Tamrac 5793 Super Telephoto Lens Backpack, Black

2014-03-31T21:00:00

Great addition to my EF600 II lens. Bag fits the lens with pro body attached. Even fits with 1.4x tele-converter attached (but a snug fit). Overall good build quality and fits everything nicely with no wasted space keeping the bag a minimum dimension for the task at hand. Only thing I wish they would have used a heavier duty zipper. The one they used is adequate but a heavier one would have given it 5 stars.

Marcus H.

2014-02-17T19:00:00

This backpack has M.A.S. attachment locations but Tamrac failed to design the rain cover large enough to cover up larger M.A.S. cases, bags, and etc. Therefore I bought a Large M.A.S. Rain cover only to find out that the cover is sewn to the supplied M.A.S. Pocket. So now the Rain Cover takes up a M.A.S. location I do not have to give up instead of it fitting in the rain cover pocket on the backpack. If you plan to use M.A.S. items you had better come up with a plan on how you are going to deal with your M.A.S. items in case of rain because the supplied rain cover is too small to cover them up. The zipper on the backpack is NOT RAIN PROOF. Also this backpack lacks S.A.S. locations and D-Rings to attach Tamrac's Backpack Camera strap; these items could have been include for very low cost. The tripod mount on the back is really too small for about any tripod that would handle the size of lens one would put in this backpack. My Nikon D7100, Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 Sports lens, & 2X tele-converter weighs 11.5 pounds. I use a Manfrotto 055XV Lightweight Green Aluminum Tripod, Supports 15.4 lbs. and it just fits on the backpack (I would recommend a stronger tripod than this one for this size of lens). If it rains none of the rain covers from Tamrac will cover up your tripod mounted on the backpack so plan to hand carry it in case of rain. Do not forget to allow the time it will take to cover up the pack in case of rain. The mesh pockets on the sides of the back are about useless if one plans to use M.A.S. items.

Randall W.

2014-01-20T19:00:00

I use to carry my 400mm lens, tripod and bag away from the photo site back to my truck. I was always afraid I would drop something. This bag makes putting the lens away a breeze. The lens, Hoods and camera all fit right in with ease lock in place and zip right up. Bag goes over the shoulder, away I go. This bag is great.

JOHN L.

2012-11-06T19:00:00

In search of a flexible travel bag for a Canon 500mm F4 with body attached, I compared the Lowe Lens Trekker 600 AW II and the Tamrac 5793 Super Telephoto Lens Pack as both bags have been rated highly by various reviewers. I particularly wanted a bag suitable for airline travel. As I soon realized, there are substantial differences between the two bags that I will highlight. Size: The Lowe is a BIG bag; the interior volume is almost 1.5X the interior volume of the Tamrac. The interior dimensions are 23.5x9x8 for a volume of about 1692 cu in. In comparison, the Tamrac inside is 20x8x7 for a volume of about 1120 cu in. The Lowe is 25 inches tall; the Tamrac is 22 inches tall. With the lens hood in the retracted position, the 500 mounted to both a 1.4X converter and the body fit quite nicely in the Tamrac with about an inch of extra room at the top, but not enough room inside or in exterior pockets for other lenses. In contrast the Lowe is cavernous. With the 500 plus body (no converter) inside, and an adjustable padded shelf in place above the body, there was 360 cu in remaining above the shelf – enough for a 70-200 Canon F2.8 Mk II in a padded case. The only pocket on the outside of the Lowe (except for the rain cover pocket) is 10 inches tall and deep enough for a lens; a 24-105 Canon zoom fit easily. With the 500mm lens in the bag, there is a lot of space around the lens – enough room for a sweatshirt or fleece if desired. It was even possible to put additional lenses around 500 albeit with minimal padding. Personally I wouldn't recommend it. Amazingly, the 500 mm lens with body mounted and lens hood in the extended position, also fits in this bag. Some comments about design features. The Tamrac has a lighter weight suspension that is still comfortable and sufficient given the bag volume. I found the hip pads to be rather small. The Lowe has a very substantial suspension system comparable to that on some mid-weight hiking packs - easily enough to comfortably carry 40 lbs some distance. I am 6'1'' and found the back to ride a bit high on my body. Not perfect but OK. Both packs have sternum straps which will prevent the pack from slipping off your shoulders. The rear zipper on the Tamrac retracts to within 7 inches of the bottom of the pack, which made it quite easy to slide the lens into place. The zippers on the Lowe retract to within 12 inches of the bottom, which made it a little difficult to insert and remove my equipment. Zippers on the Lowe are robust; the Tamrac has a smaller gauge zipper but still sufficient. There are notable differences in side wall thickness. Using a caliper, I measured the side walls of the Lowe at 0.5 in; the Tamrac side walls are 1 in. thick! The top handle of the Lowe is ample, secure and adjustable. The top handle of the Tamrac is not adjustable and, disappointingly, was too small to insert my hand fully. The Lowe has 10 webbing loops on either side of the bag to which alpine quality carabiners could be attached and there are also two 2-inch D-rings on either side. The Tamrac has a single webbing loop attachment point. However, I would not use it to lift or haul the pack because it is on the zippered portion of pack. The Lowe has tripod attachment points on both side walls while the Tamrac has a single set of attachment points centered on the back wall of the pack. A pocket below the attachment points is designed to hold the base of one or more tripod legs thereby preventing slippage. The Tamrac is compatible with a range of branded modular pockets that can be attached to either side of the pack. Both packs come with rain covers. The Tamrac has two moderate sized external flat pockets that are suitable only for flat items, for example, they definitely will not accommodate a 1.4X converter. The Tamrac does have two additional mesh pockets that could hold short lenses but without much, or any, padding depending on the lens diameter. Both packs have numerous memory storage pockets inside the pack. Another substantial design difference is the cradle for securing the lens and body inside the pack. Tamrac uses an adjustable cradle pad to which the equipment is secured with a set of Velcro straps. Easy to use and secure. Lowe uses an adjustable cradle pad system. One half of the pad system is secured to the interior wall of the bag. Once the equipment is inserted into the bag it is secured against the back pad with another pad that fastens to the first pad with Velcro and is also secured to the back of the bag when the back flap is zipped shut. Although this cradle might provide a bit more cushioning and security than the Tamrac cradle pad, I found it a bit cumbersome to use because it is necessary to carefully match the small Velcro strips when the two pads come together to secure the equipment. Both packs have their strengths. For my purposes, I favor the Tamrac because: 1) the size is matched well to the lens and body, 2) the zipper retracts to 7 inches, 3) the walls have thicker padding, 4) it is easy to quickly load and unload the equipment, and 5) it will fit easier in most overhead baggage compartments (although it might be a challenge on some regional jets) and in a pinch it could go under a seat. It was also evident that for hauling a greater volume of equipment or for trekking/expeditions, the Lowe has some great features and is a sturdy and worthy bag. Photos of the lens cradles are attached.

EhrDesign