I wonder whether you have any experience shooting around skittish "tribal" peoples.
Don't want to interrupt your preparation to patronise anyone, but National Geographic photographers have been shooting 'tribal' peoples since a very long time before zoom lenses were invented, with some success. I also have some experience, and rather than finding them to be skittish, I found them incredibly cooperative, in the same way as the public in western cities were before phones, the internet and 'street' paparazzi ruined everything. The only people I found to be difficult were natives who were so accustomed to being photographed that they started to expect a fee.
I get what you're trying to say. You're really proud of your 70-200 f4 lens and the shots you've taken. But I wish you also get what I'm trying to say. What's the need for dissing 135L users? Different strokes for different folks, as I said. You might prefer the range of your 70-200 but others might like to get close to people, talk to them, and in turn use a 50mm or 35mm or whatever to get close and interact with the people they shoot. Others might use tele, fisheye, whatever. Whatever floats your boat. And still, why the need to diss the 135L? Do you have a complex or something?
Right. Isolation, yes. Saturation, I hare my doubts. The images you see here are JPEGs transferred via WiFi from the 6D to an Android tablet and resized and saved as Lowest quality JPEG in Pixlr. They are a far cry from what they would look like with proper RAW PP.I appreciate what you're trying to say, and it may be true that the zoom permitted you to frame those shots in a way that wouldn't have been possible with a prime given the circumstances. I still can't help but think that those same shots would have better colour saturation and subject isolation if they'd been shot with the 135L or 85L.
Pick your poison
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/94301219@N03/
You don't get it if you think this thread is about my pride in the lens or the captured images. It is my response to a long-standing debate here generally between prime VS Zoom for travel and documentary and specifically between 135L VS. 70-200 F4 LIS
I recently sold my highly recognized and beloved 70-200 f/4L IS to buy the 135 f/2L.
Yes I'm preaching for the 135L as you are preaching for zoom. You had the 135L before me, I'm happy for you...
I agree: there's no universal "best lens". We need to pick the one which is the best suited for the job. For weddings and other events I used the 70-200 with the 17-40. I fed up with event photography, so I sold my zooms, not to be able to restart, even at tempting offers.... as for me, I would not have traded a 70-200 L zoom for anything lest I wanted to miss opportunities. Moral of tue story: for travel and in places where you cannot place yourself at will, You will want a zoom.
Well, at least one of them is using the Nokia Lumia 1020...
Different horses for different courses. I agree with you about the zooms. For a long while my preferred walkaround lens was the 100-400f4.5-5.6L IS. The Vietnamese are no different to anyone else, some don't like their photo being taken while others don't seem to mind................if you ask politely, but all go into ''pose'' mode, one way or the other, if they see a camera being pointed in their direction. I do too, we all do. A couple of weeks ago I walked into a crowded market with my 5DM3 + Samyang 14f2.8 + remote. Had the camera slung around my neck in silent shutter mode and the attached remote in my pocket. No one realized I was photographing them as I walked around which was the first thing people noticed when they looked through the shots I took. Like I said, different horses for different courses.... as for me, I would not have traded a 70-200 L zoom for anything lest I wanted to miss opportunities. Moral of tue story: for travel and in places where you cannot place yourself at will, You will want a zoom.
Not lugging either of those two around. I don't care if there's a bus load of naked super models just out of range.
