# Canon shooters -- walk around lens showdown: 28-135 vs. 17-85



## MistaBernie

I recently picked up a Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, but found a very good deal on a EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM for not too much beyond the trade of my 18-55 kit lens, so I had to jump on it.

My question would be this -- I'm not a pro photographer (obviously) -- at least yet. Which lens would you suggest of the above two as a walk-around lens? I like the fact that I can get alot tighter with the 28-135, and I like that it's slightly better (3.5 vs 4) on the light side.

I think I'm going to sell whichever one I dont use to save towards a 70-200 F/4L IS, so that can be part of the deciding factor too...

As for what I shoot? Just about everything, pretty much except sports at the moment -- landscapes, people, portraits, documentary style stuff, etc. Mostly outdoor stuff (until I get my YN 460 flash at least) unless things are well lit. Oh, and I'm shooting a 500D/T1i at the moment (but am toying with the idea of treating myself to a 7D or equivalent next year).


----------



## PlucknPlay

Since your shooting on APS-C and it's a walkaround lens, I would choose EF-*S*17-85 4-5.6 IS, because you can get alot more in your frame in the wider end, and not lose much in the telephoto end.

Also, this lens is designed for APS-C cameras and won't overlap with your 70-200 F4 IS down the road.

And 7D MkII this year before the Olympics anyone?


----------



## MistaBernie

wow, seems overwhelming at this point. Kind of wish people would talk a bit more about why they feel the way they do, but in a landslide situation that may not be necessary..


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Nitpicking aside, the IQ on either lens is comparable. The range of the 17-85 is more versatile on a crop sensor, but I used the 28-135 for a good while and it's a solid performer for the money.


----------



## r31ncarnat3d

I've used both lenses as walkaround lenses myself. The 17-85mm is an EF-S lens that can only be used on APS-C cameras, whereas the 28-135mm is an EF lens. The 17-85mm is actually the 28-135mm designed for APS-C cameras compensating for the crop factor.

That bit aside, the IQ with both lenses are similar. The only differences I see is that compared to each other, the 17-85mm has a bit better IQ on the telephoto end, whereas the 28-135mm has better IQ on the wide end. Conversely, the 17-85mm is capable of wider angles whereas the 28-135mm has more "reach".

Truthfully, since the two are similar to me, I'd just choose the one with the focal length that fits your needs the most. Do you want the wider angles of the 17-85mm or the additional telephoto of the 28-135mm? Both lenses will do you well.


----------



## sbao26975

If you bought the 28-135 from a store, i'd say return that one since you paid less for the 17-85.


----------



## MistaBernie

wish I had, got a deal on it from CL..

That's something else to consider too I suppose -- if I decide to go to a 7D down the road, I dont believe I can use the 17-85 on it. That being said, if I'm not shooting professionally, I dont really have any reason to go to a 7D -- in fact, doing so could be detrimental (I may not use it as much as I would use the 500D -- if something happens to the 500D out of warranty (or stolen, etc), I can replace it relatively cheaply. If something happens to the 7D out of warranty, I cry for a few days first, and then probably buy the cheaper one anyway.

Lots to think about, thanks as always gents!


----------



## r31ncarnat3d

The 7D is an APS-C camera, so it'll still be able to use the 17-85mm and any other EF-S lenses. It's only the 5D/1D series that won't be able to.


----------



## MistaBernie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *r31ncarnat3d;12387613*
> The 7D is an APS-C camera, so it'll still be able to use the 17-85mm and any other EF-S lenses. It's only the 5D/1D series that won't be able to.


Oh, cool -- thanks!

hey, you finally sell that 18-55? I used mine as part of a trade for a 17-85 on POTN


----------



## r31ncarnat3d

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MistaBernie;12387633*
> Oh, cool -- thanks!
> 
> hey, you finally sell that 18-55? I used mine as part of a trade for a 17-85 on POTN


Yep, I managed to do so







Now just saving up for an 85mm f/1.8 and my lens collection will be complete!

Yea, I'm so used to primes that I use them as a walkaround lens now instead of a zoom lens.


----------



## MistaBernie

well, if you come across any canon / photog stuff that you dont think you're gonna need and it'll help you get to the 85mm fund goal, let me know


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MistaBernie;12387589*
> wish I had, got a deal on it from CL..
> 
> That's something else to consider too I suppose -- if I decide to go to a 7D down the road, I dont believe I can use the 17-85 on it. *That being said, if I'm not shooting professionally, I dont really have any reason to go to a 7D -- in fact, doing so could be detrimental (I may not use it as much as I would use the 500D -- if something happens to the 500D out of warranty (or stolen, etc), I can replace it relatively cheaply.* If something happens to the 7D out of warranty, I cry for a few days first, and then probably buy the cheaper one anyway.
> 
> Lots to think about, thanks as always gents!


Sensible thinking! I used to own a 7D and it's a phenomenal beast of a camera, fantastic in every way. It came down to the sensor for me over sophisticated AF, which is why I went with the 5DII.

If you decide to upgrade bodies, look into a 50D. No video, but still a great body and will be for some time.


----------



## MistaBernie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoneTomorrow;12387865*
> Sensible thinking! I used to own a 7D and it's a phenomenal beast of a camera, fantastic in every way. It came down to the sensor for me over sophisticated AF, which is why I went with the 5DII.
> 
> If you decide to upgrade bodies, look into a 50D. No video, but still a great body and will be for some time.


That's something else I considered - and its a cheaper option; out of curiosity, is there a reason that people suggest the 50D over a 60D?

(Tapatalking, else I'd be Googling it myself)


----------



## r31ncarnat3d

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MistaBernie;12387896*
> That's something else I considered - and its a cheaper option; out of curiosity, is there a reason that people suggest the 50D over a 60D?
> 
> (Tapatalking, else I'd be Googling it myself)


50D:
Magnesium Alloy body
8-direction joystick
AF Microadjust
Faster burst rate
PC Sync port
Cheaper
CF Cards

60D:
Video
Better high ISO performance
Higher MP count
Swivel LCD
Internal Flash Commander
SD cards

My list of pros for both cameras over the other









Personally, I shoot the 50D myself and am completely content with it. My needs might be different than yours, but as far as my own experience goes, I see no need to upgrade to the 60D from my camera.


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *r31ncarnat3d;12388021*
> 50D:
> Magnesium Alloy body
> 8-direction joystick
> AF Microadjust
> Faster burst rate
> PC Sync port
> Cheaper
> CF Cards
> 
> 60D:
> Video
> Better high ISO performance
> Higher MP count
> Swivel LCD
> Internal Flash Commander
> SD cards
> 
> My list of pros for both cameras over the other
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I shoot the 50D myself and am completely content with it. My needs might be different than yours, but as far as my own experience goes, I see no need to upgrade to the 60D from my camera.


Another thing to add: ergonomics. The 50D pleases the hands, whereas the 60D feels a bit like a fatter Rebel.


----------



## murderbymodem

Is it bad that I personally don't even consider using lenses with a variable aperture? I just hate the idea of having to adjust my settings because I zoomed in a bit more.

I guess that's why the only lens I own at the moment is the 50 1.8, since all of the fixed aperture zooms are out of my price rage


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redmist;12388336*
> Is it bad that I personally don't even consider using lenses with a variable aperture? I just hate the idea of having to adjust my settings because I zoomed in a bit more.
> 
> I guess that's why the only lens I own at the moment is the 50 1.8, since all of the fixed aperture zooms are out of my price rage


No, I feel the same way.







I guess it depends on how bad you need constant f/2.8 or whatever, but in my case, I need it a lot.


----------



## r31ncarnat3d

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoneTomorrow;12388488*
> No, I feel the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess it depends on how bad you need constant f/2.8 or whatever, but in my case, I need it a lot.


Ditto. Now whether or not I can *afford* it is a different story, but constant fast apertures are one reason why I use primes.


----------



## cgg123321

I have the 17-85mm (upgraded from 18-55 non IS) and It's a great all around lens.

My only gripes:

- a little zoom creep if you walk with your camera slung on your shoulder with the lens pointing down

- fat BD on the wide end; I use lightroom to fix this


----------



## Weedvender

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cgg123321;12389100*
> i have the 17-85mm (upgraded from 18-55 non is) and it's a great all around lens.
> 
> My only gripes:
> 
> - a little zoom creep if you walk with your camera slung on your shoulder with the lens pointing down
> 
> - fat bd on the wide end; i use lightroom to fix this


bd?


----------



## MistaBernie

Barrel Distortion, IIRC...







If not, then I R noob.

Yeah, now I think I'm gonna shift my focus from picking up the 70-200 F/4L to picking up a nice quality used 50D..


----------



## cgg123321

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Weedvender;12389409*
> bd?


Barrel distortion - edges of the picture are warped

not in a pretty way too, mine has wavvy distortion so it's very hard to make it perfect


----------



## MistaBernie

Hey CG (et al) -- question for you.










This is off the EF-S 17-85 I just got @ ~38mm. Besides resizing, completely untouched (by me at least, SmugMug might have massacred it, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing).

Take a close look at the bottom left -- is it just me, or are the steps closest to me appearing as though they're not straight (as in not forming a 90 degree angle) -- I'm going out to try to take a closer look at it with the naked eye, but I dont think they normally look like that.

I thought this could be somewhat of an issue similar to barrel distortion, but @38mm that seems drastic. Also, the rest of the photo's perspective seems alright. Hm.


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MistaBernie*


Hey CG (et al) -- question for you.

This is off the EF-S 17-85 I just got @ ~38mm. Besides resizing, completely untouched (by me at least, SmugMug might have massacred it, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm seeing what I think I'm seeing).

Take a close look at the bottom left -- is it just me, or are the steps closest to me appearing as though they're not straight (as in not forming a 90 degree angle) -- I'm going out to try to take a closer look at it with the naked eye, but I dont think they normally look like that.

I thought this could be somewhat of an issue similar to barrel distortion, but @38mm that seems drastic. Also, the rest of the photo's perspective seems alright. Hm.


That's perspective distortion, which is common with wide angles, though at 38mm it's surprising to see (flaw of the lens).


----------



## iandroo888

i see that a lot on my 12-24 but thats kind of suprising to see it at 38mm.. lots of factors come into play, it might not be straight to begin in, u werent straight when u took picture, lens, etc


----------



## Dream Killer

The 17-85 is basically the aps-c version of the 28-135, which is a full-format lens. In this case, wider is better.

Distortion is * TRIVIAL* to correct, use Digital Photo Pro to do it.

PS: I just got rid of my EFs 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and replaced it with an EFs 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens am I crazy?


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Dream Killer*


The 17-85 is basically the aps-c version of the 28-135, which is a full-format lens. In this case, wider is better.

Distortion is * TRIVIAL* to correct, use Digital Photo Pro to do it.

PS: I just got rid of my EFs 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and replaced it with an EFs 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens am I crazy?


Extremely crazy! Desperation sale?

And distortion is fairly easy to correct, but it's destructive (i.e., need to crop), which is why I always allow some extra space in the frame when shooting at very wide angles.


----------



## Dream Killer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GoneTomorrow*


Extremely crazy! Desperation sale?

And distortion is fairly easy to correct, but it's destructive (i.e., need to crop), which is why I always allow some extra space in the frame when shooting at very wide angles.


No, moved up to full frame but wanted to keep the aps-c as a grab 'n' go dSLR. It's actually a very good lens.

Yeah, distortion correction is destructive it also makes pictures a tad softer but a non-distorted picture is higher on the list than sharpness.


----------



## MistaBernie

Yeah, I just got out of a training and there happened to be some pro photogs there. They agreed with PD but said it an be encountered semi-frequently up to about 50mm, so I felt a bit better about the lens. I'm going to do some shooting this weekend and will bring my old powershot for comparisons to see if there's a defect with the lens or not.


----------



## MistaBernie

Updated idea: sell the 17-85, keep the 28-135 and pick up a 10-22...


----------



## Dream Killer

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MistaBernie*


Updated idea: sell the 17-85, keep the 28-135 and pick up a 10-22...


the 10-22 is a beast, i highly recommend it! however, between the 17-85 and the 28-125, i'd still go for the 17-85


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MistaBernie*


Updated idea: sell the 17-85, keep the 28-135 and pick up a 10-22...


Big time +1. Can't overstate enough how awesome the 10-22 is. You couldn't call it a walk around lens by any stretch (depending on what you're shooting I suppose), but it's a must have. The good thing about the 10-22 (and all EF-S lenses) is that there are often a lot of used copies for sale from people going FF.


----------



## MistaBernie

So, it's settled!

...

I just bought a 70-200 F/4L. In honesty though, I think I am gonna shop the 17-85 out and pick up a 10-22, even though it's a bit on the expensive side... kind of hard to justify selling the 17-85 for a 10-22 when in reality it doesn't get me all that much closer (even though from everything I've read, the IQ is _amazing_ in comparison)..

The other idea may be to go 17-40 instead of 17-85... then I'd essentially have the 17-40, 28-135 and 70-200... wow, that's redundant though. Maybe it'd just be best to sell everything I have now (except the 70-200 which is still en route) and pick up a 17-40 and use those two for now..

Yes, I'm liking this idea. Especially since my 70-200 (well besides my kit lens) is my first brand new lens... win a couple of months, when that's paid off (or as soon as this month if I sell the rest of my lenses) then I could get the 17-40 almost right away too... Question -- how does the 17-40 do in low light? I know it's F4, vs the 3.5 of the 10-22..


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MistaBernie*


So, it's settled!

...

I just bought a 70-200 F/4L. In honesty though, I think I am gonna shop the 17-85 out and pick up a 10-22, even though it's a bit on the expensive side... kind of hard to justify selling the 17-85 for a 10-22 when in reality it doesn't get me all that much closer (even though from everything I've read, the IQ is _amazing_ in comparison)..

The other idea may be to go 17-40 instead of 17-85... then I'd essentially have the 17-40, 28-135 and 70-200... wow, that's redundant though. Maybe it'd just be best to sell everything I have now (except the 70-200 which is still en route) and pick up a 17-40 and use those two for now..

Yes, I'm liking this idea. Especially since my 70-200 (well besides my kit lens) is my first brand new lens... win a couple of months, when that's paid off (or as soon as this month if I sell the rest of my lenses) then I could get the 17-40 almost right away too... Question -- how does the 17-40 do in low light? I know it's F4, vs the 3.5 of the 10-22..


It depends on what you like to shoot. If you have just the 17-40 and the 70-200/4, your indoor low-light shooting will suffer greatly. Neither is going to well indoors unless shooting static subjects with a tripod, or really jacking up the ISO to 1600+.

However, if shooting mostly outdoors in good light, then the 17-40 and 70-200/4 is a killer combo. The 17-40 is a great lens in terms of IQ on a crop sensor, but the range is a bit awkward - not particularly wide nor long.

I say get the 10-22, keep the 70-200, then grab a 50/1.8 or 35/2 (or save for the 50/1.4).

The 10-22 actually works fairly well for low-light hand held shots owing to the extreme wide angle.


----------



## MistaBernie

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GoneTomorrow*


It depends on what you like to shoot. If you have just the 17-40 and the 70-200/4, your indoor low-light shooting will suffer greatly. Neither is going to well indoors unless shooting static subjects with a tripod, or really jacking up the ISO to 1600+.

However, if shooting mostly outdoors in good light, then the 17-40 and 70-200/4 is a killer combo. The 17-40 is a great lens in terms of IQ on a crop sensor, but the range is a bit awkward - not particularly wide nor long.

I say get the 10-22, keep the 70-200, then grab a 50/1.8 or 35/2 (or save for the 50/1.4).

The 10-22 actually works fairly well for low-light hand held shots owing to the extreme wide angle.


That's the beauty part, the vast majority of what I'm shooting right now is outdoors (though my 28-135 seemed to hang OK when I had to go indoors, and will probably do better now with a real flash).

If anything, it would be easier for me to get a 50/1.4 than the 10-22, and that seems the more that I think about it.. maybe instead of going 17-40 I'll sell the 17-85 and get the 50/1.4..

Either way, awesome suggestions as always. I look forward to snapping some pics of the 70-200 when it gets here - with which lens though, I have no clue.


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MistaBernie*


That's the beauty part, the vast majority of what I'm shooting right now is outdoors (though my 28-135 seemed to hang OK when I had to go indoors, and will probably do better now with a real flash).

If anything, it would be easier for me to get a 50/1.4 than the 10-22, and that seems the more that I think about it.. maybe instead of going 17-40 I'll sell the 17-85 and get the 50/1.4..

Either way, awesome suggestions as always. I look forward to snapping some pics of the 70-200 when it gets here - with which lens though, I have no clue.










Sounds like a plan. L lenses go beyond just sharpness; their contrast, flare resistance, build quality, color reproduction (etc) is awesome.


----------



## MistaBernie

Yeah, I really am pumped to have picked it up. Who knows, I occasionally see peeps on POTN that want to trade down to it since it's _so_ much lighter than the 2.8 -- it would be a bit of an expensive upgrade, but if the deal was right, I'd have more to work with for indoor & night shots...


----------



## MistaBernie

My 70-200 came in!























took a couple of quick pics of it but will take more later. Need to head out and pick up a couple of filters for it in a bit. I'll try to post pics later, but I likely wont get a chance to till the weekend or so (and even that might be wishful thinking, since it's my birthday Sunday)


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MistaBernie*


My 70-200 came in!























took a couple of quick pics of it but will take more later. Need to head out and pick up a couple of filters for it in a bit. I'll try to post pics later, but I likely wont get a chance to till the weekend or so (and even that might be wishful thinking, *since it's my birthday Sunday*)


Birthday? I hope you get some nice camera gear!


----------



## MistaBernie

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GoneTomorrow*


Birthday? I hope you get some nice camera gear!


Thanks Gone! I'm thinking I might invest in a monopod to toss in my bag, I think I underestimated how heavy this thing is!


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MistaBernie*


Thanks Gone! I'm thinking I might invest in a monopod to toss in my bag, I think I underestimated how heavy this thing is!


It is heavy. A tripod collar is a must for tripod mounting, otherwise it's very front heavy.


----------



## MistaBernie

BH has some, but only in black.







IDK if Canon discontinued the white ones or not, but I can't find them _anywhere_, and I really dont trust aftermarket collars.


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Quote: 
   Originally Posted by *MistaBernie*   BH has some, but only in black.







IDK if Canon discontinued the white ones or not, but I can't find them _anywhere_, and I really dont trust aftermarket collars.  
Checking...yep, back ordered at most of the usual places. Found one here, but don't know about the seller:

  Amazon.com: Canon Tripod Mount Ring A-2 for 70-200mm f/4L (IS Version) - White: Electronics
 I see a few on Ebay too. There doesn't seem to be any even at POTN.







An odd thing to be so hard to find.

Honestly though, I rarely use mine anymore. I find myself hand holding my 70-200, so the tripod collar is collecting dust. And if you have a sturdy tripod with a decent ball head that won't slip or creep, you can do without it, just have to be very wary.


----------



## MistaBernie

I dont think I'm going to mind a black collar, I think I'll order it just for security. I think I will use it, I've always wanted to do some time lapse or long exposure stuff, and I feel like this would be a perfect job for the new L glass..


----------



## MistaBernie

As (kinda) promised!



















I also got my nifty fifty in -- was described as ex+ condition on the glass, kind of looks like underneath a carpeted bed that hasn't been vacuumed in about 5 years dust-wise, but the IQ still seems good and it's SO nice to have a f/1.8 piece of glass in the bag.

Surprisingly enough too, I'm able to fit everything in my Crumpler 7MDH; with the nifty fifty on the body, the 28-135 and the 17-85 are on the left, and the 70-200 and the flash are on the right. hoods for the 17-85 and the 50 are below the camera with plenty of room (and the hood for the 70-200 is on top of the 28-135 and the 17-85). I didn't think I'd make it all fit, but it does. =D


----------



## sub50hz

You know you can just put the hoods on upside down for storage... right?

P.S. Fast glass is great. I dumped my nifty two fifty today because it was unbearably slow and impossible to use in low light (specifically, anything _not_ in sunlight). It was also quite soft above 100mm, even at web resolutions. Bummer. You're making me want that 70-200.... but without IS and only f/4 -- I'm not entirely sure I wouldn't have the same frustrations as I did with the 55-250.


----------



## MistaBernie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sub50hz;12590904*
> You know you can just put the hoods on upside down for storage... right?


Totally, but then they take up a bigger footprint in the bag and I feel like I have to fight to put stuff in/take stuff out. This way, nothing is leaning against anything made of plastic in the bag (the 50's aftermarket hood fits perfectly inside the 17-85's aftermarket hood


----------



## r31ncarnat3d

I usually keep my hoods seperate myself. I was lucky enough that my 28mm fits in my 50mm hood, and that fits in my 85mm hood. One nice package inside my bag


----------



## sub50hz

Ah, fair enough. A friend of ours who has been shooting for the last 12 years JUST FOUND OUT you can flip lens hoods. I almost didn't believe it at first until I could see he was genuinely blown away.


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Sometimes reversing the hood makes it too bulky. The hood for the 70-200 is no problem as it's not too large, but the hood for the 24-70 is ginormous. It's a really tight fit in my 7MDH, and often when I pull the lens out, the hood comes off. I usually just put the 70-200 hood inside 24-70 hood, then put my 430EXII inside those.

When I'm travelling with an even lighter kit (in my ThinkTank UD30), I just leave the hoods at home, since all of my L lenses are fairly resistant to flare anyhow.


----------



## MistaBernie

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GoneTomorrow*


Sometimes reversing the hood makes it too bulky. The hood for the 70-200 is no problem as it's not too large, but the hood for the 24-70 is ginormous. It's a really tight fit in my 7MDH, and often when I pull the lens out, the hood comes off. I usually just put the 70-200 hood inside 24-70 hood, then put my 430EXII inside those.

When I'm travelling with an even lighter kit (in my ThinkTank UD30), I just leave the hoods at home, since all of my L lenses are fairly resistant to flare anyhow.


The hood for the 70-200 isn't that large?!







I found a cat in mine once! (not really, I dont hate cats, we just dont have any).

if I could fit the other two hoods inside the 70-200 and put that under the camera body w/ the 50mm on it, but I wont press my luck at this point, I'm just glad it all fits. This weekend I'll try to get down to a music store I used to work at - my old boss set up a roll of white paper and some lamps positioned perfectly for eBay photos, etc. I'll bring my bag down and try to take pics of everything...


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MistaBernie*


The hood for the 70-200 isn't that large?!







I found a cat in mine once! (not really, I dont hate cats, we just dont have any).

if I could fit the other two hoods inside the 70-200 and put that under the camera body w/ the 50mm on it, but I wont press my luck at this point, I'm just glad it all fits. This weekend I'll try to get down to a music store I used to work at - my old boss set up a roll of white paper and some lamps positioned perfectly for eBay photos, etc. I'll bring my bag down and try to take pics of everything...


Well, it's small in comparison to the 24-70's hood, which is large enough to cover the entire barrel fully extended.

Here it is on the left, with the Sigma 24-70 for comparison:










And here it is again with the hood reversed, notice how it almost swallows the lens (in the middle, flanked by the 100-400L and the 16-35)


----------



## MistaBernie

Yep, that's definitely big.

That's what she said?


----------



## sub50hz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GoneTomorrow*


Sometimes reversing the hood makes it too bulky.


I could see that with the longer teles and even the ridiculous UWA hoods (like that of the 10-22) but look at what I'm carrying, haha. Tiny hoods. They fit fine flipped, I just carry a Fastpack 200 because I don't tote around a ton of gear (although it's not as quick-access as I would like). What's this 7MDH you guys all seem to have? I feel like I'm missing out on something.


----------



## MistaBernie

http://www.crumpler.com/US/Camera-Ba...=MDH000-X00P70

The Crumpler 7 Million Dollar Home camera bag. Got the black on black one from BH for like $106


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Crumpler makes awesome bags! I went to the Crumpler store when I was in San Francisco last year, and they had so many great bags there (not just for cameras).

Plus they also win style points. I love ThinkTank, but there bags are very meh looking (which is the point, and hence the name "Urban Disguise").


----------



## MistaBernie

I was out in Oakland & SF in March 2009 - wish I was into photog back then, I would have LOVED to have checked out the store. I want to find an Industry Disgrace...


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MistaBernie*


I was out in Oakland & SF in March 2009 - wish I was into photog back then, I would have LOVED to have checked out the store. I want to find an Industry Disgrace...


You can find those online easily enough. I really like my ID. Crumpler has really nice luggage too, but it's really, really pricey.


----------



## MistaBernie

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GoneTomorrow*


You can find those online easily enough. I really like my ID. Crumpler has really nice luggage too, but it's really, really pricey.


Actually it's looking like the ID is getting discontinued, but yeah, that's next on my list of stuff to toss in the bag.

I'll say this -- I really like the look and feel of my camera w/ the 50mm on it. For the price, I feel like the IQ is pretty darn decent (as long as I'm careful w/ focus).

.. or maybe I'm on crack, and they're all over the place now.







I went looking recently and they were getting more and more scarce. Maybe I was inadvertently looking for the 02 version..

No no, I'm right. 03 is brown, and that's a no-no. Granted, it's in stock in a bunch of places, but the black one is only in stock 3 places according to google-shopping, and I dont really trust any of them. I wonder if there's a new version coming out..


----------



## r31ncarnat3d

Quote:



Originally Posted by *GoneTomorrow*


Crumpler makes awesome bags! I went to the Crumpler store when I was in San Francisco last year, and they had so many great bags there (not just for cameras).

Plus they also win style points. I love ThinkTank, but there bags are very meh looking (which is the point, and hence the name "Urban Disguise").


San Francisco has everything. I spend my lunch breaks and free time at work wandering around checking out the stores there. Visited the Crumpler store last summer while waiting for a nitrocellulose membrane transfer to finish.

It's a shame Adorama doesn't have a camera store in SF, because I'd absolutely love that


----------



## Dream Killer

the 70-200 f/4 isn't that heavy, it's my favorite walk around tele. my suggestion is: instead of a tripod collar, i would get a higher quality ballhead.


----------



## MistaBernie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dream Killer;12596733*
> the 70-200 f/4 isn't that heavy, it's my favorite walk around tele. my suggestion is: instead of a tripod collar, i would get a higher quality ballhead.










but.. I just ordered a black, ugly one that wont match the lens (but will support it just fine since it's actually made by Canon) -- and I really didn't like putting the camera itself on the tripod with this lens, it really is front-heavy (though much lighter than it's 2.8 counterpart)


----------

