rscheffler
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #2 · Roller bag for super teles & some more... | |
Have you looked at Think Tank and Tenba?
My 2¢ as follows:
The Gura Gear works because as a backpack/bag, it can be relatively unstructured and thinly padded to allow stuffing that much gear in it and still fitting US carry-on size requirements. Even a 'soft sided' roller by necessity of its build/structure, will cannibalize some space that could otherwise go towards gear in a backpack. This compromise is at its most extreme if you consider hard sided rollers, such as from Pelican, Nanuk, etc.
Back in the DSLR days I used to travel by air with the Pelican 1510 roller, usually with a 400/2.8, a couple Canon 1D series bodies and a couple zooms. Instead of the 400 I could fit a 600/4, but its additional length reduced the amount of other gear I could fit in the case. I don't think I could have fit a 300/2.8 with the 600. But maybe it would be possible with a soft sided roller. Based on your recent posts, I'm guessing you're a Sony user. If so, then the very compact nature of the FE 300/2.8 would certainly be beneficial...
My current solution is a Tenba Roadie backpack. I can fit my Canon 200-400 plus bodies, lenses, etc. But it's a backpack and I carry it as such through airports and on airplanes. I check a Thule Chasm 110L wheeled duffel packed with my clothes, etc. At the destination, the clothes stay wherever I'm staying and the backpack goes in the roller duffel and that combo goes with me to the destinations where I'm working. I currently like this solution because the Thule has a wide wheelbase and larger than average wheels, so it handles rougher surfaces, grass, etc., better than the smaller wheels and narrower, more wobbly wheelbase of typical photographic rollers that work best on smooth surfaces (like in airports  ). I can also throw a lot more stuff in the duffel in addition to the backpack, such as a monopod or tripod, rain gear or other bulky items such as a helmet, burly kneepads, water bottles, etc. The design of the Thule is that of a hard-shell base or tub on the bottom third, onto which is sewn a very durable non-woven (at least the outer surface) pliable material that appears to be effectively waterproof (the zippers are not waterproof). I don't fly as much as I used to, but so far it has survived 4-5 trips, including internationally and so far the top half of the duffel is surprisingly unscathed. And without any holes or cuts in the pliable material. It also survived being sent as a parcel via a baggage forwarding service in Japan, though I'm guessing based on how things run in Japan, it wasn't at much risk of damage. As an alternative to the Thule, which is technically 62" linear length and 2" too long for most airlines, though I have yet to have any problems checking it in, I picked up a Pelican AEGIS 28" Check-In Rolling Hybrid Duffel because it was discounted at B&H. It can do the same tasks as the Thule, but is slightly smaller and therefore has less room for extras in addition to the backpack. But it's also not built as robustly as the Thule. On discount currently $200 off, and I suspect it might be perennially discounted, it's probably not a bad deal. I paid full price for the Thule. It wasn't cheap for what it is, but I feel it is robust and well made. And worth the money. The Pelcan is worth <$200. I would not pay full retail for it.
The downside of these two bags, based on your post, is that they're too large for carry-on. While these would not be in-airport carry solutions, they could be worthwhile considerations once at the destination. And for closer to home trips by car, which I do much, much more frequently than flights and therefore is mostly how I use the Thule and Tenba Roadie combination.
|
!! There are plenty of bags by many manufacturers when it comes to carrying lenses and bodies and accessories. But when you think of carrying your super tele lenses it gets tricker especially when traveling by airplane.