How long is this combo? (D200 & 70-200)

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by JohnR, Aug 30, 2008.

  1. I'm a lucky man...my wife got me Steelers/Bengals tickets for Oct. 19th. Checking their camera policy online, they state 8.5" x 11" x 4" or less for cameras.

    If I was to rent the 70-200VR and mount it on my D200, will it be around that length? I see that the lens is 8.5 inches in length, but I don't know what the total length is mounted on a camera.

    Can someone please measure for me if you have this combo? Thanks! :smile:

    BTW, here's about where I'll be sitting...section 132, Row 7 :biggrin:

    [​IMG]
     
  2. What I do to try to make my lenses seem a bit smaller (when going to Fenway Park) is to keep a smaller lens on my camera. I have my larger lens (Sigma 120-300) by itself. Without being mounted on the camera body it doesn't seem as large. I also have my wife carry my monopod because we figure she's less likely to get hassled then I am about a 2 foot long 'metal pipe' looking object.

    Have a blast!!!
     
  3. Good idea! Thanks!
     
  4. ultimind

    ultimind

    990
    May 13, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    No battery grip, preferably no lens hood and no tripod collar/foot. That's about as compact as the lens will get. I like Nate's idea about keeping the big lens separate.
     
  5. eparr

    eparr

    60
    Jul 28, 2007
    S.F. Bay Area
    A friend of mine was just telling me about people being turned away at a Raiders game last week. Their limit was 4" long for the lens! Luckily he had the very short 55-200mm Nikon and got through with no problems. I don't know if it is a league wide policy or stadium policy? I would make sure the Length limit is 8.5" and not 4" first.
    Good luck and enjoy the game!
     
  6. My impression (this is with baseball) is that each stadium has their own policy. Fenway's policy is quite lax and I can easily bring in a 300 2.8. I went to a game at Yankee stadium this summer and they seem to be much more strict about cameras being allowed into the park. Usually the website stipulates what is allowed.
     
  7. That's where I got the measurements, from Paul Brown Stadium in Cinci.

    Since it's a 1pm game, I think I may borrow my brother's 18-200mm and not worry about it.
     
  8. jafo

    jafo

    238
    Jun 11, 2008
    Chatsworth, CA
    Nobody responded with the actual length of the D200 with the 70-200 mounted. Perhaps someone can still do this? I'd like to know myself... Thanks!
     
  9. davidwegs

    davidwegs

    185
    Feb 7, 2008
    CO
    Without the hood, it is 11.75 inches.


    The 18-200 is not bad but at 200 and focused at infinity, it really gives you about 135mm (still a 200mm FF equivalent) .
     
  10. genera

    genera

    Oct 6, 2005
    California
    Without a lens cap or hood the D200 + 70-200 is about 11.08" from the front of the lens to the button that sticks out the farthest. Also the camera is about 4.43 inches from the bottom to the top of the flash shoe so it won't meet their requirements in that direction either.
     
  11. genera

    genera

    Oct 6, 2005
    California
    Do you have a TC mounted?
     
  12. jafo

    jafo

    238
    Jun 11, 2008
    Chatsworth, CA
    Interesting that someone said it is 11.75" and another person said it's 11.08". Since the specs on both haven't changed, someone must be wrong. Darn.
     
  13. I just checked Nikon's site and the D300 and D200 are listed the same at 2.9" in Depth. Your profile lists a D300 & 70-200VR, why not check for yourself and see what you come up with. :smile:
     
  14. jafo

    jafo

    238
    Jun 11, 2008
    Chatsworth, CA
    I will... I'm at work. :)
     
  15. Don't tell

    Then I promise not to tell your boss we've been chatting on the Cafe if you promise not to tell mine. I'm at work too. :biggrin:
     
  16. jafo

    jafo

    238
    Jun 11, 2008
    Chatsworth, CA
    Well I measured my D300 with the 70-200 attached by placing the lens face down on my desk (with lens hood attached, this is usually why you measure... you're putting it in a bag...) and it measured 11.25". I guess that settles the issue for me, maybe not others. :)
     
  17. Now if Nikon could only release the rumored revised 70-200 VRII......