-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What protection do you use and how do you carry it ?
- Thread starter Ianone385
- Start date
victorian squid
Senior Member
Aw heck - I was going to say a S&W .357 and a cool little shoulder holster but I got it wrong.
Look to the Think Tanks that have products specifically for what you're wanting.
http://www.thinktankphoto.com/categories/holster-camera-bags.aspx
Last edited:
NancyP
Veteran Member
OK, so my kit is not nearly as heavy, but I use the Cotton Carrier vest.
victorian squid
Senior Member
Typically I'm not worried about protection when "carrying", that's added weight. And maybe the OP might consider alternatives like some of the nice sling products for teles.
Another thing i do when trying to travel (hike/walkabout) light but still think I need one more lens is the boda bag which really only holds a lens and lots of other goodies. It straps on nice and tight and is totally weatherproof.
Another thing i do when trying to travel (hike/walkabout) light but still think I need one more lens is the boda bag which really only holds a lens and lots of other goodies. It straps on nice and tight and is totally weatherproof.
leicaman
Senior Member
45 ACP SOB Holster...
Whoops... wrong forum...
Whoops... wrong forum...
hotdog321
Forum Pro
Depends. Are you just hauling it around or do you plan to use it in a hurry? Seriously--not trying to give you a hard time.
I'm a photojournalist and I just carry the darn thing by the strap from one shoulder. I carry a second body by the strap around my neck.
If I need to pack it up when flying, I separate the body/lens and pack it into a Domke J-2 bag. I'm much less worried about protecting relatively rugged gear than missing a shot.
I'm a photojournalist and I just carry the darn thing by the strap from one shoulder. I carry a second body by the strap around my neck.
If I need to pack it up when flying, I separate the body/lens and pack it into a Domke J-2 bag. I'm much less worried about protecting relatively rugged gear than missing a shot.
Last edited:
I'm looking for two things. One to carry the camera so that it's in a position to use easily but also protects my bad back and neck and also something to protect both when in transit. On top of that I'm looking for something to protect the body from bumps and scrapes.
Love BlackRapids! I have the sport and dual slim and my husband has a cargo model for the rare occasions he actually manages to take his camera away from me. I use a Northface sport hiker waist pack for extra lenses. I hate carrying a camera bag and the waist pack will hold my 5D3 with 70-300L mounted or my 400mm if I am wearing the camera.
Last edited:
hotdog321
Forum Pro
Ouch! Bad back and neck!? I guess you might try one of those fancy strap systems or, ideally, a system that hangs/supports from the hips. I'm not knowledgeable with these fancy systems, but I'll bet you'll get some good suggestions. Also, I sometimes put extra gear in a fanny pack when shooting sports. Good luck!
Last edited:
Keith Z Leonard
Veteran Member
Agreed, I hauled a 7D + 100-400 L all over Honduras with a black rapids strap, it's great.
Congrats. It's an excellent combo. I am lucky to own the same.
I bought a pretty cheap 5DIII LCD protector that sticks on back LCD and top LCD that helps to prevent from scratching. It's not in good quality as already a crack on the back LCD protector. But it's so cheap so I will buy another one to replace when it eventually start falling. I put the Lenscoat on 70-200L/2.8 IS II that protects very well. It's a heavy lens so inevitably it will bump somewhere when I use it and I am using often on this lens from portrait to family sports. I use Lowepro slingshot 302 AW bag that can fit two F2.8 zoom (but I prefer store and carry 70-200L II separately in its pouch and replaced the stock strap to a much wider CPS strap that Canon sent as a gift for CPS membership) this lens and 24-70L II, 430EX II or 270EX II, 15mm FE, 17mm TS-E and 1.4x TC III. Personally I have not used third party camera strap such as BlackRapid one as I am not quite sure it's 100% secured (heard bad stories of total loss when the screw was loosen) and I need to use tripod (I usually carry a traveller tripod in trips) often although you can buy a separate plate so you don't need to detach the strap first. But I will spend more time to study and may personally try such strap as so many praised it
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Last edited:
Press Correspondent
Senior Member
For the price of this lens you could get two or more primes for wider range, better resuls, and less weight.
Exactly.
The 70-200/2.8 brick as the only lens on FF? So you'll take a few portraits outside in good weather, then what? You'd take more and better portraits with 85/1.8 inside and outside, without the weight, and have enough money left for a nice landscape lens or two, zoom or prime.
Lemming51
Forum Pro
Presumably, the OP has need for 70-200mm. No mention that it would be the only lens. Covering that with primes (e.g. EF 85 f/1.8 USM + EF 135 f/2L USM + EF 200 f/2.8L II USM) is going to cost more, weigh more, and not have IS. Plus the inconvenience (and greater risk of drops) of switching lenses.
Press Correspondent
Senior Member
He did not need 70-200 nor did he need to cover this range, he was just asking between 24-70 and 70-200. What he actually needed was portraits and landscapes. He could get 85/1.8 (or 135/2) that is better for portraits and a wide angle for landscapes and possibly still have money left. 70-200/2.8 is huge, weighs a ton, and does not have the best speed, range, or bokeh for either portraits or landscapes. Very soon he will find himself leaving his DSLR home and taking his wife's compact with him instead. Unless for a specific fitting purpose, 70-200/2.8 as the ONLY lens is the most inefficient investment.Lemming51 wrote:
Presumably, the OP has need for 70-200mm. No mention that it would be the only lens. Covering that with primes (e.g. EF 85 f/1.8 USM + EF 135 f/2L USM + EF 200 f/2.8L II USM) is going to cost more, weigh more, and not have IS. Plus the inconvenience (and greater risk of drops) of switching lenses.
Agreed. It also depends on OP priority and what he shoot? For me 70-200L II is lots more versatile, not only can do portrait photos very well, as sharp as prime in the range, but can do sports, wildlife (works with even 2.0x TC pretty well). However agree those fast prime still better in bokeh and can shoot below f2.8 such as in 85/1.8 case but usually they need to stop down a bit as their respective wide-open is not that sharp while 70-200L II already very sharp at f2.8 wide open and AF actually faster (and very accurately) than those prime lenses. In addition 70-200L II weather sealed and 4-stop 'IS' are very helpful.Lemming51 wrote:
Presumably, the OP has need for 70-200mm. No mention that it would be the only lens. Covering that with primes (e.g. EF 85 f/1.8 USM + EF 135 f/2L USM + EF 200 f/2.8L II USM) is going to cost more, weigh more, and not have IS. Plus the inconvenience (and greater risk of drops) of switching lenses.
Press Correspondent wrote:
He did not need 70-200 nor did he need to cover this range, he was just asking between 24-70 and 70-200. What he actually needed was portraits and landscapes. He could get 85/1.8 (or 135/2) that is better for portraits and a wide angle for landscapes and possibly still have money left. 70-200/2.8 is huge, weighs a ton, and does not have the best speed, range, or bokeh for either portraits or landscapes. Very soon he will find himself leaving his DSLR home and taking his wife's compact with him instead. Unless for a specific fitting purpose, 70-200/2.8 as the ONLY lens is the most inefficient investment.Lemming51 wrote:
Presumably, the OP has need for 70-200mm. No mention that it would be the only lens. Covering that with primes (e.g. EF 85 f/1.8 USM + EF 135 f/2L USM + EF 200 f/2.8L II USM) is going to cost more, weigh more, and not have IS. Plus the inconvenience (and greater risk of drops) of switching lenses.
Just having a curiosity which prime lenses are better than 70-200L either f4.0 IS or f2.8 IS II in landscape? How many prime lenses you needed to cover 70-200mm range or even with TCs if necessary? Many landscape photographers use 70-200L and I have seen many stunning landscape photos from 70-200L zoom such as Hans Kruse in this forum.
Press Correspondent
Senior Member
But 70-200 is NOT your ONLY lens. I have no doubt it is great. I have 70/200/4 and love it, but it would not be the only or even the first lens I buy.qianp2k wrote:
Agreed. It also depends on OP priority and what he shoot? For me 70-200L II is lots more versatile, not only can do portrait photos very well, as sharp as prime in the range, but can do sports, wildlife (works with even 2.0x TC pretty well). However agree those fast prime still better in bokeh and can shoot below f2.8 such as in 85/1.8 case but usually they need to stop down a bit as their respective wide-open is not that sharp while 70-200L II already very sharp at f2.8 wide open and AF actually faster (and very accurately) than those prime lenses. In addition 70-200L II weather sealed and 4-stop 'IS' are very helpful.Lemming51 wrote:
Presumably, the OP has need for 70-200mm. No mention that it would be the only lens. Covering that with primes (e.g. EF 85 f/1.8 USM + EF 135 f/2L USM + EF 200 f/2.8L II USM) is going to cost more, weigh more, and not have IS. Plus the inconvenience (and greater risk of drops) of switching lenses.
Personally I bypass 85L or 85/1.8, 100L (for non macro photos and I have Sigma 150/2.8 OS macro), 135L and 200L but consolidated into one zoom, 70-200L II and I also own 70-200L/4.0 IS (want to sell but unable to sell on price I hope for so I keep it). Not the only lens I own of course but now it's part of my standard package in travelling in addition to 15mm FE, 17 TS-E, 24-70L II and 1.4x TC III as well as 270EX II or 430EX II. Nevertheless I do read many photographers prefer 70-200L in even street shots. 70-200L itself is an excellent landscape lens as it's sharp with excellent colors and micro contrast but also can be used in stitching for UWA landscape photo such as this one,Press Correspondent wrote:
But 70-200 is NOT your ONLY lens. I have no doubt it is great. I have 70/200/4 and love it, but it would not be the only or even the first lens I buy.qianp2k wrote:
Agreed. It also depends on OP priority and what he shoot? For me 70-200L II is lots more versatile, not only can do portrait photos very well, as sharp as prime in the range, but can do sports, wildlife (works with even 2.0x TC pretty well). However agree those fast prime still better in bokeh and can shoot below f2.8 such as in 85/1.8 case but usually they need to stop down a bit as their respective wide-open is not that sharp while 70-200L II already very sharp at f2.8 wide open and AF actually faster (and very accurately) than those prime lenses. In addition 70-200L II weather sealed and 4-stop 'IS' are very helpful.Lemming51 wrote:
Presumably, the OP has need for 70-200mm. No mention that it would be the only lens. Covering that with primes (e.g. EF 85 f/1.8 USM + EF 135 f/2L USM + EF 200 f/2.8L II USM) is going to cost more, weigh more, and not have IS. Plus the inconvenience (and greater risk of drops) of switching lenses.
stitching from 70-200L/4.0 IS, only 1/6 of original size due to DPR post limit
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Last edited:
Press Correspondent
Senior Member
I am only referring to the range. More often than not landscapes present a wide angle view. With telephoto as the only lens, so much scenery is missed that a trip is largely wasted. For landscapes, 70-200 is great in addition, but not instead of wide angle. To answer your question on a specific example, 24-70/2.8L2 is better for landscapes than any 70-200. Speaking of primes, I'd rather take 50/1.4 or Sigma 35/1.4 or some wider lens on a trip than only 70-200. Especially so, if I also had 85/1.8 or 135/2 with me that I as well suggested above.qianp2k wrote:
Just having a curiosity which prime lenses are better than 70-200L either f4.0 IS or f2.8 IS II in landscape? How many prime lenses you needed to cover 70-200mm range or even with TCs if necessary? Many landscape photographers use 70-200L and I have seen many stunning landscape photos from 70-200L zoom such as Hans Kruse in this forum.Press Correspondent wrote:
He did not need 70-200 nor did he need to cover this range, he was just asking between 24-70 and 70-200. What he actually needed was portraits and landscapes. He could get 85/1.8 (or 135/2) that is better for portraits and a wide angle for landscapes and possibly still have money left. 70-200/2.8 is huge, weighs a ton, and does not have the best speed, range, or bokeh for either portraits or landscapes. Very soon he will find himself leaving his DSLR home and taking his wife's compact with him instead. Unless for a specific fitting purpose, 70-200/2.8 as the ONLY lens is the most inefficient investment.Lemming51 wrote:
Presumably, the OP has need for 70-200mm. No mention that it would be the only lens. Covering that with primes (e.g. EF 85 f/1.8 USM + EF 135 f/2L USM + EF 200 f/2.8L II USM) is going to cost more, weigh more, and not have IS. Plus the inconvenience (and greater risk of drops) of switching lenses.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum