>>2722378The issue with sleeping bags is mostly a material one, down is just pretty labor intensive to acquire.
That being said, you can totally use a cheaper one for a long time if you just accept that it won't be filled with down. I used one with synthetic filling for years and while the new one is objectively better, the old one was fine.
Synthetic filling means you get a bit more weight and a lot more bulk compared to down, but if you just carry it on the outside of your pack (or have a big pack) that's not the end of the world. My old bag is some shitty flecktarn one from a local Aldi, kept me warm up to 0C for years (granted, I tend to sleep warm and the 0C nights weren't the most pleasant).
While Decathlon and Aegismax are both trustable brands, I'd add naturehike to that list too. I'm the anon from
>>2703822 and that sleeping bag there is rated for -11C and I believe it. The comfort rating is up to 5C and if anything that seems too generous, I've slept colder and was cozy as a bug in there. The CWZ400 rather than the CW400 I have seems to currently cost 125€, which seems pretty decent. With a transition rating of 2C and risk rating of -9C.
I can of course only speak for the CW400 but if that's an indication of the other bags, the ratings are honest (if not even a bit generous) and the quality is great.
Note that the one I suggested isn't a mummy bag, it's a square one. Downside is a bit more weight and a bit more cost and a bit less earm, upside is a lot of legroom and you can unzip it to become a 2 person quilt. Naturehike also has other bags, might be worth a shot even if I haven't tried those.
As always, sales might change prices a little.
>>2722280The pot without the lid or the netting is 165g.
I don't intend to use it just for water, so I will always carry the lid basically - I use the pot for boiling water or heating liquids and the top as a sort of shitty pan with too high walls.
