the title says it all!
thanks!

(ha sorry for my rubbish english (grammar and spelling!), being at work doesn't help!)

yes iyeah of course but you have zips that dont go to the bottom, basically if you wear the bag on the front you cant really access the lenses and if the zip were to open entirely all your gear would fall on the floor! (cant seem to describe it can i!?)

anyway the tamrac seems much more better for my need and has 2 mesh pockets - perfect!

what about the Tamrac 5546 Adventure 6
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamrac-5546-Adventure-Backpack-Grey/dp/B000EMW99Y/ref=sr_1_22?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1285690074&sr=8-22

thanks for the tip... i could definitely get it as it's 5min from work, but it's too similar to mine and wouldnt add anything...

1) need to hang some bottle of water
2) needs to be easy to open which is not the case of that one, if you flip it to the front, stills needs to open the zip to the bottom of the bag to open it... really not handy (i think)

thanks for the tip though it's a very good deal!

Hello,

I've had since i started an "old school" shoulder bag, which is very decent and well padded but not very comfy and doesn't suit my need.

I thought a rucksack type would be better so bought a hama mini on amazon, although it's cute and well padded too, it's tiny and clearly not practical as I end up putting it inside a bigger rucksack (a nice alpine lowe) which is a bit bigger but allows me to have a bottle of water and a tripod - that means i have no easy access to my gear and is simply annoying (+ slows me donw = my girlfriend hates me even more for stopping every 5minutes).

here is what i need:

- rucksack as I'm trekking and cycling with it
- 2 straps (pocket) on each side, one for a bottle of water and one for tripod
- padding should be decent
- quite compact but needs to fit body/lens + 2 other lenses and filters...
- price: well the minimum i guess, i'm an occasional photographer so don't need a pro bag at all!

Is there a good model you would recommend?

thanks in advance!

Bump!!

greynolds i'd like to see a comparison between the 18-250mm (whichever make I don't think they're any different) and the 50-200mm you mention.

I doubt the quality will be much better...? (i'm asking)

Having a 18-250mm is very handy especially when travelling, if you do need to do specific shots that require only one range, then yes it makes sense to have specific lenses, otherwise this is the best compromise you can get. (and i believe they are CLEARLY UNDER-RATED).

Satnin since you're looking for an upgrade i would say (keeping it under your 250 budget):

- 16-45mm: very good lens but 45mm is short
- 17-35mm sigma: very good lens too but even shorter
- 17-70mm sigma or pentax: haven't tried it, apparently soft above 50mm but have good reviews otherwise (pretty much everyone on this forum owns one!)
- 17-50mm f2.8 tamron: haven't tried it but according to reviews the best of the range (i'm after one myself)
- 18-200mm (sigma or tam): as mentioned i do not know these lenses but bad reputation so would avoid, you'll cover more but it wont be an upgrade
- 18-250mm (tammy or pentax): very good if you just want to take good pictures and not worry about changing lenses all the time, I bought a tammy version (which is quite cold), it takes really good pictures and is very handy, not sure it's a proper upgrade comparing to the kit lens (which is very good), but having the 55-250mm extra will definitely give you more options (knowing that it gets a bit soft on the longer end...)

Anyway that's just my opinion,

thanks... but hoping to find it second hand for ~200

sorry reuben, now after a 17-50 f2.8 which would mean no need for the 28 ;-(