Bag for E-M1II and SHG lens trio

Edmunds

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
175
I've recently purchased the Olympus 14-35mm f/2 and Olympus 35-100mm f/2 lenses. I'll probably also buy the m4/3 7-14mm f/2.8, but for now I've got an Olympus 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5

These lenses are bigger than anything I have for m4/3 and my current m4/3 kit bag will not suffice, and yet they are much smaller than the 90-250mm f/2.8 I use for wildlife. They drown in the bag I use for the 90-250mm.

Any recommendations for a bag just for these 3 lenses? I'm hoping for a shoulder bag 🙃 but I realize this may not be realistic and I may need to use a sling bag. The biggest problem is that the E-M1II + MMF3 + 35-100 f/2 is about 28cm long (round about the same size as a 300mm f/4). So I'd need a bag with a height of around 30cm.
 
Last edited:

barry13

Mu-43.com Editor
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
10,008
Location
Southern California
Real Name
Barry
Hi,
A large shoulder bag such as the Think Tank Signature 10 or 13 should be big enough, but the other question is will the weight be tolerable on your shoulder?
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/think-tank-signature-10-shoulder-bag-review.101373/

I have both bags, if you want me to check with some of my ZD lenses; I have the 50-200SWD (with champagne bucket), 12-60SWD, 7-14/4, & 8FE.
Is the 35-100 bigger than the 50-200SWD?
 

Holoholo55

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
3,203
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
Hi,
A large shoulder bag such as the Think Tank Signature 10 or 13 should be big enough, but the other question is will the weight be tolerable on your shoulder?
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/think-tank-signature-10-shoulder-bag-review.101373/

I have both bags, if you want me to check with some of my ZD lenses; I have the 50-200SWD (with champagne bucket), 12-60SWD, 7-14/4, & 8FE.
Is the 35-100 bigger than the 50-200SWD?
Yes, it is considerably larger. See below. I don't think dimensions of the lens hoods are included. The champagne bucket of the 50-200 SWD is no joke. :)

I agree with you. A single strap on a shoulder bag may be too burdensome. Even a wider cross-body sling strap may be hard to tolerate on a long walk. Maybe should consider a backpack.

Screen Shot 2020-05-17 at 10.54.06 AM.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Screen Shot 2020-05-17 at 10.54.32 AM.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

barry13

Mu-43.com Editor
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
10,008
Location
Southern California
Real Name
Barry
Thanks @Holoholo55!

The Signature 10 is not tall enough for the 35-100, but the Signature 13 is tall enough for the lens with body detached (~9" / 228mm inside height).
I zoomed the 50-200 + MMF-3 out to 9" to confirm the fit.
You might have to either detach the MMF-3, or leave the inside cover unzipped; but you could still close and latch the outer cover with the MMF-3.

The inside width is ~5" / 127mm and has no trouble with my champagne bucket.

Should be able to get 3 of the 35-100's in the bag, although I'm not sure if you'd be able to get 3 with hoods in, as the bag is rounded in the front corners and about 4" wide there.

So, I'm thinking:
35-100 in the center (or to one side if the hood is under 4" diameter)
14-35
11-22 (or m.ZD 7-14)
I think you'd be able to have the body attached to one of the shorter lenses. My E-M1 mk1 fits in either orientation; here it is in the Signature 10:
ide-w-em1-body-and-flap-up-img_20181121_130330-jpg.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

If it can't be attached for some reason, you could fold down a divider, and put the body on top of one of the shorter lenses, as I've done here.

I gtg out right now, but I can check later with a couple other big lenses and see what would compare to the 14-35 and 11-22, if that would be helpful.


BTW, If you do decide to order a TT bag in USA, please use our link; it benefits the site.
https://www.thinktankphoto.com/pages/affiliates?rfsn=1976465.e3e456.10615
Otherwise, they do have international dealers listed on their site.

Thanks
 

Edmunds

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
175
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
Yeah, I kinda really wanted to keep the body attached. What about the Think Tank restrospective 30 or 20? Those bags are meant for DSLRs with the usual 24-70+70-200 combo, I think.

Weight isn't really a problem. I'm mostly out with my 2 year old, so I'm either putting the bag in the stroller, or I'm carrying verrry short distances. When I go out for longer distances, I carry a different lens setup.
 
Last edited:

barry13

Mu-43.com Editor
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
10,008
Location
Southern California
Real Name
Barry
Yeah, I kinda really wanted to keep the body attached. What about the Think Tank restrospective 30 or 20? Those bags are meant for DSLRs with the usual 24-70+70-200 combo, I think.

Weight isn't really a problem. I'm mostly out with my 2 year old, so I'm either putting the bag in the stroller, or I'm carrying verrry short distances. When I go out for longer distances, I carry a different lens setup.
Hi, yes those are deeper (especially the 20 at the cost of less width).
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom