No problem, David. I'm just a bug for small and light equipment,
presuming the quality is there. ;-)
Your medium-fanny-pack size bag must be a lot bigger than the
Billingham L2 I normally use. DS with one lens mounted plus two
others, and my usual selection of small bits (spare batteries, spare
memory cards, notebook, cell phone, etc) is about the limit I'm
willing to stuff it in there. If I carry the Tamrac SL-5 bag, I can
fit three-four lenses plus a flash unit fairly easily. That's more
than I normally want to carry, but it came in very handily when I was
on the UK trip.
Godfrey
On Aug 16, 2005, at 10:35 AM, David Oswald wrote:
Sorry for putting words into your mouth. ...I just was trying to
summarize, and really meant to lend credance to your point of
view. I can't argue the size issue; the 20-35 is more pleasant to
handle for that reason, and that's why I miss it. The 16-45 fits
in my small camera bag along with a 50mm f/1.4, a 135mm f/2.8, or a
28-105 f/3.2-4.5 and an AF330FTZ... all without hoods except the
135 which has an internal hood. So though it's a little heavier, I
find it just about as convenient.
My small bag is medium fanny-pack size.
