The Canon Thread - Page 9

Guys, those bags look excellent as an "everyday lug-around". Have you used them before? I know they're dedicated camera bags, but I wonder how protective they are compared to a nice Lowepro backpack or slingshot, as an example.

I can't speak for the Crumplers, but my cheapy Canon is good enough to make me confidently carry around my 5D and L lenses

The Canon camera bag has as much padding as a Lowepro backpack...just not as much room. But it is amazing how much I can cram in there: 5D, 70-200, 100mm, 135mm, 28-75mm, 50mm and 2x teleconverter (and small accessories like cleaning supplies, memory cards, extra battery, and remote) is what I've been able to carry on something that's lightweight and easily hangs from your shoulder.

My Tamrac, on the otherhand, is a tank. It has steel re-enforced sides and is too heavy to be a shoulder bag (even though I think its funny that they include a shoulder strap)!!

My friend has a Crumpler 4 MDH and it looks strong enough. I know the 6 MDH has a hard protective layer on the bottom of the bag, aside from that, there's alot of padding on the sides. =T I'll let you know when I get it?

nice --- i also feel the same way. the 6MDH i could probably fill up with just a couple more purchases, but the 7MDH is so big, i don't know if i would want to carry all that with me when i walked around. if it came down to it, i could always swap a lens or two out depending on where i'm going. my deal is $65 shipped for a black one... used about 2 months in perfect condition from POTN... i'm waiting for the seller to PM me back still though

Yea, I just came back to this thread to say I saw what deal you found, but you beat me to it! I didn't want black anyway. My favorite color for clothes and bags is brown and green, so the brown 6 MDH was perfect. =]

Um, the point of getting a longer macro lens isn't for magnification, it's for working distance. At f/4, I would still much rather have the longer lens instead of the extra magnification or aperture speed because it allows me to keep my distance when I'm shooting, whereas using extension tubes or whatever just requires me to get closer. One of my photographic heroes, Tom Hicks of FM, says that when it comes down to macro lenses for shooting insects, especially dragonflies and butterflies that don't let you get as close, he needs all the focal length he can get. If Canon made a 200mm, 250mm, or 300mm 1:1 lens, he would get it. However, since we don't have the luxury of access to such lenses, we end up relying on teleconverters and close-up filters to get the distance we need, which are in some cases a much greater compromise to image quality than a mere mount adapter. And yeah, Canon (as well as Sigma and Tamron) makes a 180/3.5 that is a great piece of glass, but even if the Nikon is only 20mm longer, it's only half a stop slower, and I would gladly trade in half a stop for an extra 20mm. And, like beerguy mentioned, most macro lenses can't keep their specs at 1:1, and as the Nikon probably isn't a full 200mm at maximum magnification, the Canon can't hold f/3.5 at 1:1, either.

But all in all, I'm just speaking out of my ass. I personally traded my Sigma 150 for the Canon 100 because I actually like shooting macro with shorter glass (more compact and easier to handhold) but I'm know from experience that there are shooters out there who are the opposite.

PS - does anyone have any experience with Slingshot-type bags? I like the idea of being able to just swing the bag over to access my gear but from what I can tell they don't hold all that much stuff.

Macros serve several purposes. If focal length is more important, get an EF 600mm lens and an extension tube My only point was that since Nikon and Canon have similar lens line-ups, I don't think its worth it to buy a new Nikon lens if you're in the Canon camp. Beerguy0 also mentioned that there was a FD 200mm f4. For the price of the Nikon, you could get an original Canon FD to EOS converter (the trick is finding them) and FD200mm. But if it's just 20mm difference then the EF 180mm, you get even more focal distance sticking a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter to the 180mm. Makes it a bit more transportable then the theoretical 360mm Macro as well (slight loss in optics aside)

haha yeah, the brown looks very nice. i wouldn't mind either brown or black but i got lucky because i wear black more than i wear brown (it used to be the other way) so this is definitely a great deal! i may as well pick it up

Nothing funny about it, some of the best dragonfly shots I've seen were taken by the 600/4IS

More reason to save up on glass A 600mm for dragonflies and F-22 flybys...who would have thought

Nah I'm the kind of guy who would use the 600 to shoot flowers at...200 yards...

LOL! Reminds me of arguments they seem to have on POTN about crop vs FF body: the ability to use telephoto on the 30D is why you should consider it over a FF 5D ....my subjects are not flying all over the place, so my 135 2.0L can stay a great portrait lens. And 50mm is a great walk around lens length for FF.

I'm bringing the XT with grip (and both sleds), a few CF cards, the kit lens, and the 50 1.8 on my backpacking trip next week, which will include summitting Mt. Whitney and hopefully Mt. Muir. woo.

I wish I wasn't a poor student.

OH BOY, do I hear ya!