"Fast" lens vs flash

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>Right now I have Canon XSi + kit lens 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS + 50-250/4.0-5.6 IS. I have some bucks to spend on my hobby and I'm deciding between lens Sigma 30mm/1.4 and flash Canon 580EX to take indoor photos. What do you think?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>If you want utility pictures I would go with a flash. If you want artistic pictures I would go with the fast lens, but beware of light falloff on wide angle lenses at full open aperture which may require digital correction with software such as Photoshop.</p>

<p>It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish, what you photograph, how you shoot, and what sort of look you are going for.</p>

<p>I would not exactly draw the "artistic use natural light, utility use flash" distinction. (Search for "the strobist" if you want to see why.) The skillful use of artificial lighting including flash is among the most creative types of photography.</p>

<p>Before you buy anything - particularly something that someone here tells you to get - it would be a great idea to see just what you can do with the current gear. Have you tried shooting your kit lenses at, say, ISO 400 or ISO 800? For your purposes, how are the results?</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>If its 1 or the other I would say its 50/50. Both serve an important purpose.</p>

<p>How about a Canon 50 1.8 or 35 2.0. You should have enough left over to purchase a 430EX and you get both. I really think even with a prime, sometimes you need more light.</p>

<p>I would second the notion of considering the 430EX, which is perfectly adequate for most situations.</p>

<p>A good suggestion from Tommy. But if you are really going to choose only one, I would pick the 580EX II flash unit.</p>

<p>Depending on what you're doing and what you REALLY need (per Dan's excellent advice), you might also want to consider off-shoe flash. You can buy a couple of Vivitar 285 hv units and a radio slave kit for around $200. For another $25 or so, you can pick up a couple of Sonia optical slaves with "hot-shoe" tripod mounts, so that you can use a couple of cheap old tripods to position your flashes. All this stuff (and other interesting/useful stuff) is cheap and available. By comparison, the Speedlites are rather pricey.</p>

<p>If you're comfortable building and modifying things, there's even more you can do with the 285s: <a href="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/vivitar285mods.htm">http://www.graphic-fusion.com/vivitar285mods.htm</a></p>

<p>An external flash is not only about additional light, but also about autofocus accuracy (thanks to the AF assist beam even when the flash is diabled), light control and modeling (think bounce flash and flash modifiers like reflectors or cords) and high-speed sync for fill flash in daylight situations.</p>

<p>A Speedlite is a very versatile tool that cannot be overrated. While I am all for fast prime lenses, get the strobe first if you have to choose and master it. Good flash technique is often the key to great images.</p>

<p>both can do different things so it's more of what goal do you want? with the flash it will allow you to use a numericly larger apreture allowing for that depth of field you would need if subjects aren't quite aligned perfectly or you subject might have some depth to it while with that fast lens depth of field can get quite small some times. even more so if you are doing close up head shots. I know with taking pictures of my daughter with the 50 1.8 I have issues at times where if her head is cocked and I'm not using flash that one of her eyes tends to get out of focus.</p>

<p>you can always get the sigma lens thoguh and a cheap flash like the sunpak 383 auto or the vivatar 285 or something like that. sure they are mostly manual or thyrister based rather then ETTL.</p>

<p>Wow. Plenty of great responses! :)<br>

I'm not a pro and my primary targets indoors are my family and parties.<br>

During holidays I tried to shoot indoors with kit lens at ISO 800-1600 without flash, with built-in flash and with friend's 430EX. I threw away most of shots made with built-in flash, many of shots w/o flash was blury, but those 2-3 I got was way more natural and better than w/430EX. From other hand most of "good" shots I got was made w/430EX pointed to ceiling. After that experience I decide to do something with my gear<br>

I got 50/1.8 from friend two days ago. It almost exactly what I need, but it's too narrow. And after comparisons like this (<a href="http://www.markcho.com/gallery/album117/sigmavcanon3035_1">http://www.markcho.com/gallery/album117/sigmavcanon3035_1</a> ) I cannot go with Canon 35/2.0 instead of Sigma. :(<br>

Tracy, thanks for mentioning Vivitar 285, maybe this is my solution. To get used Sigma 30/1.4 + Vivitar 285 w/Cactus II or something like this...</p>

<p>"If its 1 or the other I would say its 50/50."<br>

LOL!</p>

<p>G Dan, looking at it again I laughed too, but I meant that 1 is no more important then the other. I think primes and external flash are both needed if you want to get good indoor photos. I guess a flash would be more versatile but for me, I can never imagine not having a prime.</p>

<p>Shooting fast primes is huge fun in my experience. That could be a deciding factor...</p>

<p>>>I would not exactly draw the "artistic use natural light, utility use flash" distinction.<<<br>

Now who is drawing conclusions? I stick by my statement. The choice was obviously indoor photography using a _single_ hot shoe flash vs available light. I have some 40 plus years of shooting available light, on camera strobe, off camera potato masher, and full studio flash. I have shot weddings, still commercial and news. </p>

<p>Thanks for everyone. Just sent payment for used Sigma 30mm.</p>

<p>Ivan... Have fun! I started shooting available light on a borrowed Leica M3 rangefinder using TriX. The amazing thing about the Leica was the lack of sound when you shot. I can't explain the phenomena, but the lack of mirror noise made one "invisible" .. great for candid shots. It is great that you can now just dial up the ISO to 400 for an available light shot and then dial back to 100 for flash. And in color! Ain't progress grand :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>G Dan, looking at it again I laughed too, but I meant that 1 is no more important then the other. I think primes and external flash are both needed if you want to get good indoor photos. I guess a flash would be more versatile but for me, I can never imagine not having a prime.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the accidental laugh - I've done my share of those, too. And I think we actually agree about the main subject.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>>>I would not exactly draw the "artistic use natural light, utility use flash" distinction.<<<br /> Now who is drawing conclusions? I stick by my statement. The choice was obviously indoor photography using a _single_ hot shoe flash vs available light. I have some 40 plus years of shooting available light, on camera strobe, off camera potato masher, and full studio flash. I have shot weddings, still commercial and news.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If stating that "I would not exactly draw" a particular distinction is "drawing a conclusion," I suppose might be guilty. But I don't think so... :-)</p>

<p>A concern of mine was that the labels "artistic" and "utility" might be misinterpreted as being equivalent to "good" and "bad" by someone new to all of this stuff, and I wanted to point that out.</p>

<p>Another form of misinterpretation is also possible: One with less experience than you - and that is probably most who visit this forum, right? - might think you were suggesting that "utility" photographs cannot be made using natural light (obviously they can) or that "artistic" photographs cannot be made using a single flash (again, obviously they can).</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Get the Sigma 30mm f1.4. Natural lighting is much more "interesting" than flash. I use flash only for the fill of shadows and only rarely. Look at my portfolio here on pnet. Lots of examples of natural light portraits from the late 1960's to present times with DSLRs.</p>

<p>There are times when natural light indoors can work but for the most part, flash will give you more contrast and 'wow' if used correctly.</p>

<p>"If its 1 or the other I would say its 50/50."<br>

You trying to compete with GW?</p>

<p>Ivan: "I threw away most of shots made with built-in flash"</p>

<p>Try this: Kit lens, manual mode, f4, 1/25s, ISO 800, in-built flash up. Don't mind what the camera metering says, it's not important, just shoot in a poorly lit room. Longish exposure will let some ambient light in while flash still freezes movement. Results in a bit better mood (sometimes greatly better) than direct flash in auto-modes.<br>

If you move the camera too much or your subject moves fast you can get pretty wacky results, light trails, transparent heads... but this technique is sometimes very much worth a try, even with a fast lens.</p>

<p>Happy practising at f1.4. :)<br>

I really like fast primes but I also recommend to study what a good flash technique can do for you.</p>

<p>buy a leica with noctilux lens and 400 iso film!eh ehe eh</p>

<p>I love fast primes indoors, but it really only excels at photographing one person.<br>

With your XSi, with a 30mm at f/1.4, some one about 8 feet away from you will only have about 1 foot of depth of field. That is okay for single shots or shots of 2 people together, but if you are taking candids at a party, and not all the people are at the same depth, then you will get some blurry people.<br>

If 3 people are intended to be part of the photo and one person is blurry, it won't look good.</p>

<p>Christopher you really explained that perfectly thats a super point I could not agree more. Both have there place and a fast prime is the cheapest solution but flash photography is a world of fun. I have only 2 580 flashes and a 24EX but I can do lots with these. I think you need both to be flexable, I would start off with one or more primes the 85 1.8 is also cheap and very good, this on a crop body gives a very good working distance for head shoulder portraits and as you have a longer working distance a use full DOF. But for the first lens I would tend for a 30 1.4 as its a normal lens.</p>

<p>I have both a fast 50mm and a flash. There are limitations and advantages to both.<br>

I'm not sure about Canon, but the Nikon flash allows you to dial down the intensity of the flash. I've taken pictures at birthday parties of the cake candle blowing out and dialed the flash down to the point where the background is pretty dark to black, the subject is has the warm glow of the candles yet sharp.<br>

Now, the limitations on the fast lens is that in order to utilize its light gathering capabilities, you will be forced to use a wide open aperture, which will limit you to a very shallow depth of field.<br>

I find my self using the fast lens more in low lighting outdoors and the flash indoors.<br>

Kirk</p>