Nikon 35 mm f1.8 lens or Nikon SB-900

[mark_abatayo]

<p>Hi Guys,</p>

<p>I'm in a bit of dilemma. I have a d90 with 18-105 kit lens. As of now I am getting the hang of my camera and the lens and would want to move to the next step in my photography hobby. It is hard to get both at the same time since the SB-900 is costly in itself but I plan to buy the two items anyway so the main question is, which one should I get first?</p>

<p>Thanks you and appreciate any opinions or experiences you guys could share.</p>

<p> </p>

[penwaggener]

<p>Lighting can make the single biggest difference in your results by far. I say go SB900 and start the Strobist boot camp.</p>

[seanbreadsell]

<p>I am lucky I bought the 50mm f/1.4G + a SB900 + SB600 (wow i spend too much on equipment) BUT In all homesty, I enjoy my 50mm before using the flash anyday.<br>

Buy the lens and a SB600 if you desperately want one, that will cost the same as just buying a SB900.</p>

[hal_b]

<p>If the SB900 is a sacrifice, then target cheaper flashes. The SB900 and the 35mm f/1.8G shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as fiscal alternatives, as the cost of one is more than double the cost of the other. If you look at a cheaper flash, you can get the 35mm AND a flash. How about the Metz 48 AF-1? It's priced and featured like the SB600, but has more power like the SB900.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Why do you have to buy an SB-900? How about the SB-600 + 35mm/f1.8 DX?</p>

[Two23]

<p>Never, ever buy photo gear that you can't identify a specific need for. You will end up wasting thousands of dollars. The worst way to buy photo gear is to read posts from other beginners on internet forums and then decide to buy the "hot" item of the month. The question is not, "What does everyone else say is great," but rather, "What do I need to make the kinds of images I want to?" You start with a purpose, a specific photo you want to produce.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[jorish]

<p>That's a bit of a harsh statement, Kent.</p>

<p>I've bought a lot of photography gear over the last 5 or 6 years, and made lot's of 'mistakes'; there's an SB-600 that gets used only once a year (I just don't like flash, and am often in a position where I can't use it (e.g. theatre)), a couple of zoom lenses that I sold on (I just keep going back to primes), etc.</p>

<p>I've learned a lot from them, and would not have done it different in hindsight. Which is also the reason why I don't always agree with the often-made-statement on these forums 'don't buy anything new until you walk into the limitations of your current gear'; new gear will often give me ideas and point me to uses that I probably would not have known I was missing out on.</p>

<p>My advice to the topicstarter; get the 35/1.8 first. I give this advice because that's the road that taught me the most; primes made me think more about composition, and fast lenses (also primes in my case) taught me about isolating a subject and playing with focused/unfocused areas.</p>

<p>Have fun choosing and using ;)</p>

[mark_abatayo]

<p>@ kent: You have good point there. It really made me think things through. . </p>

<p>As for the 35mm lens, I'm sure i want to add that up to my list. As for the flash, what are other alternatives for the sb-900? <br>

You could say that I'm an all around photographer, i Like taking pictures indoors, outdoors, formal dinners, weddings, sports, portraits and landscapes.<br>

I currently have no idea of any other flash units that could suit my needs, cause based on your previous posts, the sb-900 seems too much. recommendations and and advise are highly welcome.</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Your D90's built-in flash will control the SB600 remotely. You won't, for most situations, get more functionality or better image quality out of a 900 over a 600.</p>

<p>Answer is clear, imho. 35mm f1.8 is a great lens, combine it with a SB600 and it might be a long time before you need anything else.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I have three SB600 flashes and control them remotely by a D70s. I think it is a great combination, with a D90, even better.</p>

[joshuasigar]

<p>Get the 35mm first. Just because I have the lens and an SB-600 and I use the lens more than the flash. I think you'll have more fun playing with bokeh and shooting low light with no flash that the lens allows you to.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Think of camera gear as a "system." Buy the pieces that will work together to make the image you wish to make. Buying things randomly wastes your resources, including your time. Looks like I did get you to start thinking about what you like to shoot, and that's a great start. Everything you mentioned could benefit from flash. Think of the photos you really see as great ones. Almost always the thing that makes them great is the use of the light. When you can control the light, as with flash, you have dramatically increased your control of the image. If the SB-600 will work off camera by itself, that's where I'd suggest you start. Most beginners shy away from flash because there is a learning curve to it. It's harder to learn how to use flash well than it is to just stick a lens on the camera. Ultimately though, a photographer that learns how to control flash will master photography. Take a look at some photos you really like, and start analyzing how they used light. Especially portraits.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[boulderjoe]

<p>Get the 35mm f1.8. I just got it and its great.</p>

<p>For the kind of shooting I do, a lens is more useful than a flash.</p>

<p>-Joe</p>

 

[george_peng1]

<p>@Kent - I agree that the flash is actually more important than the lens. I think a lot is made of big apertures allowing you to shoot in low light, but I think that belies a bigger questions - if you want to shoot in low light you're also conceding that you are going to hold yourself hostage to whatever lighting situation exists in that space, not to mention color and quality, and shoot it. With the flash you can exercise control of the light and actually exercise intent, so you actually get what you want. I think it also starts to move you along the continuum from snapshot towards, dare I say it, art.</p>

<p>There is also the question of whether you want your shots to reflect "reality" or some better, augmented form of it. For example, I shot a friend of mine's 40th birthday in a small bar a few weeks ago, and as you would expect, it was dimly lit with warm lights and candles. I could've shot it in high ISO with a faster lens and adjusted WB to taste in order to capture the "reality" of how it looked, but I didn't. I shot it with a flash bounced off walls and ceilings so to get "good" well-exposed shots. And of course the reality is that people looking at the shots won't remember how dimly lit the place was, only how the shots look. So I think, like everything else in photography, its about making choices.</p>

<p>But it is why I'm always a bit leery when people say they only shoot in natural light. That's fine if you understand how light works and it fits what you are trying to achieve. But if not, its just a way of conceding offhandedly that you aren't willing or interested in exercising control.</p>