seemingly different to everyone else's - honest...

But the bag itself seems pretty cool, it fits a 70-200 with 1.4x on it with the standard bag - with it slightly poking out the top. And if you unzip the bottom then it fits easily. It also comes with a waterproof cover inside the bag, so it shouldn't fill up with water when it inevitably rains this weekend.

Got 4 days of togging this weekend and lots of walking about, so should be testing it out a fair bit. So i will post up a better review of how it is to use then.

few pics:

 

[Andy.]

New lens? Which version is that?

I had a crumpler pouch for my old 70-200 but only used it when I didn't have a camera bag that fitted the thing. I can imagine it being pretty usefull for you though.

 

[dunganick]

Its the non IS 2.8 mate, not a bad lens, had it since about November i think (although this is my 2nd copy). Had a few bits and pieces lately, most of them i've not been happy with and have been returned.

I never bother carrying a bag on race days, as i often want to change/get to cameras when walking/running from the circuit to podium. Think this might suit better, will also allow me to carry a wide angle all the time, so looking forward to doing more with wide angle now.

 

[Jungle_Jim]

how much did the belt set you back mate, as if they are silly money you might want to look at airsoft / army surplus stuff

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/VIPER-SECURIT...Collectables_Militaria_LE?hash=item335ae8ae55

 

[koi]

Oooh L series lens

 

[dunganick]

The belt ive had to use for now is just an army surplus one. The proper belt is much nicer, but far too snug...

 

[Andy.]

Its the non IS 2.8 mate, not a bad lens, had it since about November i think (although this is my 2nd copy). Had a few bits and pieces lately, most of them i've not been happy with and have been returned.

Nice. I had a play with a mates a couple of weeks back and decided I now want to get the 70-200 over the 100-400.

I was saving up for the 2.8 IS, but having seen the reviews over on POTN, I now have a bit further to go for the II. Sounds like an amazing lens.

Do you still have the 300 2.8?

 

[dunganick]

The 300 2.8 went a few weeks after buying it, i wasn't happy with the results i got from it, and no-body would service it or warranty the work during or after the service.

More recently i bought a 120-300 2.8 but this had AF issues at long distance and wasn't as sharp as my 100-300 f4 at closer distances.

So last week i bought a 1dmk3, and this seems pretty good, i'm not convinced by the AF performance at the moment, but i've done some adjustments to the Micro Focus and i'm hoping this will help. This weekend will tell.

Now on the look out for a cheap new Sigma 300 2.8 and ideally a EF wide angle of some sort (17-something).

Truthfully if i was buying the 70-200 again i would be buying the IS, the AF performance on the Non IS isn't amazing, certainly my 100-300 f4 is faster and sharper. But the 2 stops are a must for hockey/football/rugby in december/january. I would like to try an IS MK2, its meant to be razor sharp at 2.8, but realistically i need them to be on the used market before i can start to think about them.

I've also sold the 40d and bought a 50d at some point too, despite what many say it is a better camera, i would buy it purely for the screen and extra AF performance, the ISO above 2500 is still useless, but at least its there/useable-ish.

 

[Ribena]

interesting! looking forward to your report. You will also have to show me how to change lenses whilst running!

 

[dunganick]

interesting! looking forward to your report. You will also have to show me how to change lenses whilst running!

Its an art, not recomended

Better than changing lenses when being elbowed by other togs though.

Ideally i would have the right lens on the right body by the end of the race, but it never seems to work that way....

 

[Andy.]

Oooo, a 1DmkIII. Camera p**n.

The screen on the 40D was one of the big negatives for me. You zoom in for a 100% view and get a blurred image on the screen. that said, after seeing the quality of the images from my 5DII, I think that there may have been something wrong with the 40!

The 70-200 is also out of my league, but I have a mate who can help me out with a special price, which softens the blow. I have seen samples from the II which are sharp, handheld at 1/30th @ 200mm so I guess the 4 stop IS does what it says on the box.

Are you earning from your shots?

 

[dunganick]

I am, but nothing like what i'm spending on kit, savings and student loan are for that.

I left my Part time job in November to concentrate on Uni, and since then i've started doing a bit more paid photography work, i'm earning about what i used to in my old job through photography for a fraction of the hours. Which is helping my uni work no end, and i'm loving it.

I'm just keen to get kit i want before i've got more bills and rubbish to deal with.

The thing i miss the most on the 1dmk3 is the screen, its a 320,000 screen like the 40d and its rubbish, wish i could drop a 50d screen in. I've even taken to switching cards over to check photos which is very wrong lol.