Billingham Camera Bag

[wuyeah]

Hello guys,

 

I am wondering if Billingham Hardley Pro able to carry an F5 when it is mounted

with 70-200, 28-70, or a 17-35. I wonder the depth is wide enough to put camera

on its back and hv lens face up. I was looking over 335 or other bigger models,

they seems a bit to thick in depth than my liking.

 

Anyone knows?

[kim yee]

no, you can't with tthe 70-200, or the 28-70. But I think 17-35, maybe.

[wuyeah]

Oh, man~ really?

 

But I should expect it able to carry F5 with 2 lenses with it non mount right?

[peter_novick1]

I've had the same problem (with a D2X), and while I haven't ordered it yet, one which looks as if it would do the job is the Domke F804. The B&H price is $109.95. It comes without inserts, and the one which looks like the best for my (and your) purposes is the "Domke Main Compartment Insert for J-Series Bags" ($20.95). Inside measurement of height of the bag is 12.5" and inside depth is 6.5": measure your F5 with 70-200 mounted and see if that makes it. Pictures and full specifications on the B&H web page.

 

Good luck.

 

Peter Novick

[harvey_edelstein1]

You might be able to fit in a Packington horizontally or a 445 standing up with the hood inverted. I carry the lens standing up in the divider in the 445. The Hadley is really a small bag for more compact equipment. I think the new Lowe slingshot 300 was designed for camera with zoom attached.

[stevea]

Take a look at the Think Tank Holster bags. They have several sizes. One can hold what you want. I have the 40 model and it is perfect for the D2x with the 70-200 VR attached. It can be worn on a belt or over the shoulder.

 

Steve Abramson

[ilkka]

The Billingham Hadley series is quite narrow. Not so suitable for large bodies with vertical grip. The 2/3/4/5 series bags are more boxy in shape and should be a better fit, eg. the 445 that has been mentioned, but it is quite a big bag. The 225 or 335 should be enough, though might be a bit tight with the 2.8/70-200.