Mike,
I also thought that the Pro Mag 2 AW seemed more interesting than the
Specialist 85AW because it looked roomier.
My 100-400 is effectively 7 5/8 inches long, so it should fit. I don't
think that the EOS 3 is thinner than the Elan 7E.
I think I will order the Pro Mag 2 AW.
Thanks again.
Pierre
At 18:40 3/16/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi Pierre,
>
>The canon camera museum lists your 100-400 as 189mm long (about 7 1/2
>inches), and it lists my 300/4 IS as 221mm long (about 9 inches). My
>Eos-3 with the 300/4 IS attached fits snugly, but nicely, in my Pro-Mag
>2 even with a filter attached and stuff in the pockets on the top panel.
> If these numbers from canon are right, your 100-400 should fit without
>any problem or modifying the bottom cushion (see my other post). I
>don't have the 100-400, so I can't say from experience.
>
>I do have both bags, and they are not nearly as similar as they look.
>They are both tall, but the specialist tapers toward the bottom. The
>specialist is more streamlined, but also much smaller. I could never
>get my 28-70 and my 100 macro with hoods in there side by side (front of
>bag to back--the way you wouldn't expect them to fit) as I can in my pro
>mag 2. The pro mag 2 will also stand up by itself and actually has two
>little rubber channels on the bottom so you could set it on a wet/dirty
>surface and the material wouldn't get wet or dirty.
>
>Anyway, they are not as similar as they look.
>
>mike
>
>
>
>
>
>Pierre Bellavance wrote:
> >
> > Tapani,
> >
> > Are you sure that the camera and 100-400 lens (10 3/8 inches long total)
> > fit vertically in the Pro Mag 2 AW Bag?
> >
> > This bag seems to look a lot like the S&F Specialist 85AW.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Pierre
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
