Lens or Flash??

[Feature]

I have a T1i and I got a little money for my birthday, yeah!
Naturally I want to get something new for my camera.
I have been wanting a 50mm lens for a while as I have been getting
more and more into portraits. But I have also been wanting a good flash as well, and now I cant decide between the two. My budget is around 250 which I figure I can get either the 430 ex ii and use up all the dough, or I could get the cheaper 50mm 1.8 and have a little money left over.
I mostly just shoot stuff for myself, the typical garden shots, some landscapes and recently some portaits and engagement pics for friends. I would eventually like to go in a more "professional" direction some day but I think it will be a while.
Or, if anyone has any alternate suggestions for my price range, I am open!

[inkista]

This is just my personal preferences, and others may tell you the opposite, but I think the more basic piece of equipment here is the 50mm/1.8 lens (or any fast portrait prime).

Flash, to me, while it may be as basic a piece of equipment, requires a bit more photographic knowledge to use properly. Before you attempt flash photography, you really need to be thoroughly grounded on ambient exposure. You need to be comfortably shooting in full Manual mode, and able to mentally swap stops among iso, aperture, and shutter speed, as well as thoroughly understanding metering.

Because flash photography has you combining two exposures at once for each shot: the ambient, and the flash illumination. And you control those two different exposures differently, with the overlapping controls of iso and aperture. Shutter speed still works the way you expect for ambient, but not necessarily the same way for flash, and you may also have the imposed limit of max. sync speed. AND you also have to consider your flash power output and your flash's distance from the subject.

There's a lot more to mentally juggle with flash than with simple ambient exposure.

And having a fast prime will teach you more about the most mysterious of the exposure settings, aperture, than your 18-55 kit lens can.

[Feature]

oh dear. I am pretty comfortable in manual but that sounds confusing.

[EmmaA]

go the lens! I love my 50mm f/1.8. I dont have a flash yet either, but I would totally recommend getting the lens first.

[alokthapa]

I've been thinking of buying a lens myself... have been using the basic kit lens that came with my Canon 550D, I just switched to DSLR.

It's either between 50mm f/1.8. or 70-200mm f/2.8

I'm interested in portrait, fashion photography and a littl bit of landscape thrown in.

[gturner]

Originally Posted by alokthapa

I've been thinking of buying a lens myself... have been using the basic kit lens that came with my Canon 550D, I just switched to DSLR.

It's either between 50mm f/1.8. or 70-200mm f/2.8

I'm interested in portrait, fashion photography and a littl bit of landscape thrown in.

70-200 or 10x 50 1.8! If you can stretch to $1000 lens, pay the extra $100 and get both


As for the original question - get the 50mm anyway. It is must have if you want to get into any sort of portrait work and more so if you want to understand how low light, shallow depth of field works.
The 430 flash is excellent and good value, and once you master some basics, you will have a very good tool in the bag

[GadgetRick]

Inksta--as usual--speaks the truth. Learning flash is like learning photography all over again. However, it really opens possibilities you just don't have sans flash. imo, a flash is a accessory which will impact your photography the most. However, you need to take the time to learn it properly or you just won't use it.

I have the nifty fifty and, I have to say, I hate the lens. Wide open (f1.8) it's soft as hell. I understand the dof is shallow, etc but it's just plain soft. I switched from Nikon and I had their equivalent 50mm f1.8 and I loved that lens. Was quite sharp--even wide open--and it focused much better and quickly. In anything but bright light my 50 constantly hunts for focus.

I know so many people love this lens--which is why I've been trying to like it but I just can't. I also realize it's only $100 but I just can't get good results out of it.

Someone mentioned they may have a bigger budget. If your budget is about $1000 I'd suggest either an older 28-70 f2.8L or a newer 24-70mm f2.8L. You can find both around $1000 (the 28-70 should be slightly cheaper) and it's a fantastic lens. My 28-70 is on my camera most of the time.

[scootermcq]

I just traded in my 50mm for a telephoto lens.... It never left the bag and got no use. Don't get me wrong, it is a super sharp lens and great in low light, but being a prime you have to zoom with your feet, and that is not always possible.

Even though f1.8 gives you better odds in low light, it sometimes is still not enough and the DOF is a hair and the image is soft..... Give me a good flash any day.

Most of the time you are above a 5.6 anyway inorder to get DOF in the image. If that is the case, then the fastest glass in the world will not help you in low light.

I would personally get the flash and learn to use it. I use flash indoors and out. It/they is/are probably the most used pieces in my bag except the body itself.

[look_yau]

i think flash is important for portrait, what lens you already have?
if you already got a good range of lens, my feeling is you should get the flash.

[Feature]

I have the kit lens (18-55), a 70-300, and a 35-105. I just ordered the 50mm lens today. Stupid bills made the extra money necessary.
I'm not going to get it until the 16th though! I hope they are wrong and it ships tomorrow!