sean_matheny1

<p>When it comes to deleting original photos, I don't. It's easy enough to do of course (especially in LR), but I have trouble finding a threshold. For example, it's obvious that completely OOF and accidental shots can safely be deleted. I can argue for deletion a step or so above those, for photos I clearly will never print or publish. <br> But with local and backup storage space so cheap (at least for the 20-200 shots a week I shoot in 16.8MP RAW), I've quit bothering to delete anything at all, really. I just rate and color code on import and use my filters to ignore the duds going forward from there. Maybe it's also the inner hoarder in me talking, but the risk of deleting photos I might *possibly* like to see again (even though I know I problably won't), just compels me to leave them be.<br> Does anyone have any insight on this? Are there advantages I'm not seeing to either side?<br> Thanks,<br> Sean</p>

<p>I hadn't thought of IS/VR in the way some of you commented; IS/VR is ultimately a roll of the dice. Even though a good outcome is favourable if you stay within the limits of the system, there is always the chance that you'll get a dud. <br> I've noticed that even though I'm capable of making a very good composition handheld, I'm often very lazy about it. I agree that there's a discipline involved when using a tripod, that might help as much as the actual technical benefit. </p>

<p>Thanks for all the input. Clearly some types of photography (and lenses) absolutely require one, and always will. Back when I shot my Canon A1, you just just didn't risk 135mm handheld at something like 1/60 (let alone 1/4). And more than a hypothetical can/can't threshold for situations, I guess it was expensive to bracket, and risky not to (etc) so I just wound up carrying the tripod everywhere. <br> I actually have always enjoyed lugging it along. I've got a Feisol CF / Sirui combo now that I really like (and is reasonably light). I'm learning how to use IS/VR effectively, such as taking some identical extras when in doubt to improve the chances. <br> Obviously for anything critical, I'll bring it along. I guess over time I'll figure out better when to bring it along and when to leave it home. Cheers.</p>

<p>I'm getting back into enthusiast photography after a few years absence. I've done quite a bit of film photography and printmaking in the past, but I put the hobby down for a decade or so, and I am trying to adapt to new tech. In the film days, a good tripod was essential of course.<br> Now, with reasonably fast lenses (f/2.8-4) and modern IS giving 2-4 stops of shake prevention, I'm finding I don't reach for my tripod very often. Obviously I'll take it along if I'm shooting a group photo that I'd like to be in, waiting for the right shot with changing light, or maybe with strenuous hiking where I'm not always steady. But I've found that for most shots, if I'm shooting slow enough to make use of 2-4 stops of IS, subject movement is going to be an issue before handheld blur, even in landscapes.<br> I visited a waterfall yesterday, and got nice water motion blur with everything else usably sharp, handheld. I think it was f/22, 1/4s and ISO 50 (middle of the day). I understand that for low light, completely still landscapes, a tripod allows more freedom for deeper DOF, but i still usually get very sharp shots at f/8-11 handheld (which is about where I want to be). I also have an older body (Canon 1DS2), so I avoid ISO higher than 400. Although with more modern bodies, this might be another argument against the tripod.<br> Am I being really obtuse and missing something, or is this a real trend?</p>

<p>I like being able to tell at a glance if I've previously cropped an image. In Capture One, I like the way it indicates a crop by actually showing the cropped out area as subdued in the thumbnail. <br> In your Lightroom workflow, how do you usually crop? For example, I was thinking of either creating a virtual copy before cropping, or maybe using a color label (although this might be a bit specific for a color label). Keywords wouldn't be visible enough, I think. <br> Just curious what others find works well! Thanks in advance. <br> -Sean</p>

<p>I thought I'd update, since so many of you took the time to be helpful. I rented both the Zeiss 50mm f/2 MP, and also the Canon 24-70 f/4L for about 10 days while on vacation, and shot about 500 photos on each. The Zeiss was a fantastic lens-- the OOF rendering was really beautiful, and it was a tad sharper (to my eyes and with my sensor) than the Canon. Skin tones were richer, I noticed. I might be run out of town for saying this, but I was actually a little underwhelmed with the Zeiss. The wide aperture is of course fairly useless in macro work. I got some nice shallow DOF portraits with it, but the long throw and very dampened action of the focus ring meant a lot of missed opportunities and a lot that were just OOF enough to be discards. In fairness, I didn't have a MF focus screen and was still learning technique (although I learned on a Canon AE-1). And, I don't think the Zeiss was ever really designed as a walkround, general purpose 50mm; I just read of fans who use it as such and I was expecting more. It is a phenomenal lens, don't get me wrong.<br> I have to admit that the Canon really surprised me. I really couldn't fault the sharpness across the frame and at all focal lengths (though weakest at 50mm as reviewers claim, but still hard to notice). The OOF rendering was surprisingly excellent. OOF balls were rendered very nicely and there were very little busy/"vibrating" shots. I even tried to reproduce the focus shift at 70mm and MFD with a tripod and yardstick, and found it very difficult to notice. <br> For my uses, I think the .7x mag macro is just fine. At some point I'll look at a proper macro lens, but for a walkaround, I was pleasantly surprised how useful I found the macro mode to be for close ups. I found a lot of situations (bored, visiting relatives) where I didn't have a dramatic panorama, or fantastic subject matter. In those cases, the macro mode worked wonderfully to stoop down and get a closer look at flowers, bugs, etc. I think I enjoyed it that much more because I didn't have to switch lenses every time I saw something-- it really complemented the 24-70mm range for me, usage-wise. <br> In an ideal world, I'd have both, but I chose the Canon in the end. Of course they're apples and oranges, so no slight to either. I rented both from LensRentals.com (I'm only plugging because I had such a great experience... sorry if this is frowned upon), and I was able to buy my almost pristine condition 24-70 for US$200 cheaper than the Canon refurb site had them listed (and most rental fees even were credited from that amount). Too good to refuse, and I'm very happy. Thanks for all the advice!</p> <p>(unscientific) Canon sample:<br> <br />(unscientific) Zeiss sample: <br>

<p>I will be renting a Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar for my upcoming vacation, and if I may even buy it. Regarding focusing, do you think that it would be unfair or otherwise unrewarding to evaluate a MF lens without replacing the focusing screen (my 1DS Mark II doesn't have live view)? <br> If so, I'm happy to invest the relatively minor cost. I know the difference between microprism (Ec-A), split (Ec-B), and matte (maybe Ec-S), but in the real world which one is the most effective for MF? Is there one that is a good compromise to leave in full-time with AF lenses? Are there any that require manual exposure compensation? <br> I've been researching, but haven't had much luck with the above questions. Thanks for any pointers/gotchas. <br> -Sean</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses-- there's a lot of really great info here.<br> Dan M.: You're exactly right that the 60mm is an EF-S and won't work on my 1DS-- I completely overlooked that.<br> Mark: that Sigma 50mm 2.8mm looks sharp (and cheap!)... thanks.<br> I think I'm looking at a prime for this now. There's just too much compromise in the 24-70L F4's macro functions, from what I've read and heard.<br> I don't have a real desire to photograph bugs. I have flowers/plants and still life in mind. If the lens is sharp enough, can I just crop from 0.5x to 1.0x? I know anything you can do in-camera is usually preferable to post, but is this realistic? As in, if I go with something less than 1:1, should I make sure it's as sharp (and flat, etc) as possible in anticipation of doing more cropping? </p>

<p>First time posting here, so if I've misplaced this, etc, please kindly let me know. I've tried to do some due diligence on this, but am having trouble, so I thought I'd ask. <br> I've got the 16-35L f4 and the 70-200L 2.8 II, and would like to choose a third lens that has coverage in between these two FL ranges for my 1DSM2. I am also really interested in getting into macro, and 50mm is one of my favorite FL. <br> There's heaps of info on the 24-70L f4 of course, but I can't find that much detail on the macro functions. Because I'm new to macro, I'm also not exactly sure what I should be looking for/scared of. Is the ~3cm/1.2" working distance from the front of the lens a real hinderance? Also, I'm assuming that this "working distance" is where you get the full 0.7x, but if I was okay with smaller size, would the lens still be able to focus farther out? From what I've read, the shallow DOF of macro requires small apertures, so I'm also assuming that the smaller F4 (compared to most prime macros) wouldn't be limiting?<br> 50mm is one of my favorite FL, and I already have 24-35 and 70mm covered very well with the other two zooms. It looks like the 24-70L F4 is weakest at 50mm, which makes me reluctant. <br> I'm also looking at prime macros, specifically the Canon 60mm f2.8 and the Zeiss Makro Planar 50mm f2. I realize all of these aren't 1.0x, and I'm ok with that (I think!). If anyone has anything to say about these, I'm all ears as well. Thanks for any input!</p>