50 1.4 or flash gun dilemma!

lucky_13

lucky_13

Messages
624
Name
Billy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi im in a bit of a dilemma on what would be the best thing to get for me as it would be a bit of a novalty item as my most used lens is my Canon 15-85 IS USM F/3.5-5.6 actually it's my only lens at the moment but im getting a Tamron 70-300 VC USD to in the next few weeks as I am missing the range that my old 55-250 used to give me. I go to a lot of car shows which the 15-85 is ideal for as it's pretty wide at 15mm and it's a very versatile lens, I also go to tattoo conventions which the lighting isn't that great so I was considering to ether get a 50mm 1.4 or a flash gun such as Nissin DI 866 mk ll. Not sure which would be best for carnivals ether, Im a bit undecided at the moment and was hoping that some of you might help me reach a decision. Thank you and sorry for going on a bit.
 
What about the 50 1.8 and a flash? two toys for not much more.
 
John Mc said:
What about the 50 1.8 and a flash? two toys for not much more.
Click to expand...

Though of that but my concern is that if I get the 1.8 I might want the 1.4 and tbh I can't justify getting a lens and a flash gun maybe just the 1.8
 
If you can, take a look at the actual focal length you have shot your 15-85mm at... I suspect most of it is one end or the other.

On a crop sensor body (such as yours) I always found 50mm to be neither wide enough nor long enough.

Apart from it being about the cheapest way to get very wide aperture glass, its probably not what you want...
 
Flash photography is a whole different kind of skill compared to point and shoot. You got to set up your shot and experiment until you have got everything right.

Will you have the time to set things up? if not, a fast lens is easier to use.
 
lucky_13 said:
Though of that but my concern is that if I get the 1.8 I might want the 1.4 and tbh I can't justify getting a lens and a flash gun maybe just the 1.8
Click to expand...

Looking at what you say you shoot, if its a choice between the 1.4 and 1.8, you might as well get the 1.8 imo. 1.4 requires spot on deadly accurate focusing, and if people are moving around [such as at carnivals], can become almost impossible. I use mine sometimes in the evenings at wedding receptions & parties to capture 'atmospheric' shots but even with practice I would say only 15-20% are keepers max, often less. Yes, you could use it on inanimate subjects at car shows, but as already mentioned, on a cropped body, probably wouldn't be wide enough for a lot of what you want and to get wide enough, you would have to be far enough away that other visitors are walking infront of you and so on.

flash is a whole new ball game photography wise, but is a skill worth learning to do well.



So... no, can't really recommend which way to go, though flash & 50 1.8 does seem an option - think about what you want to shoot and why, then decide ;)

edit: should have also said, my 85mm [on full frame, so not far removed from 50 on crop] is 1.8 and is plenty fast enough in most circumstances, even professionally. ;)
 
Last edited:
Yv said:
...if its a choice between the 1.4 and 1.8, you might as well get the 1.8 imo. 1.4 requires spot on deadly accurate focusing, and if people are moving around [such as at carnivals], can become almost impossible
Click to expand...

:plus1:

I purchased the 1.4 originally and due to the above I returned it, got the 1.8 instead and banked the savings.

The number of times I'd actually need to drop to 1.4 is minimal and I doubt most people who are non-photographers could tell the difference between a photo shot at 1.8 and 1.4.
 
wuyanxu said:
Flash photography is a whole different kind of skill compared to point and shoot. You got to set up your shot and experiment until you have got everything right.

Will you have the time to set things up? if not, a fast lens is easier to use.
Click to expand...

This is true, particularly if you are talking about using a flash as primary illumination - not just fill. You also will then run into how having it on the hot shoe isn't the nicest type of lighting you can have and how it will do all sorts of nasty things...

Although as others have gone on to say, equally a very wide aperture gives DOF and focusing challenges too.

Ultimately the actual answer to all of this is a camera body that can cleanly handle dim lighting conditions at reasonable apertures - but thats far more expensive than you are talking about here....

All three solutions have different pros and cons, none are going to produce identical results... you need to have a good hard think before splashing the cash I suggest.
 
I think John at #2 had the best idea, a 50 f1.8 and a flash. If you're struggling with the cash for the 2 then have a look at the Nissin Di622 MkII as it's about half the price of the Di866 MkII. I've got a 50 f1.4 and a Nissin Di866 MkII and TBH I've never used them both at the same time.

On my 5D3 I can easily get away with upping the ISO enough to get the shutter speed I want without flash and without razor thin DOF. When I use flash I usually shoot between f5.6 and f8 to give me the DOF I want and you can do that with your 15-85 IS anyway.
 
Remembering of course that aperture in flash photography will set your balance between ambient and fill... its a whole different game and one that's pretty challenging as a "roam and shoot in a random environment" even to those with some experience...
 
Thank you all for your replies, I have just purchased a Tamron 70 - 300 vc usd. And I will buy the 50 1.8 in the near future than I'll decide if I'll need a flash gun or not. Thanks again.
 
Just a couple of small points...

Personally I don't see what there is in the DoF between f1.4 and f1.8 to cause this f1.4 panic and fear. If you look at DoF tables is there really that much in it to put anyone off a f1.4 lens?

Plus of course if you have a f1.4 you can stop it down to f1.8, you can't stop a f1.8 lens up to f1.4.

I just don't get the fear...
 
It's not fear.

But when i had one i ended up with some shots where one person was oof because of the shallow dof but looked ok on the lcd.

Secondly if there isn't much difference like you say, then that's a good reason to save money because there's a fair price difference
 
gadgeteer said:
It's not fear.

Secondly if there isn't much difference like you say, then that's a good reason to save money because there's a fair price difference
Click to expand...


The difficulty in focusing at f1.4 has been mentioned more than once in this thread... and the DoF tables are there and can be checked and yes, f1.4 does give thinner DoF but IMVHO it's not a deal breaker.

As for choosing f1.8 rather than f1.4 because there's little difference... there is still a difference in both DoF and exposure and as I previously said - you can strop down a f1.4 to f1.8 but you can't easily shoot at f1.4 with a f1.8 lens :LOL: Another factor is bokeh, there are differences in bokeh and blade shape and these things do matter, more so in lenses like this IMVHO and the look was a major factor in me choosing my 50mm f1.4 (Sigma.)

gadgeteer said:
But when i had one i ended up with some shots where one person was oof because of the shallow dof but looked ok on the lcd.
Click to expand...
Then you should have stopped down a little.
 
Last edited:
desantnik said:
This is true, particularly if you are talking about using a flash as primary illumination - not just fill. You also will then run into how having it on the hot shoe isn't the nicest type of lighting you can have and how it will do all sorts of nasty things...

Although as others have gone on to say, equally a very wide aperture gives DOF and focusing challenges too.

Ultimately the actual answer to all of this is a camera body that can cleanly handle dim lighting conditions at reasonable apertures - but thats far more expensive than you are talking about here....

All three solutions have different pros and cons, none are going to produce identical results... you need to have a good hard think before splashing the cash I suggest.
Click to expand...
All the pro photographers that I see at tattoo conventions use the flashguns on the hot shoe and use it to bounce the light off ceilings and walls.
 
A fast lens lets more light into the camera at the expense of DOF. It won't change the quality of the light, its colour or its distribution. It won't alter contrast in the scene or assist in backlit situations. It probably won't help much for macro work.

A flash lets you put light where there isn't any. You can balance contrast and provide fill against backlighting. You can use it to dominate/overpower ambient lighting so that you have clean, broad spectrum illumination rather than some God awful fluorescent colour cast. It can help to freeze action/movement in situations when a fast lens alone may not be ideal. Get it off camera, possibly with a modifier, and your creative options expand further.

Of course there are times when flash is not permitted - perhaps during a wedding service, in a museum or maybe in some sports. Then again, a flash can be used with a whole range of lenses of all focal lengths and speeds and does not limit you to one fixed, probably short focal length in order to get that fast aperture.

Other than the financials, flash vs fast glass is not an either/or situation. They are two different solutions for accomplishing quite different outcomes, possibly in very different situations.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top